Dear Councillors, The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. The final vote is as follows. The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 9 Votes Against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close. As the balloting had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. 4 Abstentions: Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) 14 Votes in favour: Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) Reasons for abstaining ====================== Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the RAA changes. Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. Kristina Rosette (IPC): Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input. In addition to that fraud consultative process, the Registrar constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. Terry Davis (NCA): I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated. Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. ........................................................................................... Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Made by: Tim Ruiz Seconded: Chuck Gomes 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 (documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd...) and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org