[At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments

[Alan Greenberg]

Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think.  My current 
role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I 
was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN 
staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass 
the question on if not. I have done that.

I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger.

If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to 
approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that it 
was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. I 
did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that you 
as "it sucks").

At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and
>the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them 
>wholesale?  Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do 
>that?  In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants 
>done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say.
>
>Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA
>amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus
>if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now?  The group could then
>suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced
>requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address
>any and all identified open issues.  Meanwhile the Board would understand
>which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, 
>and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their 
>issues with the RAA will be addressed."
>
>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html
>
>This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently 
>voting upon.  Alan, please take note.
>
>
>
>
>
>