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.