Zahid, Great job! Sometimes the best that can be done is to preserve issues for another day, and that is far better than having them killed completely – especially when so much work has gone into them, and they are so important. Of the issues in Resolve #4, we should be most concerned about the Uniformity of Contracts issue, particularly in light of the newTLD program. But it is not worth a fight for high priority at the moment, given all of the other work before the Council. Of course WHOIS access and accuracy are also critical concerns, though certainly not isolated within the RAP report. The RAA Amendments work, and various other initiatives also address WHOIS. Seems we should regroup on the overall WHOIS issues and strategy as a Constituency as those issues have dragged on so long. I suggest that we should set some time for that in our BC meeting in SF. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:12 AM To: bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting Zahid, Thank you for driving this forward. I have not caught the MP3 yet, so I am flying IFR right now. While the overall outcome is positive, I do have a reservation about “Discussion Paper.” What does this mean, and what is the expected outcome? I’m guessing this is not defined in Council by-laws? Because there is no formal platform for Best Practices to be defined and implemented within the GNSO, by what structure will a future BP working group operate? Second, you state below in the positive outcomes, “All recommendations of the RAP WG have been passed by the Council.” Can you clarify, please? Several of those recommendations did not obtain Unanimous Consensus. The RAP WG and RAP IDT determined the Council should vote individually how the recommendation should proceed (essentially and up/down vote). Will the recommendations on the GNSO Project List be voted on as it works its way up on priority? Or will the Council vote the recommendation up or down in the near term and only those approved will be added to the list? And my last question to anyone is who owns and drives the implementation of GNSO Projects List? Thank you again Zahid! Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:03 AM To: bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting Dear Members, Report on the GNSO Council RAP WG Resolutions Today the GNSO Council passed the resolutions below wrt the RAP WG/RAP-IDT Reports. The Council Chair had suggested that each Resolved should be voted on separately In discussions Steve Del Bianco had with Jeff Neuman (Registry) support was obtained for my amendments to the Council motion and some additional language on best practices. Separately I reaching out to the NCSG’s Mary Wong (NCSG) proved helpful and we were able to agree on language that led to support of the NCSG Councillors. The quid pro quo for the NCSG voting in favour of all BC amendments was that BC would not vote down any of the resolved(s). In the Council meeting, the process was met with enormous opposition by the Registrars and in particular my observation was that Stephane, in his role as Chair, favoured an interpretation of the operating procedures to the effect that the proposed Resolutions would be simply taken off the table since one of the proposers Tim Ruiz (Registrar) had decided to withdraw his support as a seconder – this was despite advice from the ICANN General Counsel stating that the resolution could be sponsored by other councillors. Alternatively, the Chair was favouring a delay and deferral of the vote since the allotted time was running out – filibuster. I must mention that the support of Jeff Neuman, Mary Wong and in Staff Margie and Marika to what effectively was my Resolution on behalf of the BC was invaluable. Eventually, the Registrars accepted, with a few amendments, the Resolutions and all Resolutions were passed unanimously. Disappointment: A disappointing compromise by all on the call with the Registrars of calling the Issues Report in Resolved 3 ‘discussion papers’. Positive Outcomes: All recommendations of the RAP WG have been passed by the Council. The list of RAP Recommendations added as the 4th Resolved, which several members on the last call had suggested should be included have been specifically mentioned and we should now work on strategy for implementation. There was much common ground amongst the Registry, NCSG, CSG for passing the Resolutions on the Council viz-avis the attempt to block the resolutions by the Registrars. All parts of the motion passed unanimously. The motion as passed is below: Motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report. Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),%E2%80%...> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), and Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf), and Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena. RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner. RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider: * How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process. * Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed. RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: * Practices for identifying stolen credentials * Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing) * Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements by registrars who adopt them, and for use by TLD operators who adopt them. * Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusers * Practices for suspending domain names * Account access security management * Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries * Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates. RESOLVED #4 (As proposed by Zahid Jamil): Resolved, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to add the remaining RAP Recommendations to the GNSO Project List so that the GNSO Council can keep track of the remaining recommendations and address these as appropriate. These remaining RAP Recommendations are: · WHOIS Access – Recommendation #1: The GNSO should determine what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion. The GNSO Council should consider how such might be related to other WHOIS efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS policy and implementation required by ICANN’s new Affirmation of Commitments. · Uniformity of Contracts: View A: The RAPWG recommends the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. View B: Opposed to the recommendation for an Issues Report as expressed in view A · Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #1: Rough Consensus: Make no recommendation. The majority of RAPWG members expressed that gripe site and offensive domain names that use trademarks should be addressed in the context of cybersquatting and the UDRP for purposes of establishing consistent registration abuse policies in this area, and that creating special procedures for special classes of domains, such as offensive domain names, may present problems. Alternate view: The URDP should be revisited to determine what substantive policy changes, if any, would be necessary to address any inconsistencies relating to decisions on “gripe” names and to provide for fast track substantive and procedural mechanisms in the event of the registration of deceptive domain names that mislead adults or children to objectionable sites. · Cybersquatting – Recommendation #2: View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. · Fake Renewal Notices – Recommendation #2 – conditional on #1: The following recommendation is conditional. The WG would like to learn the ICANN Compliance Department’s opinions regarding Recommendation #1 above, and the WG will further discuss Recommendation 2 looking forward to the WG’s Final Report. The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate fake renewal notices. · Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices. · Cross-TLD Registration Scam: The RAPWG recommends the GNSO monitor for Cross-TLD registration scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate research with the community to determine the nature and extent of the problem. The WG believes this issue warrants review but notes there is not enough data at this time to warrant an Issues Report or PDP. · Meta Issue - Uniformity of Reporting: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes. · Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #2: View A: Turn down a proposed recommendation that registries develop best practices to restrict the registration of offensive strings. View B: Registries should consider developing internal best practice policies that would restrict the registration of offensive strings in order to mitigate the potential harm to consumers and children. · Domain Kiting / Tasting: It is unclear to what extent domain kiting happens, and the RAPWG does not recommend policy development at this time. The RAPWG suggests that the Council monitor the issue (in conjunction with ongoing reviews of domain-tasting), and consider next steps if conditions warrant. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.