FW: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Hi, The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know? Many thanks. K
Mike, The Council is a policy development body. To the extent that we recommend consensus policies and the Board approves them, they will be implemented into registry & registrar agreements. Comments from the GNSO are certainly appropriate and have always been encouraged regarding agreements, but there is no basis for GNSO approval of agreements. Community wide negotiations of contracts would be a very strange business practice. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:34 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: FW: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed. Thanks, Mike ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know? Many thanks. K
Chuck, Then why are we asked to approve this? Apparently ICANN Counsel's interpretation of the RAA is that we need to approve it, and presumably that means we ought to discuss it first and come to consensus as to what portion can be approved by 2/3 of the Council. It is certainly reasonable that the Council must review and approve amendments to the RAA, as provided within the RAA. These are accreditation agreements effective upon the entire registrar and reseller community, so effectively they are policy documents. Mike _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:21 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Mike, The Council is a policy development body. To the extent that we recommend consensus policies and the Board approves them, they will be implemented into registry & registrar agreements. Comments from the GNSO are certainly appropriate and have always been encouraged regarding agreements, but there is no basis for GNSO approval of agreements. Community wide negotiations of contracts would be a very strange business practice. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:34 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: FW: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s) Hi, During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know? Many thanks. K
Hi, A question, On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Community wide negotiations of contracts would be a very strange business practice.
Strange perhaps and perhaps the word negotiations is a bit strong, but within the limited agreed to areas, isn't this what the GNSO council does in its PDP processes? a.
Yes Avri in an attempt to develop specific consensus policies that will become included in contracts and according to defined processes (soon to be better defined). Approving contracts as a whole is very different than recommending policies that would be included in contracts. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:54 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Hi,
A question,
On 12 Dec 2008, at 19:21, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Community wide negotiations of contracts would be a very strange business practice.
Strange perhaps and perhaps the word negotiations is a bit strong, but within the limited agreed to areas, isn't this what the GNSO council does in its PDP processes?
a.
Hi, In looking at this, I think we may have least options - especially since we have a motion on the floor. If the motion is voted down and the board support the GNSO's position, then the after effect could be somewhat as you describe, possible requiring a PDP process. This would need to be discussed with the Legal Counsel. Alternatively, an amendment to the current motion could be proposed to separate the vote on the proposed changes. We have precedence for considering such amendments though I don't know of one that has succeeded. If such an amendment were proposed and it succeed then we would need to vote on each of the 4 areas separately (or the 15 separate changes depending on the motion and its success). I am not advocating ether of these measures, but offering them as possibilities that the council might wish to consider. a. On 12 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Hi,
The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed.
Thanks, Mike
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Hi,
During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know?
Many thanks.
K
One thing that would help me on this issue is to know which, if any, of the proposed amendments are not supported by Councilors. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:52 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Hi,
In looking at this, I think we may have least options - especially since we have a motion on the floor.
If the motion is voted down and the board support the GNSO's position, then the after effect could be somewhat as you describe, possible requiring a PDP process. This would need to be discussed with the Legal Counsel.
Alternatively, an amendment to the current motion could be proposed to separate the vote on the proposed changes. We have precedence for considering such amendments though I don't know of one that has succeeded. If such an amendment were proposed and it succeed then we would need to vote on each of the 4 areas separately (or the 15 separate changes depending on the motion and its success).
I am not advocating ether of these measures, but offering them as possibilities that the council might wish to consider.
a.
On 12 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Hi,
The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed.
Thanks, Mike
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; council@icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM To: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
Hi,
During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the appropriate staff person please let me know?
Many thanks.
K
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh