FW: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
Forwarded on behalf of Faisal. ------ Forwarded Message From: Faisal Shah <Faisal.Shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 10:12:06 -0700 To: "Marika.Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft I sent this out yesterday twice but not sure if everyone got it Greg, I apologize for providing these edits past your hard deadline but I couldn¹t 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 Phil¹s 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: The first is recommendation 1 which (I think) may now have unanimous consensus. The second recommendation relates to deceptive names. I think my proposed edit was something along these lines: ³The 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.³ The third recommendation would be as set forth in the prior recommendation 2 which would now be recommendation 3. Finally, I added in some edits relating to WIPO¹s comments to the Initial Report. I would also keep the Recommendations in Section 2.9 since it is front and center. Faisal -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Marika Konings Sent: Sun 5/23/2010 10:52 AM To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: FW: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft 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 "Clean" 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 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. 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 WIPO's 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 "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. 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 ------ End of Forwarded Message Attachment:
RAPWG Draft Final - 17 May 2010 edit19MayGCA.doc |