[gnso-rap-dt] Proposed Changes to Final Report

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team,

 

Here are my suggested modifications to the final report.  I reference line
numbers from the last PDF document dated Jan 27th.  Marika or Greg, if you
require clarification on my suggestions, please call me.

 

1.        Major Format Changes:

a.       (Lines 1582) - Update Section title "ICANN Agreement Landscape" to
section 8.2.1

b.      (Lines 1606) - Elevate Section title "Dispersion Research" to
section 8.2.2

c.       (Lines 1943 - 2047) - Migrate Annex III to Uniformity of Contracts
Background Section and paste content to LINE 1607.   This migration of
content will align better with all other sections of the paper.  All
sections within Annex III will require section # updates..  8.2.3, 8.2.4,
etc..

d.      (Lines 1607) - Suggest Summary Table be removed, as it only acted as
a pointer to the same information in Annex III.  Now that Annex III is
migrated to the Background Section, this become repetitive.

e.      One of the screen shots pasted in the final document did not get
copied over from the UoC report. It is the high-level spreadsheet screenshot
that shows the dispersion matrix and the associated text next to each cell.
Please refer to page 14 of the attached UoC report for comparison.  

2.       Other Content Changes:

a.       (Lines 100 - 106) - suggest update to the following language on 4th
bullet of Section 3.2 Process:

                                                               i.
Several sub-teams were formed throughout this process to explore more
complicated abuse types and other Registration Abuse topics identified in
the charter.   Such sub-teams focused on: Cybersquatting, Name Spinning,
Malware/Botnet, Phishing/Malware,  and Uniformity of Contracts.  Findings
and recommendations that resulted from these efforts can be found in the
chapters below.

b.      (Line 1627) - I recommend we remove all reference to "APB".  Start
by changing the Section Title from "Abuse Provision Baseline (APB)" to
"8.2.x Registration Abuse Baselines"

                                                               i.
Suggest we strike language of Abuse Provision Baseline (APB).   I suggest
this removal, as there seems to be agreement that any of our recommendations
from the Pre-PDP are not to directly influence any potential PDP that may be
formed as a result.  We can discuss the notion of a minimum baseline, but
present text suggests that the APB is the solution.

c.       (Line 1609) - 8.4 Conclusions & Guiding Principles should be
downgraded to section 8.2.X after Annex III is imported in to the background
section

d.      (Line 1615) - 8.4.1 Dispersion & Consistency should be downgraded to
section 8.2.X after Annex III is imported in to the background section

e.      (Line 1627) - 8.4.2 Abuse Provision Baseline (APB) should be
downgraded to section 8.2.X after Annex III is imported in to the background
section

f.        (Lines 1641 - 1643) - "A One Size Fits All.." Should be modified
to read:

                                                               i.      A
"One size fits all" kind of provision that can anticipate future or unknown
abuses was the sub-team's desire, but equally recognize the existence of
varying business models prevent this notion.

g.       (Line 1655 - 1695) - Suggest creating a new sub-section titled
something like "Dissent Observations" or whatever.   The present form is
confusing does not seem to "gel" with the currently assigned sub-section.
I am open to other suggestions on making "proponent vs. opponent" positions
more clear and less confusing to the reader.  I would also propose that we
make better distinction between what occurred in UoC vs. the larger RAPWG.
For example, section "8.4 Conclusions & Guiding Principles" is a UoC thing,
not the RAPWG.

                                                               i.
Having reviewed other parts of the paper, I extend my recommendation that
specific sections be created for all components of the paper.  These
agreement and dissent positions do not make the paper flow well.  The
background section illustrates facts and background on the topic...and then
immediately cuts in to dissent opinions without formal callout.  This seems
very confusing to more difficult for the reader to comprehend.

h.      (Lines 2048 - 2011) - Suggest Removing Appendix 5 of APB example in
line with line item 2b above.  This was an attempt at creating an example of
what an APB might look like.  However, it was determined within the WG that
no solutions should accompany a recommendation of a PDP, as it could affect
any PDP outcome.  Additionally, this example of provisions targets "Use
Abuse" vs "Registration Abuse" and therefore should be removed as to
eliminate confusion.

 

 

 

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891

Attachment: RAPWG-UofC_Recommendation_Draft_11202009.docx
Description: Microsoft Office