RE: [gnso-raa-b] Staff Memo on RAA Amendment Options
- To: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Staff Memo on RAA Amendment Options
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:43:09 -0700
I would like to clarify a couple of points in Margie's document. Right
now, the process for amendment in the RAA really only allows amendments
on Consensus Policy items. The RAA was orignally developed prior to the
PDP process now enshrined (and soon to be amended) in ICANN's bylaws, so
that made sense at the time.
Clearly, the PDP process meets the requirements of 4.3 of the RAA and
the very fact of its development and ongoing efforts to improve it is
evidence that the bylaws' PDP process supercededs/overlays 4.3. So
negotiations with Registrars IS required to change anything not within
the Consensus Policy "picket fence." Anything within that picket fence
should now go through the adopted PDP process.
Registrars proposed and agreed to the RAA-B efforts based on that
understanding. If Staff now intends to take a different position on this
I'd like to hear that from John Jeffrey and/or Kurt Pritz.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Staff Memo on RAA Amendment Options
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 14, 2010 1:30 pm
To: "gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
In preparation for tomorrow's call, please review the attached Staff
Memorandum describing the options for implementing a new form of RAA.
This Memorandum includes analysis of the new voting thresholds resulting
from the creation of the bicameral voting houses as part of the
restructure of the GNSO Council last year.
Senior Policy Counselor