RE: [gnso-rap-dt] today's meeting summary; schedule

[berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

RAP Team,

My apologies for not completing last Monday's call.  I have taken on  
RN and Driving Ms. Daisy duties that conflicted and ultimately forced  
my drop of the RAP session.  I did catch up on the MP3.
Please refer to my comments below from Greg's Meeting Summary.....

Thank you and hear you all tomorrow!

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.infinityportals.com
866.921.8891


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx]  
On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:48
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] today's meeting summary; schedule

Dear RAPWG members:



Thank for today?s call.  We will continue to meet each Monday from  
14:00 to 15:30 UTC until we are done.


Action items from today?s meeting:



1.	Marika: This material from the CBUC?s public comment should be  
added to the ?Scope and Definition? section of the Summary and  
Analysis of Public Comments: ?The CBUC stated that ?A domain name  
cannot be used unless it is registered; therefore any abuse of a  
registered name is registration abuse.? ?
[BAC] - Thank you Greg for requesting this addition.  I also tend to  
agree with James' comments that this will not be solved here within  
this WG.  This is mostly the reason I structured the CBUC comment to  
flush this out as a stand-alone recommendation to the GNSO to get it  
addressed.
2.	Today the RAPWG discussed how the registration versus use issue  
needs to be called out more prominently in the paper.  This is the  
policy question that there is most disagreement about, specifically  
whether domain use falls under Consensus Policy. The group will work  
on text to bring attention to this issue for the GNSO Council.
[BAC] - I tend to agree with James' comments that this will not be  
solved here within this WG.  This is mostly the reason I structured  
the CBUC Position Statement about this issue to flush it out as a  
stand-alone recommendation to the GNSO to get it addressed.  GNSO can  
climb the chain of command from there.
3.	Cybersquatting: the report should make clear that Recommendation 1  
recommends review of two areas: a) the UDRP policy itself, and b) the  
implementation of the UDRP.  The latter includes issues such as  
consistency of decisions (for example with gripe sites and  
reverse-hijacking accusations), the ?case law? or body precedent that  
has accumulated over the years (and for example whether the ?use?  
requirement in the Policy is being set aside), reviewing the past and  
future performance of dispute resolution providers, and whether  
providers should be put under contract to ICANN.  The RAPWG will  
review the individual public comments and we?ll work on additional text.
[BAC] - I do agree that the migration of consistency for UDRP Gripe  
site conclusions be attached to the Cybersquatting/UDRP  
recommendation.  It sounds as though we can acquire a high degree of  
consensus on this specific topic alone without treading near free  
speech.
4.	Slamming: Martin and Berry will work on some text.  ?Slamming? (t)  
is inducing someone to register a domain name by using deceptive  
practices.  It is separate from but related to fake renewal notices ?  
both may involve deceptive practices, and might be coming mainly from  
resellers.  Are education and awareness the best course of action?
[BAC] - Done, and ready for review, edits, comments......see my  
previous email.

Next week we will finish discussion of the Summary and Analysis of  
Public Comments, and then we?ll start working through the individual  
public comments in the order in which they were received.


All best,

--Greg



**********************************

Greg Aaron