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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Faisal:

We need very clear text for all three recommendations and their alternate
views (if any).  I looked again in the doc you sent on Saturday
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00706.html ), and need
confirmation of the wording, and therefore how to represent them and their
alternate views in polling.  There are questions about Recommendation #2.  


RECOMMENDATION #1:

"The RAPWG recommends that gripe sites that use trademarks in the domain
name should be addressed in the context of cybersquatting and the UDRP for
purposes of establishing consistent registration abuse policies in this
area."

Is the above correct?


RECOMENDATION #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."

Question: What is the WG recommending to the Council -- the creation of an
Issues Report?  The GNSO Council Chair asked us to be clear about what we
are recommending.

Your new language talks about "deceptive domain names to mislead children to
objectionable sites."  Are all deceptive domain names offensive, or only
some?  Is objectionable the same as offensive?

The new recommendation language seems to combine two categories -- deceptive
and offensive names -- into one category.  But they are separate in the
Report:
The report defines: "Pornographic/Offensive Sites: Web sites that contain
adult or pornographic content and uses a brand holder's trademark in the
domain name."  
And the report defines: "Registration of deceptive domain names:
Registration of domain names that direct unsuspecting consumers to obscenity
or direct minors to harmful content."  

The group did not discuss whether Pornographic/Offensive Site domains should
also be dealt with in the context of UDRP, because they contain trademarks.
So members might have at least two alternatives -- deal with these names via
UDRP (something like as per Recommendation #1 above), or just disagree with
Recommendation #3.  Group previously had a rough consensus that "creating
special procedures for special classes of domains, such as offensive domain
names, may present problems." 


RECOMMENDATION #3: "Registries should consider developing internal best
practice policies that would restrict the registration of offensive strings
in order to mitigate the potential harm to consumers and children."

Is the above correct?

* * * * 


I am concerned that Recommendation #2 has not received enough work or
discussion by the group, and that the recommendation wording does not seem
consistent with the report.
 

All best,
--Greg







-----Original Message-----
From: Faisal Shah [mailto:Faisal.Shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 5:15 PM
To: Greg Aaron; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft

Greg,

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:

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:

"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."

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 WIPO's 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 Greg Aaron
Sent: Thu 5/20/2010 7:38 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft
 
Dear WG:

 

Please confirm. I think this is the latest version and should be included in
the report:"The RAPWG recommends the GNSO monitor for Cross-TLD Registration
Scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate research with the community to
determine the nature and extent of the problem. The WG believes this issue
warrants review but notes there is not enough data at this time to warrant
an Issues Report or PDP."  I think I pulled the wrong version from my notes
last night.  Thanks to Marika for bringing this up.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:59 AM
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.