Avri and all, yes we can confirm staff support for the Wednesday meeting (and for weekend discussion, schedules permitting) on this issue. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:03 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments Hi, I have added a section (tentatively - waiting on confirmation from the staff of someone to do a report) to the Wednesday meeting in Mexico City on the RAA. Had only planned on report and discussion, but we can deal with a motion as well if that is what the council is ready to do. a. On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 18:18 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

Sorry to miss Thursday deadline, it has been a very rough week with the flu for me and my entire family. Even if we can’t vote on this on Thursday, I would like to add it to AOB so we are prepared for a vote in Mexico City. There is nothing new here, I have suggested this several times in the past several months. For Staff to suggest going around the Council, after Council voted down the amendment package, is deeply troubling. This would keep the debate where it belongs, and hopefully will bring about swift, consensus amendments to the RAA in the next few months.

Do I have a second?

Thanks,

Mike

Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception, and there is widespread community support for amendments to various provisions of the RAA.

Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that set of amendments has been considered for approval by the GNSO Council.

Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to support the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those members support many of the proposed amendments.

Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene and discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to Council within 30 days with answers to the following questions:

1. Which of the proposed amendments have full consensus as drafted?

2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain full consensus?

3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have consensus?

4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed set of Amendments?

Hi Avri, Yes, that is my assumption. How about this clause to replace the one you copy below? Whereas, the Council seeks to determine which of the proposed amendments (agreed between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency) are non-contentious, and then consider next steps as to those non-contentious, proposed amendments. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:14 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments Mike, I am wondering, to what extent this is true:

Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.

I do not believe we have made a decision that we "wish to approve the non-contentious ...". Would support of this motion in some sense imply that this was the case? I do not believe that the whereas statement in a motion should determine the future action of the council. If this is what the council supports after all viewpoints have been heard, then we should make such a decision specifically. It should also be noted, that I do not believe that such a decision would have any binding effect on the Board but would only serve as an advisory in their decision making unless we initiated a PDP on issues deemed within the picket fence based on the outcome of the WG and an ensuing issues report. My assumption is that this working group, if formed, would discuss the four issues you have outlined and make a recommendation to council and that this discussion, conclusions and recommendations would be then be discussed in council. At that point, the council would need to decide what it wished to do with those recommendations. Is that the same assumption you have? thanks a.