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

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

HI Statton

I agree- but think that we really haven't completed Task 1 yet.

The first task for this group is to identify clearly just what we  
have agreed.  This was why I developed and circulated the document I  
did.  So please, have a look at it.  It was an attempt to go through  
the matrix to see just exactly what we think we should do with the  
issues raised (i.e., further definition, wait and see on other work  
being done, develop an amendment, nothing etc)  Until we do that, we  
really can't start drafting anything.  So my hope, and I think  
Steve's hope would be that everyone take the time to go through each  
item in the matrix and clarify what are the agreed decisions on each  
item.  We can then move forward with those items that we believe  
should be the subject of an amendment, those that should be the  
subject of a consensus policy, or those that are dealt with in other  
ways - or not.
So I don't think we have even completed Task 1 and we need everyone  
to help clarify just what we have agreed against each item in the  
matrix.  Then we can talk about Task 2
HOlly
On 23/03/2010, at 2:29 AM, Hammock, Statton wrote:

> 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
> <image001.gif>
>
> P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031www.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
> __________
Kind regards

Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149

The Internet is For Everyone