[gnso-rap-dt] RAPWG / Monday 28 September -- action items

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for a good meeting yesterday, team!

 

Most of the discussion centered around uniformity of contracts. Kudos again
to Barry and the sub-team.  Here are some points for immediate and
longer-term follow-up. 

 

Long-term follow-up: As we discussed, Berry's matrix was designed to
establish whether or not there is uniformity in contracts, and so far
nothing beyond that.  It is not meant to be exhaustive, and it is a draft
that will receive further tweaks.  When it is published in the initial
report, we will need to include a description of methodology, and state
explicitly what the matrix means and does not mean.  For example it should
be stated clearly that it's an evaluation done using publicly available
online agreements, and that the matrix may be missing items that might be
incorporated by reference, were placed in other registrar-registrant
agreements or terms of service, were simply not located in the time
available, etc.  James also noted that at some point, registrars may need to
validate their info.

 

Short-term action item: So, we see that there is no uniformity.  The next
question is: what does it mean?  The group's next task is to understand if
registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better
addressed if there was more uniformity.

 

Short-term action: 

Uniformity sub-group to put the below on wiki and flesh it out with text.
All RAPWG members are also invited to add material and additional questions.
Conclusions will be drafts to be run past the entire WG.

 

<quote>

Questions to the Larger Group

* What are the advantages and disadvantages of uniformity?

  -to Registrars 

  -to Abusers / Bad Actors / Criminals

  -to Registries

  -to Registrants

* Will it or can it apply across all jurisdictions?

* What market conditions could or will occur with uniformity changes?

* What are the side-effects or possible unintended consequences to
uniformity?

* If uniformity is the desired state how will the changes be monitored &
enforced?

* What are impacts to liability and changes to indemnification to uphold
ICANN abuse provisions?

 

U of C Sub-team Draft Conclusions

* Increased consistency across contracts creates a level playing field
amongst registrars

* If policies are consistent, then responsibility to enforce consistently
falls upon ICANN

* Lowest common denominator (minimum requirement) approach with abuse
provisions is best and allows entities to not be constrained by exceeding
the minimum

* A better understanding of cost projections for implementation are required
before formal recommendation"

</quote>

 

 

All best,

--Greg Aaron