[NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected

[Alan Greenberg]

I guess that "arguably beyond the picket fence" covers the case of 
there being no picket fence.

As I said, this was not something that I was expecting to hear 
yesterday (based on the three briefings that I have attended), and 
plan to follow up.

Alan

At 09/01/2009 03:31 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>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...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>