[ALAC] Fwd: For consideration: RAA Discussion Paper
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:
Feel free to redistribute this to your RALOs if desired.
>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.
>4676 Admiralty Way, #330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
More information about the ALAC