Chuck, In response to your earlier question, I can confirm that Tim's proposed resolution would meet the requirements of the current RAA. ("Resolved: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.") RAA section 5.4 provides that any amendments to the form of the RAA need to be adopted according to the requirements of RAA section 4.3.1, which says that we'll need "a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the [GNSO] council [that the amended RAA] should be established." <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.3.1> I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Best regards, Daniel Halloran Deputy General Counsel ICANN
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:18:07 -0800 To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
I withdraw my RAA motion and second Tim's 1st motion below instead. I also second Tim's second motion.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:46 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
We are anxious to get these amendments approved and in place as quickly as possible. Registrars are also generally open to further discussions. We should we keep this as simple as possible so I propose the following alternative motions:
Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
Second motion:
Whereas: - The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA;
Resolve: The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@icann.org> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 3:46 pm To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@icann.org>, Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
All,
Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two motions being discussed:
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 Council.
Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
Second motion:
Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA;
Resolve: The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.
Thanks, Liz