Re: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation
Per Greg’s email, please find the updated presentation attached. With best regards, Marika On 02/03/10 23:23, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear Mike: As I said in my note of yesterday afternoon, the scope question is a key issue that the Council asked the RAPWG to examine as per its charter, and it received much discussion in the WG. Mention of the scope issue was missing from the first draft of the presentation I saw. That seemed like an omission to me, and I made the suggestion to quote the Issues Report, which addressed the topic and was not in my words. Laying out the issues for the Council and the community is part of a WG’s job, and I find your accusation of partisanship baseless. I understand that you do not like what the Issues Report says, but that is not a good reason to suppress mention of it. Despite that reservation, I am asking Marika to remove that slide. The slide entitled “Initial Report – Registration Abuse vs. Domain Name Use Abuse” had a first bullet that read: “Understanding and differentiating between registration abuse and use abuse is essential in the ICANN policy context. “ To that I am simply adding “See Issues Report and WG’s Initial Report.” Sincerely, --Greg ________________________________ From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:31 PM To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] For your review - Nairobi presentation Dear Greg, Can you explain how a domain name could possibly be used (or abused) if it is not registered? I do not think that is possible, and thus ‘domain name registrations’ are what are used and abused, not ‘domain names’. In other words, there is no such thing as “use of a domain name (unrelated to its registration).” I didn’t see any contrary explanation in the Issues Report, nor from anyone in this WG. So I really don’t understand what you and the Issues Report intend to mean, by the language you quote here. Your effort to short circuit the ‘months of discussion’ by inserting your particular summarized view, is unacceptable to many of us in the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> ________________________________ From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:32 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: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:32 AM 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 <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: “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 Attachment:
ICANN_Nairobi_RAP Information Session - Updated 2 March 2010.ppt
|