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

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

Michele, 

It's true that in the RAA registrars agree to be bound by consensus
policies.  But they also agree to a number of other things.  It is on
the latter track that we have been asked to compile topics.  

I am not going to speculate on whether it is faster (or "easier") to
achieve a consensus policy than to have a provision included in an RAA
revision.  I know the last RAA revision took a long time. I believe it
was as a direct result of that process that the council asked this group
to form to try to move things along more efficiently.  

The question of whether to adopt consensus policies on some topics has
gone on far longer than even the process leading up to the most recent
RAA revision. 

Steve  

-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:56 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Holly Raiche; <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA Sub Team B and RAPWG report

It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other .. 

Some of the perceived issues that some people feel need to be in the RAA
(at some point) are being dealt with already, but until such time as
people see some actual "results" I guess they'll still have to be on the
agenda

If you look at he ICANN dashboard, for example, you can see clearly that
ICANN's compliance team has been a LOT more active over the past 12
months than ever before.

So some issues may be dealt with quite quickly via consensus policy
adoption / change

Other things may eventually make it into an RAA

Don't forget - most registrars only signed a new RAA in the last few
months, so you're looking at several years before anything significant
is going to change anyway - unless of course ICANN were to offer us all
HUGE cherries :)

To address Holly and Steve's points specifically

On 21 Feb 2010, at 19:40, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

>  
> 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.  

I don't follow. Registrars are bound by policy. If a policy addresses an
issue then surely that's what you want? 


>  
> 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.  

Again I don't really see what you are getting at.

If registrars are bound by policy and failure to comply with the
policies is a reason for a breach, surely that achieves the same goal?

In many respects you're better off having a policy rather than a
contract for a lot of these things, as it's a hell of a lot easier to
make a change to a policy (or introduce a new one) than it is to redo a
contract.



>  
> 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.  ]

Agreed

> 
> 
> 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. 


I haven't had time to read it yet either .. 

There's also a load of other reports coming out of various areas, plus
the most recent batch of new TLD docs that I haven't even begun to wade
through!

> 
> 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.


Regards

Michele


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845