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 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 Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:47 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htm