RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James, I don't control the pen here, and my role as liason does not require 
neutrality of opinion since I do not control the pen.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:05 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Greg Aaron'; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation

Mike:

One might expect the same from our Council Liaison.

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 25, 2010 3:56 pm
To: "'Greg Aaron'" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

    I’m not sure you can attribute any particular statements to the
GC, but if you think so then at least that is some clarification.  Of
course, he is not the final arbiter of these issues, his opinion is just
one input… yet I am pretty sure he does not have the opinion you are
attributing to him.  In any event, as the Chair you ought to make more
of an effort to remain neutral and stop pushing your particular view
into every writing that comes out of this WG.
  
  Mike Rodenbaugh
 RODENBAUGH LAW
 tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
 http://rodenbaugh.com
 
 
   From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:30 PM
 To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
 

 
 Dear Mike:
  
 When did the General Counsel say that?  In the Issues Report.  
  
 All best,
 --Greg
  
  
    
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:09 PM
 To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
 
 
 Clarification is needed.  When did the General Counsel say that?  What
did he say about the contractual language in every Registry Agreement
(except com/net) that empowers registries to take action against any
form of abuse?  Yes the UDRP is one obvious example of a specific
policy, but there can and most likely will be others.  Doubts do not
exist for many of us, so that statement also needs clarification.  
  
 Poor assumption that every Councilor will read a 100+ page report.
  
  Mike Rodenbaugh
 RODENBAUGH LAW
 tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
 http://rodenbaugh.com
 
 
   From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:44 PM
 To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
 

 
 Dear Mike:
  
 Slide 5 reflected what the ICANN General Counsel said.  If
clarification is needed, the slide could say: “ICANN General Counsel
states: “Policies involving the use of a domain name (unrelated to its
registration) are outside the scope of policies that ICANN could enforce
on registries and/or registrars.”
  
 Your argument seems to be that UDRP is a precedent or example of how
ICANN has power to regulate any or all domain name use.  Is that
correct? 
  
 Regarding your other point: I think you are referring to slide 6, which
says at the bottom: “Doubts about whether ICANN has the power to force
contracted parties to suspend domain names for malicious uses.”  A
statement of fact – doubts exist, as per the initial report and the
discussions over the months.  My assumption is that the Council members
will read the report, which contains the richer background,
attributions, etc.
  
 All best,
 --Greg
  
  
  
  
  
    
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:29 PM
 To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
 
 
 I have strong disagreement with the last sentence in 3d bullet of slide
5 – ignores contract language and UDRP, should be deleted:  
 •       Use issues concern what a registrant does with the domain
after it has been created, or the services the registrant operates on
the domain. These are largely out of scope for policy-making.
  
 Similar disagreement with last bullet of slide 7, should say “Some
contracting parties have doubts…”
  
 Otherwise looks good, thanks.
  
  Mike Rodenbaugh
 RODENBAUGH LAW
 tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
 http://rodenbaugh.com
 
 
   From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
 Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 2:22 AM
 To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
 

 
 Dear All,
 
 Please find attached for your review the proposed presentation for the
Registration Abuse Policies Information Session at the ICANN meeting in
Nairobi.
 
 The meeting will take place on Wednesday 10 March from 16.00 – 17.30
local time (13.00 – 14.30 UTC) in room Tsavo A. For further details,
see http://nbo.icann.org/node/8878. 
 
 Please provide your comments / edits to the mailing list by Tuesday 2
March at the latest.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Marika