RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft

[berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

RAPWG,

My mistake.  I meant the ISP, not the IPC.

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 Marika Konings
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:52 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 feel 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