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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Berry:

The RAPWG got input from General Counsel via the Issues Report, and then the
RAPWG takes its report to the Council, and that’s the end of the line for
the WG’s involvement.  It is then up to Council what to do next.

All best,

--Greg







  _____

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:55 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation



All,



Yes, this is mentioned in the Issues report and referenced again in our RAP
Final report (pasted below).  Forgive my inexperience here, but is it enough
that ICANN General Council be the only entity to weigh in, decide, and
subsequently influence finality about this topic?  As I mentioned in a prior
email, I think it would be important for us to take this issue to the GNSO
Council, and in my personal opinion, the ICANN board to reach final
conclusions.





Are uses of domain names subject to GNSO policy‐making? In the Issues
Report that led to the

RAPWG, ICANN’s General Counsel wrote: “Is the issue in scope of GNSO
Policy Making? Section

4.2.3 of the RAA between ICANN and accredited registrars provides for the
establishment of new

and revised consensus policies concerning the registration of domain names,
including abuse in

the registration of names, but 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. The use of domain names may be taken into account when
establishing or changing

registration policies. Thus, potential changes to existing contractual
provisions related to abuse

in the registration of names would be within scope of GNSO policy making.
Consideration of new

policies related to the use of a domain name unrelated to its registration
would not be within

scope.” 3,4 [Emphasis added].



I tried a quick search to find this statement on ICANN without any success.
Does ICANN staff have a link to the offical document or email where this
discussed by ICANN General Council?  Again forgive my inexperience here, but
is there other PDPs where this topic is addressed and concluded?  I see this
issue transcending several current and many future PDP WGs & AGs and I feel
it would benefit the community if somehow this is addressed properly and at
the right level.



Thank you.





Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891



From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 13:30
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 <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 <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