RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Fred.  You are right, I never used the word 'pure' in this context,
and don't know what it means in this context.

More significantly, am I really the only person in the WG that expressed
this belief?  Nobody else?  The UDRP mentions use of the domain name about a
dozen times, and has been Consensus Policy (or de facto equivalent) for 10
years.  All of the registry agreements, except com/net, specifically allow
contract parties to take any action they like with respect to misuse of any
sort.  The Consensus Policy clauses in all registry agreements specifically
allows consensus policy to be developed for "resolution of disputes
regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain registration
of particular domain names."  Many such disputes arise out of the
registrant's abusive registration of those names.  Moreover, development of
Consensus Policy with respect to registry operations is allowed, so long as
not specifically excluded in the 'picket fence', and this is not
specifically excluded.

Anyway... I guess all of this will just go into Constituency comments at
this point, and we will revisit this discussion once all the comments are
in.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Frederick Felman
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:00 AM
To: Frederick Felman; Marika Konings; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Mike Rodenbaugh
Cc: Faisal Shah
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version


One final note with respect to 6.7.3

Mike R - Did you mean: 

"Alternate view: One member (Rodenbaugh) expressed a belief that PURE uses
of domain names are an area in which ICANN can impose mandatory practices
upon contracted parties"  

or did you mean: "Alternate view: One member (Rodenbaugh) expressed a belief
that uses of domain names are an area in which ICANN can impose mandatory
practices upon contracted parties."

I suspect the latter.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Frederick Felman
Sent: Thu 2/11/2010 7:50 AM
To: Marika Konings; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Faisal Shah
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version
 

A few important comments in advance of finalizing this report:

First in Section 8.3

This statement:  

"8.3    Recommendations ? There was strong support for but significant
opposition for the following recommendation. The two opposing views are
below, and the RAPWG will further consider these views after receiving
public comment:"  

Is confusing and editorial as opposed to factual.  Please replace
"significant opposition" with the number of opposing votes. or remove the
clause 

Second Section 6.7.3

I agree with Mike Rodenbaugh's alternate view and would like to be included
as supporting his assertion.

Last, throughout:

Faisal and I are cited as members of the IPC, which is true that MarkMonitor
are members of the IPC, however we are non-voting because we are not an
intellectual property organization like INTA or others and are participation
in this group is as individuals not as IPC members.  Our work is not blessed
or approved by the IPC.  Please cite us as such or cite our company as our
affiliation.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Marika Konings
Sent: Thu 2/11/2010 1:42 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version
 
Dear All,

Please find attached the final clean version of the RAPWG Initial Report. If
you have any corrections or edits, these must be posted to the list today,
Thursday 11 February, by 15:00 UTC. The document will be posted tomorrow,
Friday 12 February. To accompany the posting, Greg and I have prepared the
attached announcement. Please let me know if you have any comments / edits.

In addition, I have discussed with Greg whether it would be good idea to
open the public comment period at the same time as the publication of the
report so that it would run for 45 days, instead of 30 days as earlier
discussed. In this way, the publication and announcement can direct
interested parties to the public comment forum and it would also allow us to
direct Nairobi participants there instead of having to wait until after the
meeting. Please let me know if you have any objections to this proposal. Of
course, the public announcement would be updated accordingly.

With best regards,

Marika