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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve, 

 

Over the weekend I had a little time to digest the two documents that
were introduced last Thursday before our RAA Subteam B meeting. While I
appreciate the thought put forth on strawman proposal, I believe this
proposal is way too premature and is not the next logical step in our
process. 

 

As I understand our charter, we had the following tasks: 

(1) Identify topics on which further action in the form of amendments to
the RAA may be desirable;

             (2) From list (1), flag any topics that may require further
analysis as to impact on consensus policy;

            (3) Propose next steps for considering such topics.

 

Task 1, we have completed. Task 2, in my mind, would be making a
determination as to whether certain topics may be the subject of a
consensus policy. I don't think we've successfully completed that yet.
In fact, in the document titled "Proposed Amendment for the RAA" has
"consensus policies" as a "no discussion" point on the last page.  More
importantly, I am not comfortable with any document that is produced by
the group that is titled "Sub Group B- Proposed Amendments", because the
group has not come to any agreement as to whether the amendments we have
brainstormed and placed in our spreadsheet should actually be proposed
for the RAA.  This concern is what prompted my question on Thursday as
to whether the document would be circulated wider than the WG. 

 

I always believed, perhaps mistakenly, that the next step is to produce
our spreadsheet for comment by the Council or perhaps other stakeholder
groups (following Tim Cole's second bullet point in the document Margie
provided) but certainly not to make recommendation as to which proposals
should become actual amendments.  Further, I do not believe that the
next step should be to have ICANN staff draft actual amendments for
later negotiations.  

 

I was looking at our proposed Timetable Version 1. dated 1/24/10 and,
according to this timetable, we are supposed to be drafting a report to
the Council.  At this point it seems to me, our report is simply our
list of the topics we have collected that are appropriate for the RAA
and not to make any recommendations for any specific amendments or to
put forward a proposal for drafting amendments. 

 

That is my perspective. I hope others agree. 

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 

 

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com> 
www.networksolutions.com

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:33 PM
To: Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] History of Prior RAA Amendments

 

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

__________