RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting
- To: <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting
- From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:12:03 -0800
Thank you for driving this forward. I have not caught the MP3 yet, so I am
flying IFR right now.
While the overall outcome is positive, I do have a reservation about
“Discussion Paper.” What does this mean, and what is the expected outcome?
I’m guessing this is not defined in Council by-laws? Because there is no
formal platform for Best Practices to be defined and implemented within the
GNSO, by what structure will a future BP working group operate?
Second, you state below in the positive outcomes, “All recommendations of the
RAP WG have been passed by the Council.” Can you clarify, please? Several of
those recommendations did not obtain Unanimous Consensus. The RAP WG and RAP
IDT determined the Council should vote individually how the recommendation
should proceed (essentially and up/down vote). Will the recommendations on the
GNSO Project List be voted on as it works its way up on priority? Or will the
Council vote the recommendation up or down in the near term and only those
approved will be added to the list?
And my last question to anyone is who owns and drives the implementation of
GNSO Projects List?
Thank you again Zahid!
Infinity Portals LLC
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:03 AM
Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council
Report on the GNSO Council RAP WG Resolutions
Today the GNSO Council passed the resolutions below wrt the RAP WG/RAP-IDT
The Council Chair had suggested that each Resolved should be voted on separately
In discussions Steve Del Bianco had with Jeff Neuman (Registry) support was
obtained for my amendments to the Council motion and some additional language
on best practices.
Separately I reaching out to the NCSG’s Mary Wong (NCSG) proved helpful and we
were able to agree on language that led to support of the NCSG Councillors.
The quid pro quo for the NCSG voting in favour of all BC amendments was that BC
would not vote down any of the resolved(s).
In the Council meeting, the process was met with enormous opposition by the
Registrars and in particular my observation was that Stephane, in his role as
Chair, favoured an interpretation of the operating procedures to the effect
that the proposed Resolutions would be simply taken off the table since one of
the proposers Tim Ruiz (Registrar) had decided to withdraw his support as a
seconder – this was despite advice from the ICANN General Counsel stating that
the resolution could be sponsored by other councillors. Alternatively, the
Chair was favouring a delay and deferral of the vote since the allotted time
was running out – filibuster.
I must mention that the support of Jeff Neuman, Mary Wong and in Staff Margie
and Marika to what effectively was my Resolution on behalf of the BC was
invaluable. Eventually, the Registrars accepted, with a few amendments, the
Resolutions and all Resolutions were passed unanimously.
A disappointing compromise by all on the call with the Registrars of calling
the Issues Report in Resolved 3 ‘discussion papers’.
All recommendations of the RAP WG have been passed by the Council.
The list of RAP Recommendations added as the 4th Resolved, which several
members on the last call had suggested should be included have been
specifically mentioned and we should now work on strategy for implementation.
There was much common ground amongst the Registry, NCSG, CSG for passing the
Resolutions on the Council viz-avis the attempt to block the resolutions by the
All parts of the motion passed unanimously.
The motion as passed is below:
Motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG)
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report to
the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and
decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed
with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies
Working Group Final Report, and
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted
its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working
Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena.
RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two
issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource
Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN
Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN
Compliance Staff is requested to
provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and
proposed implementation in a timely manner.
RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of
the UDRP. This effort should consider:
* How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and
any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.
* Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing
UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.
The Issue Report should include
suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed.
RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests a discussion paper on the creation of
non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the
abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse
Policies Working Group Final Report.
This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects:
* Practices for identifying stolen credentials
* Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious
use (such as malware and phishing)
* Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in
Registrar-Registrant agreements by registrars who adopt them, and for use by
TLD operators who adopt them.
* Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by
* Practices for suspending domain names
* Account access security management
* Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries
* Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and
their adoption rates.
RESOLVED #4 (As proposed by Zahid Jamil): Resolved, the GNSO Council instructs
ICANN Policy Staff to add the remaining RAP Recommendations to the GNSO Project
List so that the GNSO Council can keep track of the remaining recommendations
and address these as appropriate. These remaining RAP Recommendations are:
· WHOIS Access – Recommendation #1: The GNSO should determine what
additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is
accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion.
The GNSO Council should consider how such might be related to other WHOIS
efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS policy and implementation
required by ICANN’s new Affirmation of Commitments.
· Uniformity of Contracts:
View A: The RAPWG recommends the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate
whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created
for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be
structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.
View B: Opposed to the recommendation for an Issues Report as expressed in view
· Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation
Rough Consensus: Make no recommendation. The majority of RAPWG members
expressed that gripe site and offensive domain names that use trademarks should
be addressed in the context of cybersquatting and the UDRP for purposes of
establishing consistent registration abuse policies in this area, and that
creating special procedures for special classes of domains, such as offensive
domain names, may present problems.
Alternate view: The URDP should be revisited to determine what substantive
policy changes, if any, would be necessary to address any inconsistencies
relating to decisions on “gripe” names and to provide for fast track
substantive and procedural mechanisms in the event of the registration of
deceptive domain names that mislead adults or children to objectionable sites.
· Cybersquatting – Recommendation #2:
View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by
requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and
effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed
elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the
problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and
consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is
unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program.
Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate
relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
· Fake Renewal Notices – Recommendation #2 – conditional on #1: The
following recommendation is conditional. The WG would like to learn the ICANN
Compliance Department’s opinions regarding Recommendation #1 above, and the WG
will further discuss Recommendation 2 looking forward to the WG’s Final Report.
The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by
requesting an Issues Report to investigate fake renewal notices.
· Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices: The RAPWG
recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and
support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of
· Cross-TLD Registration Scam: The RAPWG recommends the GNSO monitor
for Cross-TLD registration scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate
research with the community to determine the nature and extent of the problem.
The WG believes this issue warrants review but notes there is not enough data
at this time to warrant an Issues Report or PDP.
· Meta Issue - Uniformity of Reporting: The RAPWG recommends that the
GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform
· Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation
View A: Turn down a proposed recommendation that registries develop best
practices to restrict the registration of offensive strings.
View B: Registries should consider developing internal best practice policies
that would restrict the registration of offensive strings in order to mitigate
the potential harm to consumers and children.
· Domain Kiting / Tasting: It is unclear to what extent domain kiting
happens, and the RAPWG does not recommend policy development at this time. The
RAPWG suggests that the Council monitor the issue (in conjunction with ongoing
reviews of domain-tasting), and consider next steps if conditions warrant.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the
intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected
by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment,
modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including
photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not
transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without
prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.