[APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Fwd: For consideration: RAA Discussion Paper

[Charles Mok (gmail)]

Thanks Cheryl and Alan!

Charles


On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thank you Alan  I am FWD  to AP-Discuss and our AP Leadership / ExCom as
> this is most certainly if specific interest to us...  We shall read as
> homework and perhaps discuss more in Dakar...
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
>
> On 14 October 2011 14:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
>
>