Alternate RAA motion
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our plates right now including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation. Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward. As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse, post-expiry deletes, transfers, etc. I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion. Tim ===== Motion ===== Whereas: The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd... and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion: Whereas: The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations; The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd f and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. Thanks. Stéphane Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@godaddy.com> a écrit :
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our plates right now including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation.
Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward.
As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse, post-expiry deletes, transfers, etc.
I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion.
Tim
===== Motion =====
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd... and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
I second the amendment. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:16 PM To: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion:
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendme nts-16dec08.pd f and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
Thanks.
Stéphane
Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@godaddy.com> a écrit :
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate,
on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our
including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation.
Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward.
As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse,
draft recs plates right now post-expiry deletes,
transfers, etc.
I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion.
Tim
===== Motion =====
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16de
c08.pdf and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
Of course this cannot be accepted as 'friendly amendments' and is entirely different from the motion I made. It is not proper for you to introduce this as amendments to my motion. However a substantially similar motion was already voted upon several meetings ago, including electronic ballots, so what is the purpose of reintroducing it now? 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 Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:24 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion I second the amendment. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:16 PM To: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion:
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendme nts-16dec08.pd f and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
Thanks.
Stéphane
Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@godaddy.com> a écrit :
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate,
on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our
including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation.
Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward.
As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse,
draft recs plates right now post-expiry deletes,
transfers, etc.
I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion.
Tim
===== Motion =====
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16de
c08.pdf and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
One can hope that some who didn't see the value of moving forward in a more timely manner on the amendments might now see that value. In addition, based on what I have seen in the General Council's office's responses to your questions Mike, the effectiveness of your motion may be fairly limited. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:58 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion
Of course this cannot be accepted as 'friendly amendments' and is entirely different from the motion I made. It is not proper for you to introduce this as amendments to my motion. However a substantially similar motion was already voted upon several meetings ago, including electronic ballots, so what is the purpose of reintroducing it now?
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 Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:24 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion
I second the amendment.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:16 PM To: Tim Ruiz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion:
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendme nts-16dec08.pd f and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
Thanks.
Stéphane
Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@godaddy.com> a écrit :
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the
There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our
including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation.
Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments, or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the
incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have stalled unless the amendments move forward.
As said before, approving the amendments does not
policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we are doing - improvements, registration abuse,
transfers, etc.
I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed amendments and support this motion.
Tim
===== Motion =====
Whereas:
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN;
The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review
motion below. plates right now possibility of prohibit further post-expiry deletes, them, and if
approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16de
c08.pdf and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 12:58 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
It is not proper for you to introduce this as amendments to my motion.
I do believe that it is a valid action to submit amendments to a motion. If those amendments are not accepted as friendly, then that amendment would need to be voted on before the motion itself. We have had occasions, though not many, in the past where we followed this procedure. And while we do not follow formal rules of order (e.g. Roberts) in that we allow any friendly amendments at all, we do follow with respect to voting on amendments before motions and requiring a majority vote to pass an amendment. In this amendment, though, I am not quite clear on how it transforms the original amendment, It would seem that one needs to say things like: - Add after the nth whereas the following ... - add after the mth resolved the following ... - add the following words after xxyyzz in paragrpaph 3: word word word. in order to have a well formed amendment we could vote on. Finally, with regard to bringing something up for a vote again, we have no rules against doing so that I know of. Obviously, it does not make sense to do so unless one thinks they will have a changed outcome. I do not know if people have a reason to believe there will be a changed outcome and reach a 2/3 vote, but I can only assume they think so. a.
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz