<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
- To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, RAP-WG <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
- From: frederick felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 10:24:50 -0700
I wonder if there is something wrong with the list or if there are problems
with both Berry and Faisal¹s machine. He¹s had difficulty getting his
comments (attached) sent to the list as well.
On 5/23/10 9:52 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Forwarded on behalf of Berry Cobb who is having problems with his email
> client.
> __
>
> RAPWG,
>
>
> Attached are my comments and suggested changes to the Draft Final Report.
> Near the conclusion of our RAPWG call on Monday, I left with the impression
> that we had until Sunday afternoon 5/23 to submit our proposed changes. I
> would also like to state that there are large quantities of edits to the
> report. I understand we are on a tight deadline, but given our polling and
> data input after Tuesday, I call for one more round of review before we go to
> print with this final report. Upon Marika importing the polling and consensus
> results, I recommend that this final round of review start with a ³Clean² copy
> as well.
>
>
> On the topic of polling and in response to Chuck Gomes statements WRT to NCUC
> being allowed to participate in the polling process in the late stages of the
> WG, would it be best that we also find a representative from the IPC to
> participate? I fell it will ensure broad representation from all
> constituencies.
>
>
> Most of the my suggested changes are minor with the exception of adding two
> small paragraphs to section 4.2. I felt it was important to include a bit of
> content that represents the counter view by some WG members WRT to the debate
> of Registration & Use. I attempted to model a statement similar to the
> section where we define abuse that describe the WGs agreement that this debate
> will not be solved by the WG. I welcome comments and suggestions for
> improvement.
>
>
> I also have a few additional comments not included in the Final Draft:
> 1) Executive summary. After reading it closely, I am of the belief that we
> should replace it with a simplified version. I feel that a single-sentence
> summary of the recommendation and the polled result should only be applied.
> It is imperative that we force the reader to the details within the sections
> for a full understanding of the recommendation, the polling result, and the
> reasoning for how the WG came to its conclusions. If we provide the detail we
> have set for now, the lazier reviewers of this report will miss critical
> information and or become confused.
>
>
> For example:
> Cybersquatting (see section 5.1):
> Recommendation #1 / PDP Unanimous
> Recommendation #2 / 2 Views Even Division
>
>
> Front Running (see section 5.2):
> Recommendation #1 / No PDP Unanimous
>
>
> Etc?..
>
>
> 2) There is a significant departure of the Cross-TLD Registration Scam in this
> latest version from Greg A from what was submitted before insertion in to the
> Final Draft. Why weren¹t these kinds of changes proposed in our meeting or
> on the list prior to inclusion in to the final report? Are these types of
> editorial change in the final stage without justification as to why? I could
> not find any comments as to the proposed changes from the last draft submitted
> to the WG after we agreed on the title of this abuse. Please advise.
>
>
> I look forward to our final meeting on Monday. See you then and please advise
> if you have any questions. Thank you.
>
>
> Also, please let me know if this copy gets corrupted. I fear i have some bug
> issues with Office 2007 on Windoze 7
>
>
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.infinityportals.com
> 866.921.8891
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Greg Aaron
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:59 PM
> To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
>
>
> Dear WG:
>
>
> This revised draft (attached) features:
> ? the revision of the cybersquatting definition
> ? the addition of the gripe site and reverse hijacking material to
> the cybersquatting background section
> ? the tweaked Fake Renewal Notice recommendation as per Berry
> ? the Cross-TLD Registration Scam section.
> ? 9.11: Conclusions, Recommendations, & Next Steps section. I
> have drafted as no other drafts were posted.
> ? Removed references to the Interim Report, fixed typos, added
> notes about WIPO¹s comments, etc., all red-lined for your reference.
>
>
> Please let us know as soon as possible if anything is incorrect. The hard
> deadline for edits to the paper is this Friday, May 21st, at 20:00 UTC.
>
>
> Marika: Section 11 is the ³Conclusions, Recommendations, & Next Steps²
> section. Should the WG¹s Recommendations go here, or should they remain in
> section 2.9? (It does not make sense to list them in both places.) In
> Section 11 should we include the Recommendations in order of level of support
> received? All thoughts appreciated.
>
>
> Marika: last page needs a link to the attendance sheet.
>
>
> Thanks. I am going to bed now.
>
>
> All best,
> --Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************
> Greg Aaron
> Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
> Afilias
> vox: +1.215.706.5700
> fax: 1.215.706.5701
> gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> **********************************
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
> and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
- From: "Faisal Shah" <Faisal.Shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 10:12:06 -0700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I sent this out yesterday twice but not sure if everyone got
it</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Greg,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I apologize for providing these edits past your hard deadline
but I couldn’t get to the document before today. In connection with
the RDNH provision, I don't think we have all agreed on the language which was
inserted. Personally, I am generally agreeable to Phil’s edits however I
did delete the final paragraph. In connection with Gripe sites et al sec. I
think there are now three potentially separate recommendations:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The first is recommendation 1 which (I think) may now have
unanimous consensus.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The second recommendation relates to deceptive names. I think
my proposed edit was something along these lines:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>“The RAPWG recommends further review and investigation as
to whether the registration of deceptive domain names to mislead children to
objectionable sites is a significant abuse problem and the most effective means
to prevent registration of, or promptly cancel, such deceptive domain
names.“</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The third recommendation would be as set forth in the prior
recommendation 2 which would now be recommendation 3.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Finally, I added in some edits relating to WIPO’s
comments to the Initial Report. I would also keep the Recommendations in
Section 2.9 since it is front and center. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Faisal</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Marika
Konings</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Sun 5/23/2010 10:52 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: FW: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report
draft</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Forwarded on behalf of Berry Cobb who is having problems with
his email client.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>__</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>RAPWG,</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Attached are my comments and suggested changes to the Draft
Final Report. Near the conclusion of our RAPWG call on Monday, I
left with the impression that we had until Sunday afternoon 5/23 to submit our
proposed changes. I would also like to state that there are large
quantities of edits to the report. I understand we are on a tight
deadline, but given our polling and data input after Tuesday, I call for one
more round of review before we go to print with this final report. Upon
Marika importing the polling and consensus results, I recommend that this final
round of review start with a "Clean" copy as well.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On the topic of polling and in response to Chuck Gomes
statements WRT to NCUC being allowed to participate in the polling process in
the late stages of the WG, would it be best that we also find a representative
from the IPC to participate? I fell it will ensure broad representation
from all constituencies.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Most of the my suggested changes are minor with the exception
of adding two small paragraphs to section 4.2. I felt it was important to
include a bit of content that represents the counter view by some WG members
WRT to the debate of Registration & Use. I attempted to model a
statement similar to the section where we define abuse that describe the WGs
agreement that this debate will not be solved by the WG. I welcome
comments and suggestions for improvement.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I also have a few additional comments not included in the Final
Draft:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>1) Executive summary. After reading it closely, I am of
the belief that we should replace it with a simplified version. I feel
that a single-sentence summary of the recommendation and the polled result
should only be applied. It is imperative that we force the reader to the
details within the sections for a full understanding of the recommendation, the
polling result, and the reasoning for how the WG came to its conclusions.
If we provide the detail we have set for now, the lazier reviewers of this
report will miss critical information and or become confused.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>For example:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cybersquatting (see section 5.1):</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Recommendation #1 / PDP - Unanimous</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Recommendation #2 / 2 Views - Even Division</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Front Running (see section 5.2):</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Recommendation #1 / No PDP - Unanimous</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Etc...</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2) There is a significant departure of the Cross-TLD
Registration Scam in this latest version from Greg A from what was submitted
before insertion in to the Final Draft. Why weren't these
kinds of changes proposed in our meeting or on the list prior to inclusion in
to the final report? Are these types of editorial change in the final
stage without justification as to why? I could not find any comments as
to the proposed changes from the last draft submitted to the WG after we agreed
on the title of this abuse. Please advise.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I look forward to our final meeting on Monday. See you
then and please advise if you have any questions. Thank you.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Also, please let me know if this copy gets corrupted. I
fear i have some bug issues with Office 2007 on Windoze 7</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Berry Cobb</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Infinity Portals LLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A
HREF="http://www.infinityportals.com";>http://www.infinityportals.com</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>866.921.8891</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [<A
HREF="mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx</A>]
On Behalf Of Greg Aaron</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:59 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dear WG:</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This revised draft (attached) features:</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
the revision of the cybersquatting definition</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
the addition of the gripe site and reverse hijacking material to the
cybersquatting background section</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
the tweaked Fake Renewal Notice recommendation as per Berry</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
the Cross-TLD Registration Scam section.</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
9.11: Conclusions, Recommendations, & Next Steps section. I have
drafted as no other drafts were posted.</FONT>
<BR><FONT
SIZE=2>.
Removed references to the Interim Report, fixed typos, added notes about
WIPO's comments, etc., all red-lined for your reference.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Please let us know as soon as possible if anything is
incorrect. The hard deadline for edits to the paper is this Friday, May
21st, at 20:00 UTC.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Marika: Section 11 is the "Conclusions, Recommendations,
& Next Steps" section. Should the WG's Recommendations go here,
or should they remain in section 2.9? (It does not make sense to list
them in both places.) In Section 11 should we include the
Recommendations in order of level of support received? All thoughts
appreciated.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Marika: last page needs a link to the attendance sheet.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks. I am going to bed now.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>All best,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>--Greg</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>**********************************</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Greg Aaron</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Afilias</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>vox: +1.215.706.5700</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>fax: 1.215.706.5701</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>**********************************</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
computer.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>------ End of Forwarded Message</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML> Attachment:
RAPWG Draft Final - 17 May 2010 edit19MayGCA.doc
Description: RAPWG Draft Final - 17 May 2010 edit19MayGCA.doc
--- End Message ---
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|