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

[Faisal Shah <fshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We strongly agree with eliminating the sentences referenced in Marika¹s
email as well as modifying the slide presentation as follows:

Slide 4:  Please eliminate the last two bullets. The descriptive information
below the definition is background and is available for the Councilors to
read in the Initial Report.  Attaching it to this slide gives the impression
that it is part and parcel of the definition.
 
Slide 9:  The phrase ³but no consensus on way forward² should be eliminated,
and the following words should be inserted: ³the working group was divided
with some supporting the recommendations and others opposing them.²

Also, the proposed approach for the organization of the slides, by type of
or lack of consensus, is confusing in the context of Cybersquatting.  The
recommendation of a PDP for RPM¹s has been relegated to the end of the
presentation, which is disjointed.  It is best to organize the presentation
by subject matter not level of consensus.

On 3/1/10 8:15 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> In light of the recent exchange of emails in relation to chapter 7 of the
> Issues Report 'Is this issue in scope of GNSO Policy Making', please note that
> the sentence 'Consideration of new policies related to the use of a domain
> name unrelated to its registration would not be within scope' on page 42
> specifically relates to section 4.2.3 of the Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement.
> 
> There may be other provisions in registry/registrar agreements that would
> allow for addressing the mis-use of domains. Margie provided a presentation on
> GNSO scope and consensus policies to the Working Group some time ago (see
> presentation attached) and she's happy, once the WG resumes its meetings, to
> refresh everyone's mind in relation to this presentation and narrow in on
> those other provisions that might allow for addressing the mis-use of domain
> name registrations.
> 
> In view of this, the group might want to consider removing the sentence 'These
> are largely out of scope for policy-making' from slide 5 and taking out the
> last bullet on slide 7 'Doubts about whether ICANN has the power to force
> contracted parties to suspend domain names for malicious uses'.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Greg Aaron <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:18:41 -0800
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
> <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
> 
> Or, using wordings in the Issues Report, it could say, ³Staff and the General
> Counsel¹s office stated in Issues report: ?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.¹²
>  
> All best,
> --Greg
>  
> 
> 
> From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:44 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: ³ICANN General Counsel states: ³Policies
> 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.²
>  
> 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: ³Doubts about whether ICANN has the power to force contracted
> parties to suspend domain names for malicious uses.²  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 ³Some contracting
> parties have doubts?²
>  
> 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 
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>