Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and proposed "hierarchy" language

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marika and Chuck,

This comment wasn’t mine, but raised by other NCSG members. However, I will do 
my best to answer your questions now, and maybe get back to some colleagues for 
more.

My understanding of how the UDRP and URS work is that a consensus policy could 
lead to changes in requirements on the part of the registrant, or maybe more 
accurately, the criteria that would trigger requirements for registrants to act 
or be held accountable. Example (according to my admittedly limited 
understanding) include changes to what constitutes applicable disputes or 
evidence of registration or use of domain names in bad faith, which in turn 
would require the submission of a mandatory administrative proceeding.

Although changes to these as a result of a consensus policy will create new 
responsibilities (or obligations) on registrants, they don’t actually change 
the obligations of the contracted party or registrars. The language in section 
3.8 of the 2013 RAA will not need to be amended to enforce the changes in the 
UDRP. The obligations on the registrars remain constant, while new ones may be 
created for registrants.

The language describing the GGP is very specific in excluding new obligations 
to registries and registrars as a criteria, but does not mention consensus 
policies or obligations of registrants. From my understanding, the GGP is not 
meant to create new rules in processes such as the UDRP or URS, so it makes 
sense to me to add registrants to the list of parties that the GGP cannot 
create new obligations for.

I hope that was helpful.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 28, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Unless I am missing something, the only way consensus policies can impact 
> registrants is via registries and registrars.  ICANN doesn’t have agreements 
> with registrants. 
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:27 PM
> To: Amr Elsadr
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and 
> proposed "hierarchy" language
>  
> Hi Amr,
>  
> Apologies, I misread your first comment. It would be helpful if you could be 
> more specifics with regards to your examples and related concerns concerning 
> the URS and UDRP. As far as I understand, these processes set out the rules 
> for registrants, but I am not aware of any obligations that are created that 
> are enforceable in a similar way as consensus policies are enforceable on 
> contracted parties. 
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 11:10
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and 
> proposed "hierarchy" language
>  
> Hi,
>  
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Amr,
>  
> In relation to your question concerning the GGP, Annex D specifically says 
> 'and it has determined that the intended outcome is not expected to result in 
> new contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a PDP would 
> need to be initiated)’. Do you consider this not to be sufficient? If so, 
> where would you like to see additional clarification?
>  
> This came up when the NCSG held a webinar to cover this WG’s initial report. 
> The issue that was identified was that there are Consensus Policies that do 
> not necessarily involve new contractual obligations for contracted parties, 
> but may create new obligations on registrants. The examples provided were 
> changes to the UDRP or URS.
> 
> 
> With regards to your point on the EPDP, and apologies for having missed last 
> week’s meeting, I’m not sure why you would want to specifically exclude an 
> issue for which a previous policy recommendation was rejected as 
> circumstances may have changed or new information may have become available 
> (which would need to be noted in the scoping request) but for which all the 
> other previous scoping information would still be relevant.
>  
> Hmm. That’s a good point. Thanks for making it. The intent of the NCSG 
> comment here is to prevent abuse of this process as a tool to reopen a 
> previously explored policy issue only because a stakeholder didn’t like the 
> conclusion of a previously held process on the same policy. Let me think 
> about this some more between now and tomorrow’s call.
>  
> Thanks again.
>  
> Amr