RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details / Monday 03 August 1900 UTC

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes. It will bog down the effort on both. And it implies that RAA
amendments are somehow related to the charter drafting effort, and that
was not the intent. The charter is for existing rights and
responsibilities and could be a relatively quick project on its own.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details /
Monday 03 August 1900 UTC
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 12:39 pm
To: <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

Is there a reason why not? 

Thx,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 10:37 AM
To: Rosette,Kristina
Cc: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details /
Monday 03
August 1900 UTC


One motion, three resolutions:

1. Support the set of amendments
2. GNSO/ALAC to draft a registrant rights charter 3. Drafting Team to
discuss further amendments to RAA

But the point is, we did not and do not consider these a combined
effort.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details /
Monday 03
August 1900 UTC
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 11:56 am
To: <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Looks like one resolution to me . . . 

20090304-2 

Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion 

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been
amended
since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process
related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods
and
consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance
and
enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of
proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may
review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible;
and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter
identifying
registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as
contemplated in the set of amendments;

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.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd
f
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March
6,
2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments,
representatives
from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate
in
drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments
and
the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A
draft
charter shall be completed no later than July
31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO
Council
will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and
to
identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting
Team
should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no
later than July 31, 2009.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim
Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each;
Greg
Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard,
Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote
participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina
Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC) one vote each.

Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:28 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details /
Monday 03
August 1900 UTC


Not sure that we even need a Chair for either of these efforts. And they
will not work well unless separated. They are NOT related, it was not
discussed as if they were, and the RrC never agreed that they were a
combined effort. That's why there were two resolutions.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Proposed agenda for: RAA call details /
Monday 03
August 1900 UTC
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 11:06 am
To: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx



On 3 Aug 2009, at 11:39, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

>
> I will volunteer as chair or co-chair, if there are no other 
> volunteers from the BC, IPC or ISPCPC leadership. I believe it is 
> important that people from non-contracting parties take leadership 
> roles in this group.


Thanks for this.

My personal suggestion would be for someone who was neither on ALAC nor
the
GNSO Council to chair - as part of the effort to spread the work beyond
official councils, i.e as part of the new council as policy manager
effort

I also think we should appoint someone to act as a GNSO council
liaison(s) to the group. You are already doing several of these, but we
can
discuss that in the next council meeting.

As for non-contracting parties versus contracting parties, one idea may
be
to have 2 co-chairs, with one from each house.

Thanks
a.