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>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 - Motion #5 RAP
  • From: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:36:29 +0000


I had to abandon the call half-way through yesterday but after reading the 
GNSO motions and the subsequent exchanges below, I would like to add brief 

My concern is that some recommendations have been discarded completely 
within this motion, which is not acceptable.  There needs to be some 
follow through so that even if the council relegates items to a lower 
priority, that they remain on the 'to do' pile or a clear reason provided 
to ditch any recommendations completely.

In terms of the prioritisation, I would prefer to see the leading effort 
and resource applied to the Best Practices effort against Malicious Use, 
as this achieved unanimous consensus within the RAP WG. 

With regards to the UDRP, I believe this does need to be reviewed for 
improvements now that it has been in place for a number of years untouched 
but I also recall that when the RAP WG began looking at these issues a 
couple of years back, it was anticipated the new gTLDs would have been 
launched well before this type of review could be undertaken, with the 
advantage of seeing how the new landscape impacted on the existing policy 
and processes.  This is obviously not the case and the work would 
potentially clash with the new gTLD launch activities, which needs to be 
taken into account before proceeding with a PDP. I also appreciate the 
concerns about UDRP dilution which is a real threat and wonder if the BC 
can work with the IPC to consider alternative wording for a motion that 
takes this forward in a reasonable timeframe but safeguards/ring-fences 
existing policy elements as a minimum requirement?



Martin C SUTTON 
Group Risk 
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ
Group Security & Fraud Risk
8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom

Phone.     +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074
Mobile.     +44 (0) 7774556680
Email.       martinsutton@xxxxxxxx

"Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Jan 10 2011 19:50

Mail Size: 25520

"'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

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 
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 
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
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


This E-mail is confidential.                      
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you
may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and all copies
from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy