RE: [council] RAA Motion
That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
Chuck,
If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.
But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.
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).
The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and 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.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
All, staff may have a couple more suggestions shortly, but one change we do suggest now is to the phrase that currently says: "...ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA)." We suggest the following replacement: "...ICANN staff and the Registrar Constituency engaged in many discussions to explore possible amendments to the RAA." Thanks! Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:02 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
Chuck,
If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.
But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.
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).
The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and 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.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
All, Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two motions being discussed: Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote (>66%) of the GNSO Council. Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. Second motion: Whereas: - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by the ICANN community be adopted; - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be required; - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about future changes to the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:10 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion All, staff may have a couple more suggestions shortly, but one change we do suggest now is to the phrase that currently says: "...ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA)." We suggest the following replacement: "...ICANN staff and the Registrar Constituency engaged in many discussions to explore possible amendments to the RAA." Thanks! Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:02 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.* Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim, I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
Chuck,
If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.
But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.
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).
The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and 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.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
Hi It is probably best to confirm this with legal counsel. a. On 11 Dec 2008, at 12:02, Tim Ruiz wrote:
That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council.*
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim,
I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
Chuck,
If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.
But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.
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).
The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and 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.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
A simple thing to confirm would be to find out if Tim's motion would meet the requirements of the current RAA. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:51 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: Daniel Halloran Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion
Hi
It is probably best to confirm this with legal counsel.
a.
On 11 Dec 2008, at 12:02, Tim Ruiz wrote:
That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a
two-thirds vote of
the council.*
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim,
I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those are certainly appropriate.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
Chuck,
If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.
But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.
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).
The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further.
Resolve:
The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and 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.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
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.
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Liz Gasster -
Tim Ruiz