ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 - Motion #5 RAP

  • To: "'Berry Cobb'" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 - Motion #5 RAP
  • From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:15:07 -0500

I think we were all somewhat asleep this morning, Berry, because I couldn't
find the motions on the GNSO website to save my soul.  Thanks to Zahid and
Marilyn for sending the link along.  Perhaps including a link to the motions
could be added to the next "BC call" agenda?  


Thank you for adding some further perspective from a member of the working
group to the topic Mike brought up.  While I am not up to speed on the topic
itself to comment on it, I, too, find it troubling at best that the Council
would selectively build motions, if I understood you correctly.  The whole
reason for the GNSO revamp was to put the determination of issues in the
hands of WGs and therefore, the work product resulting from each Working
Group must be respected in toto or be sent back to the WG to polish and
resubmit to the Council for another look.  In my view, "selective process"
policy establishment is an improper response to any Working Group's efforts,
so this should be investigated further immediately.


Perhaps the Chair and ExCom can work with our councilors take a lead here?
Your thoughts Marilyn?


Kind regards,




Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.




From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Berry Cobb
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 - Motion #5 RAP


I guess I was a sleep at the wheel this morning for the call.  I had not
seen the GNSO motions prior to our call, and after hearing the discussion
this AM, I knew something seemed suspicious.  The early morning fog
prevented me from responding.  Thanks to Mike for posting this to the list.


As this motion #5 on RAP stands, I support a vote of "NO".  At the very
least, this motion does not consider all the recommendations of the RAP and
it does not make any reference to all the other RAP recommendations.  Why
would the remainder of the RAP recommendations be omitted?  I am not
familiar with how the Council reviews, submits motions, and votes on WG
recommendations, but I find this current motion creating a gap and perhaps
jeopardizing the WG process.  Being a member of the RAP-IDT, helping to
create a priority list, I guess I never expected a motion resulting in a
"hunt & peck" exercise.  Lastly, I do not want to speculate on the
motivation of the Contracted Parties, who are the ones that submitted and
seconded this motion, but I do think Mike touches on a fair question of why
the current motion bypasses higher ranked RAP recommendations, like the Best
Practices effort on Malicious Use (which received unanimous consensus by the
RAP WG).  Swiss cheese with lots of holes is my is my gut feel.


WRT to the Fast Flux motion & recommendations, I cannot comment as I did not
participate and this was before my time at ICANN.  However, one result of
that WG also contains a "best practices" recommendation.  While I do not
want to delay the FF efforts, I believe there to be more momentum for the
RAP Best Practices Recommendation to act as the pilot for Best Practices
Efforts within the ICANN\GNSO span of control.  


WRT to the UDRP recommendation from RAP...I agree with Mike that this will
be fight, although that was not prevalent when the WG developed Unanimous
Consensus on this recommendation.  The UDRP recommendation priority created
a lot of friction within the RAP-IDT.  And if I recall correctly from our BC
session this morning, a few of our members support delaying this PDP on
UDRP.  I will remind that the BC did submit a position on the RAP Interim
Report supporting this recommendation, although no formal position was
established on the RAP Final Report.  Personally, I see fractures of the
UDRP on both sides (brand holders vs domain investors).  It is time to
review, update, and improve the UDRP.  I support its current prioritization
as defined by the RAP IDT.  In same breath, if this will put us at odds with
the IPC, I can also support saving this battle for another day.


To add clarification to Mike's comments about the RAP Uniformity of
Contracts recommendation...  The conundrum about this recommendation is that
it only received "strong support but significant opposition" during the
Pre-PDP WG efforts.  However, within the RAP-IDT efforts to prioritize all
the recommendations, it received a third or fourth place priority over
"unanimous consensus" RAP recommendations.  The RAP-IDT deliberated this
issue some, and the conclusion is that the GNSO council should address this
by first voting the UofC recommendation up or down first and then figure out
if and how to move forward.


Bottom line, I recommend the BC & our Councilors support the priority
assignment recommendations from the RAP IDT team and any motion presented to
the GNSO Council about RAP efforts should be all encompassing.  Vote each
RAP recommendation Up or Down, then assign the "UP" recommendations to the
Prioritization Queue for WGs, and build a sense of urgency to get things
moving along.


Thanks, B


Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC





From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:31 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13


Thanks Marilyn for forwarding, I guess I've been deleted from the Council
list. so will ask to be added again.


I have some concern about the resolutions re Fast Flux and especially re
Registration Abuse Policies.  I think folding the FF recos into the RAP
recos is ok in concept, but we can see that the contract parties are trying
to bury that portion of the work re 'best practices'.  It was identified as
the top priority after the two 'low hanging fruit' items identified by the
RAP-Implementation Drafting Team.  Yet, the motion addresses only those two
items and the UDRP review, which was identified as 3d priority.


I know the IPC will vehemently fight against UDRP review now.  My strong
view is it is not time for that fight yet either, it will be a big fight.
and that the non-controversial yet difficult Best Practices work should be
done first as recommended by the Implementation Team, and indeed that work
might help to inform the UDRP review effort.  


Also Item IV of the RAP-IDT recos, Uniformity of Contracts, is a key issue
for all non-contracting party stakeholders.  By mass in RAP-IDT, the
contracting parties got a low priority, but from our perspective it should
be a bigger priority that UDRP review.  At minimum, there should be a plan
to start that work, as well as the Best Practices work, before any agreement
on UDRP review is made.


Curious how other members, particularly those that have been active in the
RAP group, thing about these motions pending before Council.


Mike Rodenbaugh


tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Marilyn Cade
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:47 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13





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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy