December 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed OSC Charter
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 14, 2008

Dec. 14, 2008

The current membership of the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) unanimously approved the attached charter for the OSC and is being sent to the Council for information. If there are not objections by 18 Dec 08, we will assume it is de facto adopted. Our next steps are to develop an invitation for members to the three initial work teams described in the charter and to make final edits to the draft charters for those work teams. We hope to provide those items to the Council in the next couple weeks. Chuck Gomes, OSC Chair

2 2

Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 13, 2008

Dec. 13, 2008

That would be fine Avri. Chuck Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 04:02 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Hi Chuck, If the council is ready to vote on your motion, then i think it would be appropriate to amend it to include the date for voting on the PDP, i.e. the pro-forma motion one I am offering can be folded into yours as a friendly amendment if you accept it. On the other hand if the council is not ready to vote on yours or if it fails in a vote, then my pro-forma motion can stand as it is. I.e. my motion can be contingent on yours. Would that be ok? a. On 12 Dec 2008, at 17:41, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Thanks Avri. If my alternative motion passes, I would suggest what I > hope would be a friendly amendment that would change 8 January 2009 to > 29 January 2009. That would give Staff until 15 January to provide > the > clarification that my motion seeks. > > I am comfortable waiting until we see whether my motion is seconded > and > passes. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:43 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: [council] Motion on PDP vote on Issues report on >> Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >> >> >> Hi, >> >> It was mentioned that in keeping with our current practice >> of being explicit with timings as much as possible, we >> should be more specific about when we will take the required >> PDP votes after receiving an Issues report. This motion is >> intended to fill that gap. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> >> ---- >> >> Moved by: Avri Doria >> Seconded: >> >> Whereas: >> >> An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has >> been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council. >> >> Resolve: >> >> The GNSO Council members will consult with their >> constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other >> possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January 2009. >> >

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 13, 2008

Dec. 13, 2008

The process of developing these amendments has been going on for well over a year. There have been open public discussions at the ICANN meetings. The amendments have been posted on ICANN's website for comment. The amendments are a positive step forward in addressing the concerns raised after the Registerfly de-accreditation. There is no reason not to approve them, unless you would prefer many more months in PDPs with no guarantee that you would come out with anything better. And in fact, it would be arguable whether some of the changes agreed to would even be in scope for a PDP. Approving these amendments in no way prohibits additional policy development (within the picket fence). The Staff is simply trying to use a provision in the RAA that allows for these amendments to be adopted this way so we can try to get them in force as soon as possible. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Sat, December 13, 2008 10:12 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)psg.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> One thing that would help me on this issue is to know which, if any, of the proposed amendments are not supported by Councilors. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:52 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) > > > Hi, > > In looking at this, I think we may have least options - > especially since we have a motion on the floor. > > If the motion is voted down and the board support the GNSO's > position, then the after effect could be somewhat as you > describe, possible requiring a PDP process. This would need > to be discussed with the Legal Counsel. > > Alternatively, an amendment to the current motion could be > proposed to separate the vote on the proposed changes. We > have precedence for considering such amendments though I > don't know of one that has succeeded. If such an amendment > were proposed and it succeed then we would need to vote on > each of the 4 areas separately (or the 15 separate changes > depending on the motion and its success). > > I am not advocating ether of these measures, but offering > them as possibilities that the council might wish to consider. > > a. > > On 12 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments > proposed by Staff > > and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them > > wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we > do that? In > > that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants > done with the > > RAA, and nobody else has a say. > > > > Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of > > the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have > > full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned > for now? > > The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also > > lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports > from Staff, > > and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified > open issues. > > Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the > amendments have full > > consensus and could approve those, and the other > Constituencies will > > have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be > addressed. > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > > ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM > > To: Rosette, Kristina; council(a)icann.org > > Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) > > > > Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz > > > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > > ] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM > > To: council(a)icann.org > > Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) > > > > Hi, > > > > During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting > > would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I > > don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the > appropriate staff > > person please let me know? > > > > Many thanks. > > > > K > > > >

1 0

FW: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 13, 2008

Dec. 13, 2008

Hi, The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council(a)icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know? Many thanks. K

3 6

RE: [council] RAA Motion
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > Chuck, > > If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that > would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. > It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would > be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to > more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments. > > Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do > not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal > was to get something in place sooner than later, that at > least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the > registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly > without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc. > > But I don't agree with including the last point of your > resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick > to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in > favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to > can pursue the other issues separately. > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In > response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and > the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed > amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA). > > The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection > for registrants in specific areas in response to input from > the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement > tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should > go further. > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to > work with registrars and the Council to define the most > expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed > amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. > > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am > To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Council GNSO" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment > Kristina. I apparently misunderstood. > > Chuck > > From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree > that "there > is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the > entire ICANN > community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively, > revised to indicate the segments of the community within > which there is > strong support. > > K > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] RAA Motion > > > > Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for > consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting. > > Chuck > > RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08 > > Whereas: > > ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related > to amending > the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community > input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency > agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar > Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to > amendments, > albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The > current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have > needed revision > for years. > > > Resolve: > > The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to > define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to > proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council > will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed > RAA issues > and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to > amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear > identification of the policy issues that are involved. > > > > > > >

4 4

RE: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

I know we should expect a motion after an issues report is released, but the actual substance/wording of the motion can be an issue with various nuances, inflections, and concerns over meaning, etc. I will keep in mind that we can ask to postpone to next meeting if necessary. Thanks for reminding me about that. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Fri, December 12, 2008 1:46 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, One of the other practices we have had, this is mostly for the new people have joined the council recently, is the practice of delaying a vote by one meeting if a constituency said it needed more time. I try not to delay things unnecessarily, but I know that the schedules of constituency meetings do not always mesh well with the schedule of Council meetings, So even 3 weeks may not be enough, though 6 will be in most cases. This is even more an issue when holidays are involved in the intervening time. In general the guideline I try to follow is to schedule a vote on a PDP at the meeting after the issues report has been introduced to the council with an overview by the staff. This is generally at least 4 weeks after the report has been released. Everyone knows that we have been 'ignoring' the strict time considerations in the PDP rules. I have, however, been trying to follow a fairly consistent set of guidelines though these have evolved over time. I should probably write these up for the PPSC so the issues they bring out, if not the guidelines themselves, can be considered as part of the discussion. In terms of the motions submitted less then 7 days in advance of the meeting, I apologize for my part in being a day late with the motions for Registration Abuse Policy. If the constituencies are not ready to vote at this meeting because of that delay I will understand, though the bylaws required vote on whether we do a PDP or not is a rather automatic motion that can be expected anytime 15 days after an issues report is released (not that we ever vote that soon). In terms of the motion for establishing a Drafting Team to work on a solution, that is often something we do without a long lead wen we find a subject that needs some focused work before the Council considers an issue. We certainly should make sure your concern for adequate constituency time to consider issues is taken into account by the PPSC. What I think we need to do is find the right balance between sufficient time and timeliness - which is not a necessarily trivial issue. thanks a. On 12 Dec 2008, at 12:26, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies >> in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at >> the Council meeting on 8 January. > > Thank you Avri. The problem with motions like the ones flying around > here in the last day and a half (less than 7 days before our > meeting) is > the Council is not like the Board (no matter what some like to claim). > The Councilors represent their constituents and need time to consult > with them on various issues and decisions before voting. Even seven > days > is really cutting it short. > > Hopefully the PPSC PDP Team will take this into account and require - > without exception - a reasonable notice period for motions that allows > for constituency consultation. Once Councilors have a good handle on > the > views of their constituents regarding a particular motion, they will > be > in a much better position to *negotiate* necessary amendments that > address the needs/concerms of their constituents and can vote in a > more > informed manner. > > Tim

1 0

RE: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy
by Tim Ruiz Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

> The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies > in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at > the Council meeting on 8 January. Thank you Avri. The problem with motions like the ones flying around here in the last day and a half (less than 7 days before our meeting) is the Council is not like the Board (no matter what some like to claim). The Councilors represent their constituents and need time to consult with them on various issues and decisions before voting. Even seven days is really cutting it short. Hopefully the PPSC PDP Team will take this into account and require - without exception - a reasonable notice period for motions that allows for constituency consultation. Once Councilors have a good handle on the views of their constituents regarding a particular motion, they will be in a much better position to *negotiate* necessary amendments that address the needs/concerms of their constituents and can vote in a more informed manner. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Fri, December 12, 2008 10:55 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, In response to an action item from the last meeting, I have submitted 3 possible motions in response to the Issues Report on Registration Abuse. Some of the details still need to be filled out, but I wanted to get these to the council as soon as possible. They are on the wiki. They are conceived of as a sequence: 1 We set up a team to create a WG charter to deal with the open issues as recommended in the Issues Report 2. we vote on a PDP as required by the bylaws 3. if we do not approve the PDP at this time, we resolve to vote again on the PDP once the work has been completed by the WG. thanks a. ------- Motions on Registration Abuse Policy (to be completed) 1. WG motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed – e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009. 2. PDP motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: An Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies has been produced and the by-laws (insert section #) require a vote on the formation of a Policy Development Process, Resolved: That a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy be initiated. 3. Contingent Motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The motion to initiate a PDP at this time failed and a Working group has been formed to further investigate the issue presented in the Issues report Resolved: The GNSO Council will reconsider initiating a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy once the Working has produced its report and it has been subject to constituency and public review. Motions on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Whereas: An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.

2 1

Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy
by Avri Doria Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Hi, In response to an action item from the last meeting, I have submitted 3 possible motions in response to the Issues Report on Registration Abuse. Some of the details still need to be filled out, but I wanted to get these to the council as soon as possible. They are on the wiki. They are conceived of as a sequence: 1 We set up a team to create a WG charter to deal with the open issues as recommended in the Issues Report 2. we vote on a PDP as required by the bylaws 3. if we do not approve the PDP at this time, we resolve to vote again on the PDP once the work has been completed by the WG. thanks a. ------- Motions on Registration Abuse Policy (to be completed) 1. WG motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a PDP is initiated, Resolved: That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically: 9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and evaluate the findings, taking into account that this report provides an overview of registration abuse provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are implemented in practice and whether they are deemed effective in addressing registration abuse. 9.2 Identify specific policy issues Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern, especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types of abuse if relevant. 9.3 Need for further research As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed – e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice, is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required? The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before 15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29 January 2009. 2. PDP motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: An Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies has been produced and the by-laws (insert section #) require a vote on the formation of a Policy Development Process, Resolved: That a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy be initiated. 3. Contingent Motion Made By: Avri Doria Seconded: Whereas: The motion to initiate a PDP at this time failed and a Working group has been formed to further investigate the issue presented in the Issues report Resolved: The GNSO Council will reconsider initiating a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy once the Working has produced its report and it has been subject to constituency and public review. Motions on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Whereas: An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been produced and introduced to the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January.

1 0

Motion regarding Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report
by Gomes, Chuck Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Attached and copied below is a motion I would like to make regarding the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. I apologize for not making the 7-day cutoff before our 18 December meeting but I believe the motion should be fairly straightforward. Chuck Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report 12 Dec 08 Whereas: On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pd f> On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08) Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report, Resolve: The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below; ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification NLT 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: * In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." o Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? o What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? o What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? * In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." o How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? o What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." o Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? o Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? * Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." o Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? o Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not?

1 0

Re: [council] Alternative RAA Motion
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

There is apparently some confusion whether I submitted this motion as a position supported by ALAC or At-Large. I thought the wording was clear, but since it obviously was not, I will clarify. I submitted this motion on my own behalf, not because I was advocating it, but because I volunteered at the last Council meeting to work with Chuck to craft a motion which embodied my understanding of the options presented by Kurt Pritz. When Chuck did not feel comfortable presenting this action, in consultation with Avri, we decided that both of us would table our motions (mine in case anyone wanted to formally propose it since I have no rights to do this). Following the Cairo meeting, it became obvious that some At-Large people felt very uncomfortable accepting the complete set of proposed RAA amendments. We asked for a direct briefing by Kurt or other staff to review the options (similar to what was presented to the GNSO in Cairo). Unfortunately, I understand that staff were not available and it has not yet happened. Alan At 11/12/2008 11:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion. > >My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck >had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN >General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package >of RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the >Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two >steps outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread >consultation, which they deemed to have already been done, and >following GNSO ratification, Board approval. For any other package >of amendments, a full-blown current PDP would be required >(presumably for the aspects of the RAA which are within GNSO scope). > >Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel >comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process >and suggested the motion that he posted today. > >As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to >mine, but with additional delay. > >I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case >someone else chooses to make it. > >I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some >At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this >package should be approved, given that there were some terms that >were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's >ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine >whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have >the result in time for the GNSO meeting. > >-------------------------------- > >Whereas: >- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to >amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); >- The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are >generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; >- It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that >implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level >vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel. > >Resolve: >The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends >to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy. > >and presuming this motion passes, a second motion: > >Whereas: >- The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed >by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy; >- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required; > >Resolve: >The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to >review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments >not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal >of how the GNSO Council can proceed. > >Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought >it cleaner to separate them. > >

1 0