RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13
- To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:30:52 -0800
Thanks Marilyn for forwarding, I guess I've been deleted from the Council
list. so will ask to be added again.
I have some concern about the resolutions re Fast Flux and especially re
Registration Abuse Policies. I think folding the FF recos into the RAP
recos is ok in concept, but we can see that the contract parties are trying
to bury that portion of the work re 'best practices'. It was identified as
the top priority after the two 'low hanging fruit' items identified by the
RAP-Implementation Drafting Team. Yet, the motion addresses only those two
items and the UDRP review, which was identified as 3d priority.
I know the IPC will vehemently fight against UDRP review now. My strong
view is it is not time for that fight yet either, it will be a big fight.
and that the non-controversial yet difficult Best Practices work should be
done first as recommended by the Implementation Team, and indeed that work
might help to inform the UDRP review effort.
Also Item IV of the RAP-IDT recos, Uniformity of Contracts, is a key issue
for all non-contracting party stakeholders. By mass in RAP-IDT, the
contracting parties got a low priority, but from our perspective it should
be a bigger priority that UDRP review. At minimum, there should be a plan
to start that work, as well as the Best Practices work, before any agreement
on UDRP review is made.
Curious how other members, particularly those that have been active in the
RAP group, thing about these motions pending before Council.
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:47 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13