[ALAC] Fwd: For consideration: RAA Discussion Paper

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Oct 14 03:13:30 UTC 2011


I am forwarding this note from Kurt Pritz related 
to options for amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

The discussion paper itself may be found at: 
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/final-raa-discussion-paper-13oct11-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/final-raa-discussion-paper-13oct11-en.pdf.

Feel free to redistribute this to your RALOs if desired.

Alan


>From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz at icann.org>
>To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:36:41 -0700
>Subject: [council] For consideration: RAA DIscussion Paper
>
>Dear GNSO Council Members,
>
>I would appreciate it if you could please review 
>the attached “Discussion Paper on Next Steps to 
>Produce a New Form of the RAA”. This paper 
>suggests possible options for consideration by 
>the community to move the RAA amendment process 
>forward in a cooperative and timely manner.
>
>This paper was prepared in response to a request 
>from the Board to categorize proposed amendment 
>topics and summarize possible options for next steps.
>
>The recent efforts by the GNSO Council to 
>address some of the law enforcement 
>recommendations demonstrate progress and are 
>encouraging. There are many other proposals to 
>be addressed. We believe that this paper can be 
>useful in identifying additional alternative 
>paths. To be clear, this is not intended to 
>interrupt current work or advance ICANN Board or 
>staff opinion in the policy discussions. The 
>paper is meant to be responsive to requests for 
>information. It is also meant to signal that 
>there will be a high level of staff support to 
>facilitate the development of RAA amendments and any related policy activities.
>
>Two additional points:  You will find that the 
>categorization of topics is not as 
>straightforward as we all might prefer. As 
>described in the paper, it is difficult to 
>determine whether a proposal is a policy issue 
>or is within the picket fence without 
>considering specific amendment language. 
>Finally, the paper indicates a preference for 
>undertaking substantive discussion now, to 
>develop specific recommendations for amendments 
>through negotiation or policy development or both.
>
>We hope that this Discussion Paper will 
>encourage further dialogue in Dakar with the 
>GNSO Council, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, 
>and the ICANN community with regard to 
>identifying an acceptable path forward. I am 
>sure this paper is likely to raise questions 
>also. I think an exchange of questions and 
>answers is important to realize the full benefit 
>of the thought that went into this – a writing 
>does not always capture or describe all the 
>ideas generated. Please direct those questions 
>to Margie Milam, who will share them with the 
>cross-functional team that worked on this for your consideration.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Kurt
>
>
>Kurt Pritz
>ICANN
>
>4676 Admiralty Way, #330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>
>


More information about the ALAC mailing list