RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all:

 

I hunted down the reference – it’s in the transcript of the October 10th 
meeting, pages 3-8:

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-rap-imp-11oct10-en.pdf 

 

Mary’s comment appeared to be more of a resource/workload issue, which the 
RAP-IMP discussed was an issue for the Council to figure out.  Then please read 
the discussion on pages 3-8.

The discussion left off with an action item:

“Joi White: This is Joi. So I think - I mean the only link that I can see 
between the UDRP and Whois is when you are looking at the effectiveness of the 
Whois. I mean that is very dependent on - or I mean the effectiveness of the 
UDRP. It's very dependent on what information you can get through the Whois 
information. Does that make sense?

Mikey O'Connor: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's true.

Joi White: So that's the (only dependence) that I see.

Mikey O'Connor: But I think that you know - I still don't see that. I mean I 
think Greg made a good parenthetical note there where if we make things 
dependent on Whois, we basically stop them.

Joi White: Right.

Mikey O'Connor: Because Whois is a pretty longstanding deadlock within ICANN, 
and I think if we put Whois on the critical path for any effort, it will 
essentially defer the effort forever and I'm really adverse to that idea. I 
think that the UDRP study crew could work around that and still get an awful 
lot of work done.

Joi White: This is Joi. I think that's true. I think that it might be worth 
making a note in our report or our recommendations that these two may have some 
- you know just flagging that as an issue that they may have some 
interdependency.

Mikey O'Connor: Yeah, let me just try that note.”

 

The term “dependency” means “being influenced or determined by or subject to 
another.”  So it can be taken two different ways with different consequences.  
Joi is talking about the former meaning – WHOIS accuracy is a factor or an 
influence when you file a UDRP case.  In general, I think the group has used 
“dependency” with the latter meaning, i.e. a prerequisite or tightly 
interlinked problem that may need to be solved before or in tandem with.  I 
think our discussion of October 10th was consistent  with that, and concluded 
that we do not want to imply that WHOIS accuracy is determinative or a 
prerequisite for examining the UDRP.  

 

Based on the above, I suggest we remove this bit from the document:

“2) There may be a dependency with WHOIS studies.”

and replace it with:

2) WHOIS accuracy is a factor when filing some UDRP cases, but the issue of 
WHOIS accuracy is not a prerequisite or barrier for examining the UDRP.”

 

I invite your feedback.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

 

From: Joi White [mailto:jwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:39 PM
To: Rosaya, Lisa W.; berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Hi All,

 

I would like to flag the issue of the inter-relatedness of the UDRP and Whois 
data in our letter. The current state of the availability and accuracy of Whois 
data is critical to an analysis of the effectiveness of the UDRP, since it 
directly impacts the claims that can be made in a UDRP complaint (e.g. whether 
the registrant has demonstrated a pattern of behavior) and whether the 
registrant can be identified at all.

 

It seems that any road-mapping activity related to the UDRP will necessarily 
have some dependency on Whois accessibility and accuracy, and any ongoing Whois 
reform efforts or studies recommending reform. At minimum, I don’t see any harm 
in identifying this relationship for the GNSO Council.

 

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 

 

From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Rosaya, Lisa W.
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:55 PM
To: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Dear all,

I recall the WhoIs dependency being raised by, I believe, Mary and she had a 
bad connection and was unable to fully expound upon the issue; however, Joi 
then brought up the issue for discussion in a subsequent call. 

It would seem to make sense for this to be a dependency if for no other reason, 
accurate WhoIs information often detrimentally impacts the overall 
effectiveness of the UDRP. 

Best regards,

Lisa 



Lisa W. Rosaya 
Baker & McKenzie LLP 
1114 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, NY 10036 
Tel: +1 212 626 4557 
Fax: +1 212 310 1659 
lisa.rosaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
www.bakermckenzie.com 

Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss 
Verein
 

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 02:46 PM
To: 'Greg Aaron' <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Marika Konings' 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council 
 

Hi all,

 

Greg,

·         +1 on your 1st bullet.

·         +1 on your 2nd bullet.  I checked the old matrix responses and could 
not find mention of a WHOIS dependency to Cybersquatting, nor do I recall how 
it was added.  It must have been during our discussions on the call.  I do not 
agree that this is a dependency and should be removed.

 

One other bit of feedback on the letter…..

 

Because we have 5 recommendations labeled with “Refer to Council,” I suggest we 
be more explicit in advising the GNSO Council what “Refer to Council” really 
means.  I reference the 4th sentence in the Recommended Approach section.  I 
think it will benefit to advise the Council that they should perform the 
following:

1.       review each section of the RAP Final report that corresponds to 
recommendation, where significant consensus was not achieved

2.       request for additional input or research to become better informed of 
the recommendation (optional)

3.       and then vote  the recommendation up or down and bring closure

4.       any others we should include???

 

…and now for a question of probability….

 

Not having experienced how the GNSO Council approves or declines multiple 
recommendations from a pre-PDP, I begin to ponder the possibility of a 
recommendation with “unanimous consensus” from the RAP WG and High 
prioritization by the RAPIMP team NOT being passed by the GNSO Council.  We 
were chartered with prioritizing recommendations that had yet to be approved or 
denied for action; so I am curious if there were underlying assumptions to 
priority assignments where unanimous consensus correlated to Council approval.

 

Many kudos to Marika, Greg & Mikey for this effort.  In fact, I think this 
should be defined as a closing deliverable for all PDP Final reports before 
submission to Council.

 

 

Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 

From: owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:27 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Hello; two items:

 

1.       Under the Malicious Use entry, the notes say “Preference for PDP 
approach even if desired outcome is not policy but best practices.”  The “if” 
is confusing, since it accidentally implies that policy is a possible outcome.  
 I suggest: “Preference to use PDP process; outcome to be best practices.”

 

2.       Cybersquatting: the notes section says “There may be a dependency with 
WHOIS studies.”  I can’t remember what that dependency was.  Can anyone refresh 
my memory?

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:00 PM
To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] For review - updated letter to the GNSO Council

 

Dear All,

 

Following today's meeting, please find attached the latest version of the 
proposed letter to the GNSO Council which incorporates the edits discussed on 
the call.You'll find attached a clean as well as a redline version. Please 
review the letter carefully. You are requested to share any comments, edits, 
suggestions on the mailing list prior to next week's call. The objective of the 
next meeting is to finalize the letter and submit it to the GNSO Council 
immediately following the call to meet the 15 November publication deadline for 
Cartagena.

 

Thanks,

 

Marika


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.