[NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected

[Danny Younger]

Alan,

In truth there is no RAA "picket fence" -- it is a misnomer.  

Unlike the registry contracts that clearly stipulate "In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: (A)              prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; (B) etc.", the RAA does not have such restrictive language.

In fact, it merely states 
"New and revised specifications and policies may be established on the following topics:" 

You will note that it does not state "New and revised specifications and policies may ONLY be established on the following topics:"

Within the context of the RAA there is no picket fence; any topic is fair game for a consensus formulation.

Danny


--- 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, 2:38 PM
> 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...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> >