RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: Recommendaitons

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Faisal:

So we have recommendation language for #1 and #3, and #2 is new language.  

We have four challenges at this point:
* The language you suggest for Recommendation #2 is new, and contains ideas
that the group has not had an opportunity to discuss.  (Such as having ICANN
staff do a study, and having Staff recommend best practices.)  
* Regarding Recommendation #2, you say below that these name strings don't
necessarily contain trademarked terms.  So the group would need to examine
whether there are scope issues, whether domains containing trademarks should
be treated differently than non-trademark strings, etc.
* Recommendation #2 seems to necessitate updates to the definitions in the
report body text in 5.3.1.   We don't have revisions for that yet.
* The group has not yet weighed in on recommendations #1 and #3 yet -- they
came in after the consensus polling, and the report is being published on
Friday.

So coming when they do, after the deadlines for changes to the report, I am
concerned that the proposed changes present insuperable logistical problems.
The polling of members contains two recommendations on the topics of gripe
sites and registration of offensive strings, which have received thorough
review by the group; I think the practical thing is to record those.

All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:49 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: Recommendaitons


Forwarded on behalf of Faisal

------ Forwarded Message
From: Faisal Shah <Faisal.Shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:45:08 -0700
To: "Marika.Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Recommendaitons


Marika, can you forward to the group on my behalf?  I am still having
problems with my email. Thanks. Faisal


Greg,

Recommendation 1 relating to gripe sites is fine as set forth in your email.

Recommendation 2 contemplates addressing deceptive domains names that are
registered with the intent to mislead children. This would likely be names
that are not necessarily offensive (since it would be relatively clear what
it was if it contained an offensive term) but perhaps, for example, names
(likely typos) of famous cartoon characters, among other things, that may
then lead children to offensive content. I am not sure as to the degree this
abuse occurs so perhaps it is best to make a recommendation as follows:

It is unclear as to what degree registration of deceptive domain names to
mislead children occurs. Thus the RAPWG recommends that the ICANN compliance
department gather information over a one year period in order to evaluate
the scope of the problem and then suggest, if necessary, best practices for
registries to determine the most effective means to prevent registration of,
or promptly cancel, deceptive domain names that could lead children to
offensive conduct.

The recommendation as to offensive names would be addressed in
Recommendation 3.  Recommendation 3 is fine as set forth in your email.

Faisal

------ End of Forwarded Message



-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:50 PM
To: 'Faisal Shah'; 'gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] revised RAPWG Final Report draft

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