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

[Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg ­ I do not understand why the definition slide continues to have
background material? It does not reflect the group¹s vote. - Fred

On 3/1/10 11:32 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.²  The issue is
> addressing uses of domain names that are unrelated to any registration issues.
> Those are different things.
>  
> The Issues Report said:  ³In determining whether the issue is within the scope
> of the ICANN policy process and the scope of the GNSO, staff and the General
> Counsel¹s office have considered the following factors:  7.1 Whether the issue
> is within the scope of ICANN¹s 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.²
>  
> 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 RAPWG¹s Charter said: ²the 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.²
>  
> Slide 8 (old slide 7) now says: ³Doubts 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.² 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 doesn¹t seem to be a good solution to me personally.  It¹s
> 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, 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 <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> '; 'gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> <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
>