RE: [gnso-raa-b] Staff Memo on RAA Amendment Options

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Speaking of understandings, I am confused, Tim.

The CSG constituencies initially voted against or abstained from voting
on the RAA Amendments because only ICANN and the Registrar Constituency
were involved in the negotiations and the RAA amendment consultative
process essentially excluded registrants and users, and ignored their
input.

As you know, because you proposed it and I seconded it, the Council
resolution approving the RAA amendments stated "The Council would like a
specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential
amendments to the RAA; and The Registrar Constituency is supportive of
these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on
anticipated next steps."

To the extent that the RrSG appears to be advocating the same process
that was already used, objected to, and formed the basis of the initial
rejection of the RAA Amendments, the IPC calls on the RrSG to
"participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps," on a
process that addresses the concerns of other stakeholders and includes
them in the process.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Staff Memo on RAA Amendment Options


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. 


Tim
-------- 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>

Dear All,

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. 

Best Regards,

Margie

____________
Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________