ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-rapimpl-dt] Main points of discussion from yesterday's meeting

  • To: "gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Main points of discussion from yesterday's meeting
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:31:17 -0700

Dear All,

Please find below the main points of discussion from yesterday’s RAP 
Implementation Drafting Team meeting. Feel free to share any items I might have 
missed with the mailing list.

With best regards,


Main points of discussion – RAP Implementation DT:

 *   The DT discussed the different ‘next step’ options and their respective 
differences in order to determine the most appropriate next step for each 
 *   It was agreed to take out ‘advisory group’ as one of the options as even 
though advisory groups are used in an ICANN context, they have not been used as 
part of the GNSO environment
 *   It was clarified that the recommendations of the RAP WG are limited to the 
GNSO, noting that GNSO initiatives are normally open to anyone interested. The 
outcomes of particular recommendations, in due time, could potentially have 
broader applicability or use but that would be for the GNSO and/or Board to 
 *   The DT discussed how much flexibility there is when identifying next 
steps, especially in those instances where next steps are already contained in 
the recommendations. Some suggested that it should be possible to recommend 
certain preparatory steps, such as a pre-PDP WG or drafting team, some 
suggested that additional guidance could be provided in the form of footnotes 
while sticking to the proposed next step in the recommendation. E.g. 
Recommendation 1 recommends requesting an Issues Report on the UDRP. Several 
members of the DT noted that as it concerns a very complex issue it might be 
desirable to socialize it first by inviting public comments and/or organizing 
workshops prior to developing the Issues Report as there are certain 
restrictions on the time available to develop an Issues Report. In addition, 
some pointed out that a similar approach could be explored as was done for the 
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy where issues for clarification / modification 
where identified through public input / discussion, following which these 
issues were categorized and separated into different PDPs in order to 
facilitate progress. It was agreed to discuss this issue in further detail at 
the next meeting of the DT.
 *   The DT discussed what would be the appropriate next step for 
recommendation 2 which relates to the development of non-binding best practices 
and how to ensure that the development of such best practices would have any 
standing. The question was raised whether there would be any benefit of using a 
PDP for this, especially if it would be clear that it concerns non-binding best 
practices (and not policy). Some noted that a PDP might add unnecessary 
restrictions or steps to the process. It was also pointed out that the 
discussion in the RAP WG evolved around the choice of on the one hand launching 
a PDP to develop binding rules, or follow an alternative path to develop best 
practices. It was suggested that this recommendation relates closely to 
recommendation 9. In addition, it was noted that in combination with the 
development of best practices, certain recommendations could be made to promote 
or provide incentives for the adoption of these best practices. There was 
agreement to recommend forming a (non-PDP) Working Group as the next step for 
recommendation 2.
 *   The next meeting will take place on Monday 4 October at 14.00 UTC

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy