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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Margie:

 

The piece I quoted from the Issues Report says "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_."
[emphasis added.]  So that's not a statement just about section 4.2.3 of the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  


It is very true that scope issues can be difficult to discuss in the
abstract.  But a reason the RAPWG is a pre-PDP group is to get a handle on
the contours of policy-making in this area, as per charter.   Does ICANN go
through PDPs in order to determine whether something is in policy-making
scope or not?  Or does ICANN do PDPs on issues only once they are determined
to be in scope?    

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:51 PM
To: Greg Aaron; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation

 

Dear Greg,

 

The section you quote from the Issues Report relates specifically to Section
4.2.3.   The Issues Report also addresses other ways in which the RAP work
could be within scope of the GNSO's mandate.   For example, Section 7.1 of
the Issues report,  provides that:

 

"In responding to the questions below, staff notes that this Issues Report
discusses the broad topic of registration abuse, but no specific policy
issue or question has been raised at this time. This Issues Report describes
a variety of provisions that exist in relevant contracts and related
documents. It is unclear from this research whether more uniformity might be
necessary to facilitate the technical reliability, and/or operational
stability of the Internet (see Section 8 - discussion of possible
directions)."

 

This language suggests other ways that the RAP policy work might be in
scope.    If for example, uniformity might be necessary to facilitate the
technical reliability, and/or operational stability of the Internet,  this
policy work could fall under Section 4.2.1 of the RAA, and analogous
sections in the various Registry Agreements.   This was covered in my
presentation during our working group discussions on scope. 

 

The Issues Report clarifies that it is difficult to make definitive
decisions about scope in the abstract, without an understanding of the
specific types of policies that are under consideration.   As a result, we
often find ourselves readdressing the scope issue at different stages of the
PDP process, when there is more clarity on the types of policies that are
likely to be adopted by the GNSO.   

 

I hope this is helpful.   As Marika indicated,  I will be happy to review
the consensus policy issue when the working group reconvenes to provide more
guidance on the issue of scope.

 

All the best,

Margie

 

__________

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

__________ 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Marika Konings; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation

 

Dear Marika et al:

 

Some factual corrections seem necessary:  The Issues Report said something
wider than just regarding the registrar agreement.  And the issue is _not_
"addressing the mis-use of domain name registrations."  The issue is
addressing uses of domain names that are unrelated to any registration
issues.  Those are different things.

 

The Issues Report said:  "In determining whether the issue is within the
scope of the ICANN policy process and the scope of the GNSO, staff and the
General Counsel's office have considered the following factors:  7.1 Whether
the issue is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement . Note, section
4.2.3 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 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."

 

This key concept/issue was the subject of much discussion over the months,
and mention of it was missing from the first draft of the presentation I
saw.  That seemed like a real omission to me as WG chair, and so I added a
line to the deck in an attempt to summarize.  But condensing it has been a
difficulty.  Perhaps we should not try to condense it since it complex.  I
have therefore inserted a new slide (slide 6 of the attached), quoting the
above in full.  

 

The above issue is also key because the RAPWG's Charter said: "the Working
Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse
arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working
Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration
abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of
topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD
registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars."  

 

Slide 8 (old slide 7) now says: "Doubts raised about whether ICANN has the
power to force contracted parties to suspend domain names for malicious uses
that are unrelated to any registration issues."  To me, that is consistent
with both the Issues Report (quoted above), and doubts raised by some (not
all) members of the RAPWG as per the Initial Report.  I am open to
suggestions here, but deleting doesn't seem to be a good solution to me
personally.  It's not good to paper over the existence of a major unresolved
issue or disagreement; WGs are supposed to lay those bare.  

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:15 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation

 

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