Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Further clarification regarding scope
I will defer to Greg (DaChair) Aaron on this, but speaking personally I think it would be great to hear from Margie on this topic at our next meeting... m On Apr 30, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All,As further clarification of section 1.5, pages 4-5 of the executive summary of the GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies was requested in the last meeting, it might be worth pointing out that this section refers to chapter 7 ‘Is this issue in scope of GNSO Policy Making’. The first part of this chapter outlines that registration abuse policies are in principle within ICANN’s mission (see http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#I), although it does highlight that as no specific issue has been identified it is unclear at this stage ‘whether more uniformity might be necessary to facilitate the technical reliability, and/or operational stability of the Internet’. The report goes on to recommend that ‘if in its next steps, the Council identifies specific policy issues or questions related to registration abuse that warrant further examination or policy development activity, the following questions related to scope should be reconsidered in the context of the specific issue(s) presented’.The reference to section 4.2.3. of the RAA was included to highlight that if/when a specific policy issue(s) is/have been identified related to registration abuse, ‘the establishment of new and revised consensus policies concerning the registration of domain names, including abuse in the registration of names’ could be considered. In addition, it might be worth pointing out that section 4.1.2 of the RAA provides that registrars have to comply with new or revised policies if the topic is within the picket fence OR if the agreement "expressly provides for compliance" such as in subsections 3.3.4, 3.3.8, 3.7.5, 3.7.8, and 3.7.9. Similar provisions can be found in registry agreements, e.g. relating to temporary security stability specs and central Whois. However, if the issue is deemed outside of the list of topics on which ICANN may impose new obligations via Consensus Policies and does not fall under any of these other provisions, it does not mean that other avenues such as recommendations for best practices cannot be explored, as long as the issue is within scope of ICANN’s mission and GNSO policy-making.As questions relating scope, picket fence and policy development options come up on a regular basis and not only in this WG, Margie has offered to provide an overview of these issues at the next RAP WG meeting or a separate meeting for those interested. Please let me know if you are interested.With best regards, Marika
|