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

[Rod Rasmussen <rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

The recommendation in 6.7.3 can be made whether or not you share the belief 
that that uses of domain names are an area in which ICANN can impose mandatory 
practices upon contracted parties.  I also believe as you do that ICANN has 
that ability as you've pointed out in your examples.  By agreeing with the 
recommendation in 6.7.3, I do not abdicate that belief.  The recommendation 
itself doesn't speak to that - it is what it is - a recommendation that ICANN 
put in place a serious program around creating and disseminating practices for 
dealing with illicit use of domain names.  That certainly doesn't preclude 
policy creation for particular use cases.  With a good program that has buy-in 
from all stakeholders, which is what I hope that this recommendation gets us 
to, we'll be able to see where policy may need to be used as a tool to address 
specific problematic issues that remain.  Further, external (non-ICANN) 
pressures/incentives/penalties can be brought to bear on those market 
participants that don't make efforts to follow such practices.  Right now we 
don't have those practices codified, disseminated, or measured in any 
meaningful way, which makes it hard for the many good actors to stand out, or 
the bad (sloppy/indifferent/etc.) actors to have the light shone on them 
effectively.  That's why I support this proposal in it's current form - it 
actually can get us past the stalemate we've had in this area for years and 
move us forward to a place where a) things will work a lot better than they do 
today, and b) we have stark contrasts and issues identified where appropriate 
measures, including potential policy changes, could be implemented as needed 
with clarity and probably far less contention.

Anyway, some thoughts on this from someone who shares your perspective but is 
still supporting the recommendation as is.

Rod

Rod Rasmussen
President and CTO
Internet Identity

On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>