[gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA Sub Team B and RAPWG report

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this Holly.  I agree that there could be some impact but I
don't think any of the examples you give really amount to overlap.  
 
First, a general observation:  the RAP working group and our effort are
on separate tracks.  The first might lead, in some areas, to the
development of new consensus policies.  Our focus is not on consensus
policies but on provisions of the accreditation agreement between ICANN
and the registrars.  So even if the same topics are listed, the possible
outcomes are quite different.  
 
Second, for a more specific example, take cybersquatting.  There could a
number of changes to consensus policies to deal with this -- for example
to the UDRP -- but that would not be inconsistent in any way with making
some level of participation in cybersquatting a disqualifying factor for
an entity that wished to be accredited as a registrar, or a ground for
termination of an accredited registrar (or some lesser sanction) for
breach of the RAA.   Of course any change to the consensus policy
regarding UDRP would automatically become applicable to registrars, but
the topics we are looking at would be contractual obligations in
addition to the obligation to abide by consensus policies.  
 
I guess my third observation would be that both the output of our team,
and the output of the RAP working group, will be headed to the GNSO
Council, whose job it would be take into account any overlaps.  But for
the reasons above, I don;t think there is likely to be any problem with
the fact that topics with the same label appear in both outputs. 
 
What do others think about this?  
 
Steve  
________________________________

From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:36 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RAA Sub Team B and RAPWG report


Hi Steve and everyone 

I have not had time to read the full report of the Registration Abuse
Policies Working Group, but some significant issues  that are in our
list are also covered by their recommendations.  From where I stand, it
looks as if we are recommending that some issues are being put forward
for consideration when they are already being considered. 

by way of examples:
Their first recommendation is for investigation of ways to address
cybersquatting (too simplistic - sorry) - and our Topic one calls for
its prohibition
Their third topic is front running -with their recommendation that the
issue be monitored.  Our issues list suggests its prohibition

Other topics the subject of their recommendations that are possible
overlaps include fake renewal notices, domain tasting, malicious use of
domain names WHIS access and accuracy and compliance.

Are we duplicating effort here?


Kind regards

Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149


The Internet is For Everyone