ENC: Council Motions
Dear All, I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA. I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice. Jaime Wagner <mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br> jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37 Para: 'contact@dndrc.com'; 'zahid@dndrc.com'; 'john@crediblecontext.com'; 'KnobenW@telekom.de'; 'jaime@powerself.com.br' Cc: 'david.taylor@hoganlovells.com'; 'drd@hoganlovells.com' Assunto: Council Motions Greetings, gentlemen! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN and RAA Amendment motions. Single-character IDN: David and I had planned to request a deferral b/c the IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion. Edmon has reached out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the motion doesn't pass today, the provisions can't go in the April 15 Guidebook. Are you all planning to vote? In support? I ask b/c, depending on if you're voting (and doing so in support) and the instructions David and I receive, we may abstain simply to allow the vote to go forward. RAA Amendment: Are you all planning to vote in support of the motion (Process B+)? (Copied below for your reference.) I encourage you to support it. Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that the NCSG will also support and it would be send a very powerful message, IMHO, if the entire NCPH voted in support. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and has asked if we will support. I've set out below Mary's original and my suggested revision. I realize this is very short notice, but it would be great if it could be a house-wide statement. (To that end, please feel free to identify changes that you would need to see in order to support.) Mary's version: "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) wishes to express its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on the RAA Amendments, as well as its strong objection to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding negotiations to the RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report which had showed strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion which would have adopted this recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion was built from the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working Group. The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH to stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly." My suggested revision: The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly. We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation. K -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
Jaime, I support option B plus any additional statement outlined by Kristina. I've sent my comment already. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 21:31 An: ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Betreff: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions Wichtigkeit: Hoch Dear All, I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA. I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br <mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br> Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br <http://www.powerself.com.br/> De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37 Para: 'contact@dndrc.com'; 'zahid@dndrc.com'; 'john@crediblecontext.com'; 'KnobenW@telekom.de'; 'jaime@powerself.com.br' Cc: 'david.taylor@hoganlovells.com'; 'drd@hoganlovells.com' Assunto: Council Motions Greetings, gentlemen! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN and RAA Amendment motions. Single-character IDN: David and I had planned to request a deferral b/c the IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion. Edmon has reached out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the motion doesn't pass today, the provisions can't go in the April 15 Guidebook. Are you all planning to vote? In support? I ask b/c, depending on if you're voting (and doing so in support) and the instructions David and I receive, we may abstain simply to allow the vote to go forward. RAA Amendment: Are you all planning to vote in support of the motion (Process B+)? (Copied below for your reference.) I encourage you to support it. Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that the NCSG will also support and it would be send a very powerful message, IMHO, if the entire NCPH voted in support. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and has asked if we will support. I've set out below Mary's original and my suggested revision. I realize this is very short notice, but it would be great if it could be a house-wide statement. (To that end, please feel free to identify changes that you would need to see in order to support.) Mary's version: "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) wishes to express its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on the RAA Amendments, as well as its strong objection to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding negotiations to the RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report which had showed strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion which would have adopted this recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion was built from the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working Group. The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH to stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly." My suggested revision: The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly. We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation. K -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
I agree with Wolf-Ulrich, option B. Tony From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 07 April 2011 20:42 To: jaime@powerself.com.br; ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Subject: AW: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions Jaime, I support option B plus any additional statement outlined by Kristina. I've sent my comment already. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 21:31 An: ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Betreff: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions Wichtigkeit: Hoch Dear All, I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA. I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37 Para: 'contact@dndrc.com'; 'zahid@dndrc.com'; 'john@crediblecontext.com'; 'KnobenW@telekom.de'; 'jaime@powerself.com.br' Cc: 'david.taylor@hoganlovells.com'; 'drd@hoganlovells.com' Assunto: Council Motions Greetings, gentlemen! I hope all is well with you. I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN and RAA Amendment motions. Single-character IDN: David and I had planned to request a deferral b/c the IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion. Edmon has reached out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the motion doesn't pass today, the provisions can't go in the April 15 Guidebook. Are you all planning to vote? In support? I ask b/c, depending on if you're voting (and doing so in support) and the instructions David and I receive, we may abstain simply to allow the vote to go forward. RAA Amendment: Are you all planning to vote in support of the motion (Process B+)? (Copied below for your reference.) I encourage you to support it. Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that the NCSG will also support and it would be send a very powerful message, IMHO, if the entire NCPH voted in support. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and has asked if we will support. I've set out below Mary's original and my suggested revision. I realize this is very short notice, but it would be great if it could be a house-wide statement. (To that end, please feel free to identify changes that you would need to see in order to support.) Mary's version: "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) wishes to express its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on the RAA Amendments, as well as its strong objection to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding negotiations to the RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report which had showed strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion which would have adopted this recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion was built from the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working Group. The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH to stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly." My suggested revision: The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them directly. We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation. K -*- Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report did not pass; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails: 1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this resolution. 2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole). 4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments. 7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
Dear All,
I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA.
I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice.
(The following is just my personal opinion) To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm not entirely comfortable with either motion. I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed, as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion. I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the sustained block by one particular community, the Board would be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted community supports one approach. This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion. Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it. So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a judgement call on how best to proceed. Malcolm.
Malcolm/All Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of the points you make but we're in a difficult situation here. Historically in cases like this where there is a stand-off between parties in the GNSO the Board choose not to act. In this case that means our concerns wouldn't get addressed. If the motion helps to change that then I don't think anyone could say the multi-stakeholder process has failed. Just left to the Board to decide whether to engage, without this motion being passed would probably result in no further action and indeed claims could then be made that the process fails to put in place the required checks that ensure an open, competitive, environment built on the multi-stakeholder process. That said, the issues you raise are cause for concern and the wording could certainly be improved, although we may be too late. Jaime/Wolf-Ulrich - Is there still a possibility to propose 'friendly' amendments to this text? Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: 08 April 2011 10:56 To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Cc: ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Subject: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
Dear All,
I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA.
I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice.
(The following is just my personal opinion) To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm not entirely comfortable with either motion. I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed, as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion. I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the sustained block by one particular community, the Board would be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted community supports one approach. This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion. Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it. So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a judgement call on how best to proceed. Malcolm.
Tony, all, Just a quick note on this. Actually the text was provided by Kristina just a few hours before the council meeting last Thursday. And so it was more or less the question to say yes or no rather than having a chance for the amendment ping-pong. Finally I said "yes" taking into consideration the historical aspects you raised - although having some stomach pain regarding the harshness. Reading the statement during the meeting Kristina said that "most of the NCPH" supported it. I expect the CPH coming back once with a reactive statement. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tony Holmes Gesendet: Freitag, 8. April 2011 13:57 An: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf' Cc: ispcp@icann.org Betreff: [Bayesian] [Bayesian] RE: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions Malcolm/All Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of the points you make but we're in a difficult situation here. Historically in cases like this where there is a stand-off between parties in the GNSO the Board choose not to act. In this case that means our concerns wouldn't get addressed. If the motion helps to change that then I don't think anyone could say the multi-stakeholder process has failed. Just left to the Board to decide whether to engage, without this motion being passed would probably result in no further action and indeed claims could then be made that the process fails to put in place the required checks that ensure an open, competitive, environment built on the multi-stakeholder process. That said, the issues you raise are cause for concern and the wording could certainly be improved, although we may be too late. Jaime/Wolf-Ulrich - Is there still a possibility to propose 'friendly' amendments to this text? Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: 08 April 2011 10:56 To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Cc: ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Subject: [Bayesian] [Bayesian] [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
Dear All,
I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA.
I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice.
(The following is just my personal opinion) To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm not entirely comfortable with either motion. I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed, as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.
Thanks Tony and Malcolm, Sorry for the late response. Disagreement is part of a multistakeholder approach. Consensus building does not always achieve its goals. That's why I found Kristina's statement too harsh. But sometimes there's not disagreement but misunderstanding. And a proud stubbornness of not wanting to understand. That's why I supported it. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Tony Holmes Enviada em: sexta-feira, 8 de abril de 2011 08:57 Para: 'Malcolm Hutty'; 'Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf' Cc: ispcp@icann.org Assunto: RE: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions Malcolm/All Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of the points you make but we're in a difficult situation here. Historically in cases like this where there is a stand-off between parties in the GNSO the Board choose not to act. In this case that means our concerns wouldn't get addressed. If the motion helps to change that then I don't think anyone could say the multi-stakeholder process has failed. Just left to the Board to decide whether to engage, without this motion being passed would probably result in no further action and indeed claims could then be made that the process fails to put in place the required checks that ensure an open, competitive, environment built on the multi-stakeholder process. That said, the issues you raise are cause for concern and the wording could certainly be improved, although we may be too late. Jaime/Wolf-Ulrich - Is there still a possibility to propose 'friendly' amendments to this text? Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty Sent: 08 April 2011 10:56 To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf Cc: ispcp@icann.org; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Subject: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
Dear All,
I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any amendment to the RAA.
I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry for the short notice.
(The following is just my personal opinion) To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm not entirely comfortable with either motion. I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed, as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion. I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the sustained block by one particular community, the Board would be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted community supports one approach. This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion. Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it. So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a judgement call on how best to proceed. Malcolm.
participants (4)
-
Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Malcolm Hutty -
Tony Holmes