[ALAC] Fwd: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Sep 13 20:47:07 UTC 2011

>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:16:06 -0400
>To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
>Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have 
>questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented.
>The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no 
>PDP is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such 
>rules into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they 
>kick in on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last 
>RAA change, ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to 
>get them to sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there 
>were still some that have not).
>Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial 
>incentives in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all 
>Registrars to be on board)?  Or what else is proposed to actually 
>get this implemented in a more timely manner?
>Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars 
>will be obliged to pass on to their resellers?
>At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at 
>>the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in 
>>it are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law 
>>Enforcement Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not 
>>garnered any opposition from other SGs or Cs.

More information about the ALAC mailing list