[NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected

[Danny Younger]

Alan,

Having just listened to the GNSO recording, I will admit to being astounded by Staff remarks to the effect that their plan was to invoke the "Right to Substituted Agreement" clause and to pass through the proposed amendements in a fashion that would see these amendments adopted by registrars on a piecemeal basis (whenever their contracts renew which could be anytime between now and the next five years).  

This was not what I recall being told at our briefing.

Did I hear this wrong, or is there an an internal disconnect at the Staff level?


--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Subject: Re: RAA Amendments Package Rejected
> To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 1:55 AM
> I actually posted the results (before the meeting had even
> ended), but on reading your note, I realized that I had sent
> it to At-Large STAFF instead of the At-Large list
> (auto-complete is convenient sometimes, but other times a
> pain in the butt).
> 
> The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the option for
> some e-mail votes. So it is not clear if it will pass or
> fail at the 50% level. I think there is a 3-day period for
> the remaining e-mail votes.
> 
> However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, 4 abstain
> out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), the motion
> cannot achieve the 66% vote required to be considered a
> consensus policy under the RAA rules.  It is unclear what
> the next steps are.  I would expect to hear something from
> ICANN legal counsel or Kurt Pritz in the next while.
> 
> There were some other interesting twists during the
> discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison report in
> the next day or so.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 08/01/2009 11:14 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> > The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of resolutions
> passed at today's GNSO Council session.  The motion to
> accept the package of RAA amendments was not cited, so
> apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 threshold.
> > Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote tally, and
> whatever steps the Council next plans to take...
> > 
> > 
> >