RE: [gnso-raa-b] History of Prior RAA Amendments

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Margie, this is quite informative.  
 
May I suggest that our main focus at this point should be at the point
of step 2 on the first page of Tim Cole's memo. For the last set of
amendments ICANN staff "engage[d] with the Registrars Constituency" to
negotiate the text of the amendments.  This was not a process open to
others -- at that stage.  My "straw man" proposes a different process --
a negotiating team that includes, besides registrars and staff,
representatives of "registrant and third-party interests".   I fully
agree that the results of the negotiation should be subject to the
"advice of the GNSO, the ALAC and other interested parties" as in step 3
of the process Tim describes.  
 
Steve Metalitz  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:09 PM
To: 'gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-raa-b] History of Prior RAA Amendments



Dear All,

 

On our call today, the WG requested information related to the history
of the prior RAA Amendments, as well as the options for amending the RAA
to address the proposed amendment topics that the working group has
developed.

 

Tim Cole prepared a background document in 2008 describing the
background and options for pursuing the amendments that were
incorporated into the 2009 RAA.   While the document refers to voting
structures in place prior to the GNSO's restructuring,  it nevertheless
provides some useful information for this WG to consider.   

 

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05617.html

 

 

As requested on today's call, Staff will do additional analysis on this
issue and update this WG on the options available under the current
bi-cameral voting structure for amending the RAA.

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie

 

__________



Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

__________