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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,
 
Apologies, but something has come up and I will have to miss the call.  
 
As for the questions below, I agree with Marika's answers to 2 and 3.
My only disagreement with 1 is that I don't want to give the WG so much
discretion that work comes to a halt while research is being done.
 
K
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
        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