RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] call for agenda items

["Joi White" <jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks very much to all for the hard work on the draft letter, charts,
revisions and comments. I have a comment and suggestion to add to the
discussion:

 

(1) No reference to Annex I in the cover letter:

      For comprehensiveness, we should probably reference/explain Annex
I, somewhere. We could simply reference it in the first sentence of the
cover letter.

 

(2) Formatting and addressing Chuck's comments:

     Just a thought... are we locked into the chart format? It's a great
working tool, nice and clean and easy to read, but maybe not the best
final deliverable? If we convert the data to text, perhaps we could
combine all three charts so no cross-referencing is required. It would
also strip out the duplication across some of the charts. If you're
viewing this sample below in plain text, it's going to look quite
hideous- I can put into a Word doc, if anyone is interested in exploring
this further.

 

RAP-IDT Proposed Approach based on resource requirements and priority
ranking

 

A. "Low Hanging Fruit"

 

    WHOIS Access.  

    RAPWG Level of Consensus:                             Unanimous

    The GNSO should request that the ICANN Compliance Department publish
more data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis. This
data should include a) the number of registrars that show a pattern of
unreasonable restriction of access to their port 43 WHOIS servers, and
b) the results of an annual compliance audit of compliance with all
contractual WHOIS access obligations. (RAPWG Recommendation #2.)

     

 

 

RAPIDT Rank:                                               3

Implementation Size, Complexity, Scope:       Small

Dependencies:                                              None

Nature of effort/approach:                                Implementation

Next Steps:                                                   Send
letter to ICANN Compliance Department.

 

Notes from Drafting Team: 

Form charter  drafting team to develop a charter for a WG to determine
what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that
WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and
consistent fashion...

 

...(etc.)

 

B. Sequence of Remaining RAPWG Recommendations

 

    Malicious Use of Domain Names...

 

While the chart format is much cleaner, I think there is a risk that
flipping back and forth between three annexes results in some loss of
the "big picture". Happy to help with re-formatting, since I know I'm
suggesting more work here... but only if others are interested in this
approach.

 

Best,

 

-Joi

 

Joi A. White             | jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Carr & Ferrell LLP     | http://www.carrferrell.com/

650-812-3461 voice   | 120 Constitution Drive

650-812-3444 fax     | Menlo Park, California 94025 USA 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 6:55 AM
To: Rosaya, Lisa W.; Greg Aaron; Mike O'Connor;
gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] call for agenda items

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached the latest version that Greg was referring to in
his

email (it was only sent to the chairs). It aims to address the comments

made by Chuck and others. With regards to Chuck's comment that it might
be

helpful to include an abbreviation in the recommendation column so
Council

members do not have to go back between Annex I and II/III, this might

prove challenging as it is difficult to capture the detail of each

recommendation in abbreviated form. Another approach could be to add a

priority sequence column to Annex I so it is clear to see how the

recommendations are rated. What do the members of the DT think? Also,

there is two comments from Chuck relating to the recommendation on Meta

Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices and the WHOIS
Access

Recommendation #1 that might require further discussion by the DT.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

On 05/11/10 14:49, "Rosaya, Lisa W." <Lisa.Rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

 

> 

>Dear Greg,

> 

>I don't appear to have received the version Marika sent around today.

>Could you please send that to me?

> 

>Thanks, 

> 

>Lisa 

> 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx

>[mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron

>Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:23 AM

>To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx

>Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] call for agenda items

> 

> 

>Yes.  The version that Marika sent around today is the latest and

>greatest

>version, so we should review that one on Monday.

>Have a good weekend,

>--Greg

> 

> 

> 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]

>Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:54 AM

>To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx

>Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] call for agenda items

> 

> 

>hi all,

> 

>our focus on Monday will be to take a detailed look at the report draft

>and

>(hopefully) wrap up our work.

> 

>anything else we need to cover?

> 

>mikey

> 

> 

>- - - - - - - - -

>phone     651-647-6109

>fax          866-280-2356

>web     http://www.haven2.com

>handle    OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google,

>etc.)

> 

> 

>Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal
Revenue

>Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any

>attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the

>purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States

>Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to

>another person any tax-related matter.

> 

>This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it

>has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the

>error and then immediately delete this message.  Please visit

>www.bakermckenzie.com/disclaimers  for other important information

>concerning this message.

> 

> 

 

________________________________