RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting

["Caroline Greer" <greer@xxxxxxx>]

As regards who owns and drives implementation of the GNSO Projects list, 
this was the subject of some debate on the Council last year and I am not 
sure that we ever really resolved the matter. One would assume that the 
Council has such a responsibility and there were attempts to undergo a work 
prioritisation effort but this didn't lead to much for various reasons.

Caroline.


-----Original Message-----

From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:12:03 -0800

Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO 
Council meeting




Zahid,

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!

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://infinityportals.com
720.839.5735

From:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
OfZahid Jamil
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:03 AM
To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO 
Council meeting

Dear Members,

Report on the GNSO Council RAP WG Resolutions

Today the GNSO Council passed the resolutions below wrt the RAP WG/RAP-IDT 
Reports.

The Council Chair had suggested that each Resolved should be voted on 
separately
&nb
sp;
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.

Disappointment:
A disappointing compromise by all on the call with the Registrars of calling 
the Issues Report in Resolved 3 ‘discussion papers’.

Positive Outcomes:
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 Registrars.

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) 
final report.


Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report 
to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 
(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),and 
[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),%E2%80%A8and]

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and 
decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposedapproach 
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(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf
 
[http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf]),

and

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 resourcerequirements, 
WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, 
to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANNCompliance 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 abusers
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 bei
ng 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 A
·Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation 
#1:
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 best practices.
·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 t
o 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 
reporting processes.
·Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation 
#2:
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.





Sincerely,


Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
Fax: +92 21 35655026
www.jamilandjamil.com [http://www.jamilandjamil.com/]

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.