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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Faisal,

As for the organization of the slides, the reason for putting the 
recommendations together based on level of consensus reached is to focus the 
attention of the audience on those areas where no unanimous consensus has been 
reached (yet) and encourage public input and discussion especially on those 
recommendations. By grouping them together on issue, this difference might get 
lost. The objective of the public information session is to encourage public 
comments. Another way of doing it would be to start with the recommendations 
that have no unanimous consensus and end with those that have unanimous 
consensus if people are concerned that the former would not get enough 
attention if they are placed at the end of the presentation.

Best regards,

Marika

On 01/03/10 20:32, "Faisal Shah" <fshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We strongly agree with eliminating the sentences referenced in Marika’s 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 “but no consensus on way forward” should be eliminated, 
and the following words should be inserted: “the working group was divided with 
some supporting the recommendations and others opposing them.”

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 RPM’s 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, “Staff and the General 
Counsel’s 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.’”

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: “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


------ End of Forwarded Message