RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working Group

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Marika:

 

Because registration abuse is currently undefined and no specific examples
of it have been raised for discussion yet, I do not know if there can be an
expectation of when the WG can or should finish its work.  It is my
understanding that 90 days is a milestone to at least report back to the
Council.  If the WG ends up craeting a finalized work product in 90 days,
that's great, but for now we simply don't know what will be possible.

 

Given the unspecific nature of the charter, I imagine that some research
will be necessary so that the group can understand the issues involved and
make informed recommendations.  As you say, the WG will need to determine
the scope and size of the research that needs to be undertaken.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

  

 

 

  _____  

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:46 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse
Policies Working Group

 

In order to provide the Council with some further background information, it
might be helpful to share the draft programme for the registration abuse
policies workshop and the SSAC request (see attached). As we have not
finalised the programme, I have taken out the names of speakers as these are
not confirmed yet. 

With regard to Chuck's questions (see below for those of you not on the
Council mailing list), I have made a first attempt at answering his
questions from which the group can maybe work to provide him with feedback:

1.      Is the additional research supposed to be done before the WG
finishes its work? This will be for the WG to determine as it depends of the
scope and size of the research that needs to be undertaken. The WG might
decide to 'pause' until the necessary information has been gathered to make
an informed recommendation to the Council. 
2.      Is the WG supposed to finish its work in 90 days after Mexico City
or simply report on progress then? Ideally the WG would have finished its
work by then, but if not, it is the expectation that the WG would present
its progress together with the expected end date of its work. 
3.      Is the WG supposed to attempt to make a recommendation to the
Council on whether to initiate a PDP or not? More specifically, the WG is
expected to make a recommendation about which registration abuse policy
issues, if any, are appropriate for a PDP.


Please share your suggestions / edits with the list. If it is not possible
to finalise the answers on the list, we can discuss them in further detail
on our call next week.

Thanks,

Marika


------ Forwarded Message
From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:24:15 -0800
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working
Group 

Thanks to Kristina and all of the drafting team members for their work on
this.  I have three questions that don't seem to be answered in the Charter:
1) Is the additional research supposed to be done before the WG finishes its
work?  2) Is the WG supposed to finish its work in 90 days after Mexico City
or simply report on progress then?  3) Is the WG supposed to attempt to make
a recommendation to the Council on whether to initiate a PDP or not?

Chuck


 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette,  Kristina
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:17 PM
To:  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Proposed Motion -  Registration Abuse Policies Working
Group 

 
 

All, 
 

Set forth below is a proposed motion to create a  Registration Abuse
Policies Working Group.  (The attached file also  contains the motion text.)
The motion is the output of the drafting  group.  Do I have a second?


K 
 

-*- 
 

Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called
for the creation of a  drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a
working group to investigate  the open issues documented in the issues
report on  Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy".


Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have  discussed and
reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report.   


Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the  objective of the
Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms,  provide the
appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any,  to be
addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed  decision
as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse.


Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council  charter a
Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined  in the
Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps  outlined
below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision  is
taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP.


The GNSO Council RESOLVES: 
To  form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency
representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the
Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in
the  Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the
Charter  and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the
end of the  ICANN meeting in Mexico City. 


CHARTER 
Scope and  definition of registration abuse - the Working  Group should
define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse  arising
solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working  Group
should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse  are
within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics  on
which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry
operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an
illustrative  categorization of known abuses.


Additional research and identifying concrete policy  issues - The issues
report outlines a number of  areas where additional research would be needed
in order to understand what  problems may exist in relation to registration
abuse and their scope, and to  fully appreciate the current practices of
contracted parties, including  research to:

*       'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that  might be
curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse  policies
were established'   
*       'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt  with in those
registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific  [policies] in
place'   
*       'Identify how these registration abuse provisions are  [...]
implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing  registration
abuse'. 



In addition, additional research should be conducted to  include the
practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties,  such as
abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so  on.


The Working Group should determine how this research can  be conducted in a
timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a  Request
for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other
options.  


Based on the additional research and information, the  Working Group should
identify and recommend specific policy issues and  processes for further
consideration by the GNSO Council.


SSAC Participation and Collaboration  
The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative  from the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in  the
Working Group; (ii)  consider in further detail the SSAC's  invitation to
the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse
contacts;  and (iii) make a  recommendation to the Council about this
invitation. 
 

Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on  Registration Abuse Policies -
In order to get  broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of
concerns from  community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to
organize a workshop on  registration abuse policies in conjunction with the
ICANN meeting in Mexico  City. The Working Group should review and take into
account the discussions  and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in
its  deliberations.


<<Draft motion - Registration  Abuse Policies Charter - Updated 10 February
2009.doc>> 



------ End of Forwarded Message