Thanks Tim. As I said in my note that crossed paths with yours, I had assumed that clause 4.3.1 was no longer going to be used, but it is still there and I am delighted to make use of it here. And in retrospect, there is no reason to change it is I suppose. A PDP is a valid way to enact Policy change, but for the RAA, it is not the only way. So sorry for raising alarms where they were not necessary. Alan At 15/09/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

Alan,

Please see section 4.3.1 of the RAA: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm

That was constructed because at the time of the original RAA no PDP existed. Now that one does, and to the extent that it meets these minimum requirements, a PDP may result in Consensus Policy. At some point this section of the RAA may need to be updated, but right now, with the exception of the report described in part (c), we feel our motion would suffice to create Consensus Policy if approved by a supermajority of the Council and then upheld by a vote of the Board. For the report, the information exists but we may need to request Staff to assist in pulling it together.

That doesn't answer your question completely, but our focus is on the motion immediately at hand as it pertains to establishing Consensus Policy. We realize that some may have concerns about process here, and we are certainly sensitive to that and open to considering a full PDP if deemed necessary.

Tim

...

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:29 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>

Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it being within the picket fence.

However, I thought that the only way that something could become a Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to date, there is no such process on the books.

Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that.

Alan

At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

...

Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well.

Tim

...

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>

Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented.

The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still some that have not).

Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented in a more timely manner?

Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will be obliged to pass on to their resellers?

Alan

At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

...

The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any opposition from other SGs or Cs.

Tim