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@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@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@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.