[NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected

[Alan Greenberg]

That was the "interesting twist" that I was alluding to, but didn't 
have the time or energy to expand on last night.  If you listened to 
the recording, you may well have picked up that I was astounded as 
well, and pressed the point. This is the first that I have 
"consciously" heard about this, and I am pretty sure that it has not 
been mentioned before. In fact, I would have put a small bet that in 
previous discussions, even if it was not clearly stated, that one 
could infer that the *alternative* to approval was to do things as 
the contracts come up.

Given the few people on Council show joined in on my amazement, 
perhaps everyone else understood. I plan to pursue it on the list and 
see the reaction.

Now given that some of the amendments are arguably beyond the picket 
fence of consensus policy, the current position may well be a 
reasonable one. But it was not what I *thought* the motion was about.

I had previously assumed that on contract renewal, ICANN could impose 
any changes that it sought, and that no level of consensus approval 
was required. On re-reading section 5.4 now, I am no longer sure.

Counsel and staff have now gone off to "discuss". It will be 
interesting to get the results.

To answer your last question, I have a theory or two on what 
happened, but nothing more solid. I do not think it was an internal disconnect.

Alan


At 09/01/2009 02:03 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>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...
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>