FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear NA region: I voted no on the last RAA submission. There's been a modification, as you see below. How would you like me to vote on this modification? I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open Dear ALAC members, A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day. You will be asked to choose among the following options: 1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Beau, Carlton Samuels put forward an interesting perspective on the LACRALO list: "I cannot discern either an organisational indicator or a philosophical shift in ICANN to suggest a sea change in enforcement operations. So this notion of "refining" the RAA to give ICANN more enforcement powers is, at best, a PR exercise which will not likely affect dissolute registrar/registry behaviors in the near or mid term. The end result will be a wash." My particular concern has always been that there remains language in these amendments which I find to be objectionable, that will lead to further registrar abuses, such as: "Registrar shall (2) display a conspicuous notice to such customers at the time an election is made to utilize such privacy or proxy service that their data is not being escrowed." However, in the grand scheme of things, my single biggest worry is that we cannot proceed with high-level matters (such a new TLDs) until ICANN's house "is in order". Approving a poorly-drafted and objectionable set of amendments is a lousy step forward in the process of getting the house into order, but candidly, ICANN doesn't have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time... it can only handle one project at a time... so lets accept this horribly deficient package and move on. No, I don't believe that it will do anything to improve enforcement measures as ICANN will always choose to coddle the registrars instead of taking appropriate action, but it will allow us to move forward on other matters such as: policies to govern expedited take-downs policies to deal with domain name warehousing policies to revamp the UDRP PS While I currently favor a yes vote, I won't be overly troubled if you vote nay. Danny --- On Mon, 12/29/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 11:21 AM Dear NA region:
I voted no on the last RAA submission.
There's been a modification, as you see below.
How would you like me to vote on this modification?
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear ALAC members,
A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa
Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day.
You will be asked to choose among the following options:
1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain
You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly.
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists....
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
There's been a modification, as you see below.
Do you know where the current package is? I see something on the GNSO web site called "Current list of proposed RAA amendments – 16 December 2008" Is that it, or is there something more recent? Tnx. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Yes, as far as I can determine, here is the run-up: http://does-not-exist.org/mail-archives/council/msg01222.html And the list: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xh6IM46FYxQJ:gnso.icann.org/drafts/curre... -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:01 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
There's been a modification, as you see below.
Do you know where the current package is? I see something on the GNSO web site called "Current list of proposed RAA amendments - 16 December 2008" Is that it, or is there something more recent? Tnx. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
John, the updated redline version is here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/redline-2001-raa-25nov08.pdf Danny
Beau: I am not too familiar with the RAA details but what was in the first RAA submission that make you vote "no"? Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org>wrote:
Dear NA region:
I voted no on the last RAA submission.
There's been a modification, as you see below.
How would you like me to vote on this modification?
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear ALAC members,
A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa
Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day.
You will be asked to choose among the following options:
1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain
You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly.
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists....
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- -ed
The first vote had three options: Delay until a briefing could take place Vote to approve the package while acknowledging there could be further amendments Vote no The second vote removes the "delay until a briefing could take place" option. I didn't think it appropriate to vote yes the first time, without a more thorough briefing to the ALAC about where things stood after the ALAC made a statement about the RAA back in September. I still remain concerned that the language about future amendments is too vague and lacks a timetable. BB ________________________________ From: eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz, PE Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:27 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open Beau: I am not too familiar with the RAA details but what was in the first RAA submission that make you vote "no"? Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>> wrote: Dear NA region: I voted no on the last RAA submission. There's been a modification, as you see below. How would you like me to vote on this modification? I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open Dear ALAC members, A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day. You will be asked to choose among the following options: 1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -- -ed *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
The two GNSO motions currently on the table are: 1. Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. 2. Whereas: - The GNSO Council 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 calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future. I note that for future changes that are within GNSO scope and for which we can build community support, we do have the Issues Report path which can be moderately fast (as the ICANN procedures go), which gives us a level of input into the timeline. Alan At 29/12/2008 12:36 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
The first vote had three options: Delay until a briefing could take place Vote to approve the package while acknowledging there could be further amendments Vote no
The second vote removes the "delay until a briefing could take place" option.
I didn't think it appropriate to vote yes the first time, without a more thorough briefing to the ALAC about where things stood after the ALAC made a statement about the RAA back in September.
I still remain concerned that the language about future amendments is too vague and lacks a timetable.
BB
________________________________ From: eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz, PE Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:27 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Beau:
I am not too familiar with the RAA details but what was in the first RAA submission that make you vote "no"?
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>> wrote: Dear NA region:
I voted no on the last RAA submission.
There's been a modification, as you see below.
How would you like me to vote on this modification?
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear ALAC members,
A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa
Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day.
You will be asked to choose among the following options:
1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future. 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain
You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly.
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists....
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- -ed
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Just for the sake of complete disclosure, who put these motions on the table? Might it be Tim Ruiz of the registrar's constituency? --- On Mon, 12/29/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 1:20 PM The two GNSO motions currently on the table are:
1.
Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
2.
Whereas: - The GNSO Council 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 calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.
I note that for future changes that are within GNSO scope and for which we can build community support, we do have the Issues Report path which can be moderately fast (as the ICANN procedures go), which gives us a level of input into the timeline.
Alan
At 29/12/2008 12:36 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
The first vote had three options: Delay until a briefing could take place Vote to approve the package while acknowledging there could be further amendments Vote no
The second vote removes the "delay until a briefing could take place" option.
I didn't think it appropriate to vote yes the first time, without a more thorough briefing to the ALAC about where things stood after the ALAC made a statement about the RAA back in September.
I still remain concerned that the language about future amendments is too vague and lacks a timetable.
BB
________________________________ From: eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz, PE Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:27 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Beau:
I am not too familiar with the RAA details but what was in the first RAA submission that make you vote "no"?
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>> wrote: Dear NA region:
I voted no on the last RAA submission.
There's been a modification, as you see below.
How would you like me to vote on this modification?
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear ALAC members,
A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa
Following this briefing, it was decided to start a
second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day.
You will be asked to choose among the following
options:
1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA
package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain
You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly.
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list
ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists....
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the
designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- -ed
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the
designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
The entire discussion is visible of the GNSO mailing list. This current motion was made by Tim and seconded by Chick Gomes. Earlier versions had other authors. These draw upon words that I used in a set of motions that I had volunteered to draft, but the second resolution is a bit more open-ended. The gist of all versions was similar, and there was a general consensus the there should be two motions and not a single combined one. What eventually is voted on at the meeting may be different. But I posted the current version since Beau had made reference to "the language about future amendments is too vague and lacks a timetable." and I thought others on this list should see what he was referring to. Alan At 29/12/2008 01:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Just for the sake of complete disclosure, who put these motions on the table? Might it be Tim Ruiz of the registrar's constituency?
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 1:20 PM The two GNSO motions currently on the table are:
1.
Whereas: - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
Resolve: The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
2.
Whereas: - The GNSO Council 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 calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.
I note that for future changes that are within GNSO scope and for which we can build community support, we do have the Issues Report path which can be moderately fast (as the ICANN procedures go), which gives us a level of input into the timeline.
Alan
At 29/12/2008 12:36 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
The first vote had three options: Delay until a briefing could take place Vote to approve the package while acknowledging there could be further amendments Vote no
The second vote removes the "delay until a briefing could take place" option.
I didn't think it appropriate to vote yes the first time, without a more thorough briefing to the ALAC about where things stood after the ALAC made a statement about the RAA back in September.
I still remain concerned that the language about future amendments is too vague and lacks a timetable.
BB
________________________________ From: eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz, PE Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:27 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Beau:
I am not too familiar with the RAA details but what was in the first RAA submission that make you vote "no"?
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>> wrote: Dear NA region:
I voted no on the last RAA submission.
There's been a modification, as you see below.
How would you like me to vote on this modification?
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From:
alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
[mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>]
On Behalf Of At-Large Staff
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 1:29 AM To:
alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Second Vote on the RAA Package now open
Dear ALAC members,
A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt Pritz from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of this briefing under:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa
Following this briefing, it was decided to start a
second online vote on the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled later that day.
You will be asked to choose among the following
options:
1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA
package, with the possibility of further policy development in the future.
2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. 3. Abstain
You will receive a separate email with you voting credentials shortly.
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list
ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists....
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the
designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- -ed
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the
designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Brendler, Beau wrote:
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Any vote like this appears to require some kind of leap of faith, it seems. As Danny indicates, tougher wording without enforcement is a sham, but the lack of one does not justify the lack of the other. I agree on voting yes, as acknowledged partial progress; while a positive step forward, it still needs significant improvement. It will be up to Us (in the large sense) to ensure that the "possibility" of future policy work becomes a reality. The only way we can count on it is to drive it ourselves. I agree with Danny that the improvements are incomplete, but also agree that this is not a reason to turn down the changes on the table. - Evan
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Eduardo Diaz, PE -
Evan Leibovitch -
John L