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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg,

I disagree with that statement.  But I admit I have not had time to
participate well enough on the group's schedule.  

In any event this is an Initial Report, with plenty of opportunity to change
it in the future.  That 'Additional View' will be expanded in future drafts.
The way it is stated now, it makes all but me, Fred and Faisal seem
oblivious to reality, as I've stated wrt the UDRP and the Consensus Policy
and Abuse provisions of ICANN contracts.  And I know that nobody is truly
oblivious to reality, so we still have some work to harmonize our positions
before the Final Report.  But it is sad that this conversation was
essentially the same one we had on the first day of this WG, and for weeks
thereafter, and still there is no real clarity in the report as to these
positions.

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 Greg Aaron
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:14 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Registration abuse list ICANN'
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version
-- the last word
Importance: High


All--

OK, in 6.7.3, we'll list Fred and Faisal with Mike in an additional view. 
To deal with the "pure" issue, we can use a formulation used elsewhere in
the paper.  The view can read:
"Additional view: Three members expressed a belief that uses of domain names
unrelated to registration issues are an area in which ICANN can impose
mandatory practices upon contracted parties." 

Let the record reflect that today's changes by Fred, Faisal, and Mike were
submitted late, long after the 15:00 UTC deadline.  Marika and I will deal
with them in a best-efforts manner, and any related oversights will not
reflect on her or me.

I had hoped to avoid such confusions via the clear processes and deadlines
we had in place.  Anyone who wanted to draft a view or alternate view was
asked to do so weeks ago, and the last opportunity to do so was the first
round of polling on January 21-25.  Views were not to be drafted or
substantially changed during the second and final round of polling (ahem,
Mike).

Processes and deadlines were in place for a reason -- to respect the other
members of the group, and to help produce clarity.  Next time, please do not
wait until literally the last minute.  The members have had months to
express their views and write them down....  

All best,
--Greg


From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:22 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Final Report

Is this referring to Jeff Neuman, not Newman?

Also, I've expressed support for 6.7.3 so that should be changed to reflect
unanimous support, with 3 people taking a further position that the
recommendation should be stronger.

Thanks.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:49 PM
To: 'Registration abuse list ICANN'
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version


Thanks Rod.  I support the recommendation, but would prefer it be stronger
as I've stated.  The BC is likely to take the same position, fwiw.  

I agree with everything you say here! 

Best,
Mike

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Rasmussen [mailto:rod.rasmussen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:05 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Registration abuse list ICANN
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Last Call - RAPWG Initial Report - Final Version

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>