In a post to the GNSO Council, ICANN Staffer Kurt Pritz points to section 4.2 of the RAA and claims "These topics mark the boundaries of the "picket fence" within which policy development under the current RAA is possible." He then goes on to outline a series of topics that "could not be imposed on registrars via Consensus Policies". Such statements are an insult to our intelligence and seek to re-define and denigrate our rights. The current incarnation of the RAA was formalized in 2001 -- long before the notion of a "picket fence" was ever conceptualized. The language of the contract indicates that new and revised specifications and policies "may" be established on the certain topics; it does not preclude the establishment of policies on other topics. Unlike the registry contracts that have clauses explicitly stating "In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: (A) prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;" etc., the RAA has no such language. Kurt would have us believe that Registrar Auditing, Graduated Sanctions, and numerous other matters can not be addressed by way of Consensus Policy formulations -- he is dead wrong, and this is a dangerous step that he is taking. Consensus Policy declarations are our only avenue to restrain rogue registrar behaviors. Seeking to limit the possible scope of Consensus Policies as they pertain to registrars is an assault on the multi-stakeholder model that should not be tolerated. Kurt's apparent goal is to convince the Council to pursue a course of action that would allow ICANN to offer "incentives" to registrars that comply with the new amendments. We don't need to further coddle the registrar community. The approach being suggested is wrong on a great many levels. One can only hope that the ICANN board will start paying attention to these developments and will act to reign in a Staff that has now strayed far from the straight and narrow. Kurt's post is here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06318.html