[At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments

[Alan Greenberg]

I can neither defend nor explain the RAA process up to now. I passed 
on the question because it was asked by the Chair of the GNSO. It was 
not required that they get our permission, the question was asked as 
a courtesy.

For the record, the statement that Danny sent was not a formal 
Business Constituency statement, but one made on the sender's own 
behalf. I am not privy to the internal discussions of the BC, so I do 
not know if it is the feeling of all.

Beau, also for the record, on Nov 24th, you said:

>As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we 
>did provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on 
>in September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have 
>taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already 
>agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since sooner would 
>require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our current 
>one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA 
>review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire 
>review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium," 
>is accurate of where we left things with the RAA.

Alan



At 15/12/2008 08:56 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>Here's what I don't get:
>
>We (the ALAC) produced a statement on the RAA that was sent up the 
>pipeline on the deadlines given out to us. The ALAC voted on (and 
>for) the statement.
>
>We received no formal response to that statement that I am aware of. 
>Granted, my attentions have been elsewhere for large chunks of time 
>since June, but I have tried to pay attention to those things I have 
>agreed to help out on, so if there has been a formal response, my apologies.
>
>But how can we now be talking about approving the package of 
>amendments as it stands? With no formal response to our statement? 
>Is it because the possibility of a PDP negating all the good work 
>done so far on the RAA is being held over our heads? Sounds like a 
>negotiating tactic to me. I don't think we should bite.
>
>By the way I agree with Danny, what the BC is saying makes good 
>sense, even if it's too late for us.
>
>Beau Brendler
>________________________________________
>From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>[at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan 
>Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:04 PM
>To: At-Large Worldwide
>Cc: NA Discuss
>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
>
>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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>***
>Scanned
>
>**
>This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) 
>named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any 
>attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are 
>not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, 
>redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, 
>or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received 
>this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply 
>e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from 
>your computer system.
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org