To get this discussion going again, my understanding is that one of the points of contention was that the proposed methodology (both options) called for the GNSO to approve the revised RAA (as it did for the May 2009 version). Both contracted parties have expressed concern that the GNSO Council should not be inserted of into what is essentially a contractual issue between registrars and ICANN. Although I am a strong supporter of having other ICANN stakeholders INVOLVED in the negotiation process, I tend to agree that the GNSO Council should not need to ratify such changes. The source of the GNSO insertion in the process is a reference in RAA section 5.4 that says that upon renewal, the RAA may have been amended subject to the previsions of section 4.3. Section 4.3 talks only about issues that are subject to Consensus Policy (ie within the picket fence) which must be approved by a GNSO Council super-majority. Would the last motion that was defeated be more palatable to the CPH if instead of complete ratification of the new RAA, it required that the GNSO Council approve solely those terms in the revised RAA which are subject to Consensus Policy (under RAA 4.2)? That implies that no GNSO Council approval is required if the revised RAA changes no terms that are within the picket fence (not likely in my opinion, but stated for clarity). Alan