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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks Berry!  It was touch and go until the last 3 minutes as you heard!

Now that I have a better understanding of the RAP issues and politics would it 
be useful for those members interested to discuss next steps that us 
councillors can initiate at Council including getting support for further 
resolutions for Charter Drafting Team and Issues Reports etc. 

I also posed your questions to Staff (Marika) and got the following response we 
could include in our discussion of next steps:

'With regards to the recommendations that did not obtain Unanimous Consensus, 
the RAP-IDT recommended: 'It should be noted that for those recommendations 
that did not achieve unanimous consensus in the RAPWG, the recommended next 
step is generally for the Council to review the recommendation in question 
and decide if or how to move forward. In doing so, the RAP-IDT would recommend 
the following steps:
1. Review each section of the RAP Final report that corresponds to 
recommendation,
   where significant consensus was not achieved;
2. Request for additional input or research to become better informed of the 
recommendation (optional);
3. GNSO Council Vote on the recommendation. 


Of course, it will be up to decide to the GNSO Council whether to follow this 
recommended process or not.


With regard to the order, I'm assuming that these are to be added to the 
project list in the order as ranked by the RAP-IDT, but again, it will be up to 
the Council to decide how/when they will deal with each of the recommendations. 
Staff is responsible for updating the project list which is then sent to the 
Council leadership for review, before it is sent to the Council. Any input or 
suggestions are always welcome.'



                                       
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 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:54:19 
To: <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO 
Council meeting

I now listened to the MP3.  Wow, that one of the more exciting ones.

 

I second Mike’s great job call to Zahid!!!!  Support from Mary, as she 
participated on the IDT, was very helpful here too.  

 

Thanks again Zahid.

 

B

 

 

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 Of 
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:43 AM
To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO 
Council meeting

 

Zahid,

 

Great job!  Sometimes the best that can be done is to preserve issues for 
another day, and that is far better than having them killed completely – 
especially when so much work has gone into them, and they are so important.  Of 
the issues in Resolve #4, we should be most concerned about the Uniformity of 
Contracts issue, particularly in light of the newTLD program.  But it is not 
worth a fight for high priority at the moment, given all of the other work 
before the Council.

 

Of course WHOIS access and accuracy are also critical concerns, though 
certainly not isolated within the RAP report.   The RAA Amendments work, and 
various other initiatives also address WHOIS.  Seems we should regroup on the 
overall WHOIS issues and strategy as a Constituency as those issues have 
dragged on so long.  I suggest that we should set some time for that in our BC 
meeting in SF.

 

Best,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Berry Cobb
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:12 AM
To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
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 Of 
Zahid 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

 

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 (see  
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),%E2%80%A8and>
 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),
and

 

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and 
decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed
 approach 
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
(see  
<http://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 resource 
requirements, WHOIS 
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 
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 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 
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 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 
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

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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.