February 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Compilation of SG/C Comments on the Rec6 CWG
by Margie Milam Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Dear All, Please find attached for your review and consideration a compilation of the Stakeholder Group/Constituency comments received to date with regards to the Rec6 CWG Report. Please let me know if any other comments should be included. Best Regards, Margie __________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN __________

2 1

GNSO Council resolutions 3 February 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Dear Councilors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, please find the motion that was passed during the Council meeting on 3 February 2011. 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) and<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),%E2%80…> 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) 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. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Request for AOB Item
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Discussion of the Leaders List and how it is being used. Tim

2 1

CORRECTION: Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion
by Neuman, Jeff Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

All, It is my understanding that despite the original author of a motion wanting the withdraw, the motion may indeed still be on the table if 2 Councilors support the motion staying on the table. I cannot say whether that will happen, but in the event it does (or if it comes up later), I have to correct the Friendly Amendment proposed by the Registries. It should read: * 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. So the full amendment would read: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with 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. I hope this is still treated as friendly. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:14 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion All, The RySG is proposing a friendly amendment to Zahid's proposed amendment to the RAP Motion. We understand Zahid's motion is not considered friendly by Tim, so there will be a vote on Zahid's proposal. As discussed on an RySG call this morning, the RySG will support Zahid's proposed amendment if his motion is amended by adding the word "possible" in the sentence: * Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators. So the full amendment would read: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with 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, and for use by TLD operators. * 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. The rationale is that the premise of the work is for the creation of non-binding best practices and adding this word is in line with that notion. We hope this will be considered friendly. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 3

RE: [council] CORRECTION: Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

I don't recall that being in our operating procedures, or that we have ever operated that way even informally. In any event, if it should be determined that the motion stands then I make a friendly amendment to it: remove resolve #2 requesting an issues report on the UDRP. I accept that as friendly, and it is my understanding then if the seconder of my motion does not accept it as friendly it will only need another Councilor to second it. Thanks, Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] CORRECTION: Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Wed, February 02, 2011 8:14 pm To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, "'GNSO Council'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, It is my understanding that despite the original author of a motion wanting the withdraw, the motion may indeed still be on the table if 2 Councilors support the motion staying on the table. I cannot say whether that will happen, but in the event it does (or if it comes up later), I have to correct the Friendly Amendment proposed by the Registries. It should read: · 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. So the full amendment would read: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with 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. I hope this is still treated as friendly. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:14 PM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion All, The RySG is proposing a friendly amendment to Zahid’s proposed amendment to the RAP Motion. We understand Zahid’s motion is not considered friendly by Tim, so there will be a vote on Zahid’s proposal. As discussed on an RySG call this morning, the RySG will support Zahid’s proposed amendment if his motion is amended by adding the word “possible” in the sentence: · Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators. So the full amendment would read: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with 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, and for use by TLD operators. • 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. The rationale is that the premise of the work is for the creation of non-binding best practices and adding this word is in line with that notion. We hope this will be considered friendly. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

FW: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#33]
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org From: ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Sent: mercredi 2 février 2011 20:54 To: gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#33] Name of Officer: * Mason Cole Officer Email Address: * mcole(a)oversee.net<mailto:mcole@oversee.net> Date Prepared: * Wednesday, February 2, 2011 GNSO Organization: * Registrars Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * GNSO councilor unable to participate in Feb. 3 call. Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All activity during Feb. 3 meeting. Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, February 4, 2011 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * Tim Ruiz

2 2

FW: Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Forwarded From: David W. Maher Dear Glen: Attached is a statement submitted on behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) in response to the request by the GNSO Council for the comments of stakeholder groups on the Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6, Dated 22 September 2010. This statement is supported by a supermajority of the RySG. We would appreciate your bringing this to the attention of the Council. Thank you David David W. Maher Chair, gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Senior Vice President - Law & Policy Public Interest Registry CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RAP Motion Withdrawn
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Given the confusion over the various thresholds, and that it isn't clear what if any responsibility the Council has regarding BPs, I withdraw my motion. Tim

1 0

RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

I think it's pretty clear. If there is a motion with two resolves that each require different threshholds the Council cannot decide on its own to apply something different. I didn't think the RAP motion was that difficult to deal with even with two resolves with different thresholds. If the motion got at least a simple majority of both houses then both resolves pass, if it got less than a simple majority but at least what is required for an issues report then only the second resolve passes. If it didn't get at least that neither passes. But given the confusion this has caused I will never do it again. So as I already said I am fine with what Jeff suggests and consider it a friendly amendment. Unfortunately, I cannot accept Zahid's proposed amendment as friendly. While registrars are generally in favor of BPs, it is not appropriate to request an issues report on that since it is not a policy issue. In fact, it is not even a Council issue. Registrars would likely accept an amendment where the Council acknowledges that aspect of the recommendations and asks that the Contracted parties take the lead in developing such BPs. That's really about all the Council can do on it. If the Contracted parties fall short in getting it done, then they risk each of the issues recommended for BP's coming back up at Council as possible policy initiatives. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Tue, February 01, 2011 3:43 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, council(a)gnso.icann.org > > I know the text and my read of it is not the same as yours. > > As I think this is a crucial discussion, because I don't think our bylaws are always as clear as they should be, I would welcome other input on this. > > The text says: Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each house. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: > > > And then goes on to define the thresholds. So it talks about thresholds to pass a motion, NOT individual resolve clauses. > > > The solution you propose is one that could work. Another is to apply the lowest threshold to the full motion. Yet another is to split motions that have multiple resolves which taken separately would have different thresholds apply. > > > I would like to see some concrete guidance in the bylaws on what to do in those cases, and I think that's something we may want to look at adding in the bylaws. Over the past few months, as we've found that texts coming out of the 2 GNSO improvements Steering Committees are not always to be easy to apply, we've asked the SCs to look at them again. > > > I would also like the same desire for clarity to apply to our bylaws and op procs. > > > Stéphane > > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 23:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit : > The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves > that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the > threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be > any more complicated than that. > > Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are > comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. > In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder > > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm > > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council" > > > > > > Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole? > > > > I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward? > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > > I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy. > > > > Tim > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 > > To: > > Cc: ; GNSO Council > > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole. > > > > Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider. > > > > Stéphane > > > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > > I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation. > > > > Tim > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 > > To: GNSO Council > > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion. > > > > While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report. > > > > I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting. > > > > However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion? > > > > Stéphane > > > > > > Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > > Dear Mary, > > Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. > > Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations > > > > Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter > > > > Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > > > Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy > > 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 > > 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. > > > > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] > > Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 > > To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder > > Cc: 'GNSO Council' > > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > > > > > Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Mary > > > > > > > > Mary W S Wong > > > > Professor of Law > > > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > > From: > > Stéphane Van Gelder > > To: > > Zahid Jamil > > CC: > > "'GNSO Council'" > > Date: > > 1/27/2011 5:59 AM > > Subject: > > Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > Thanks Zahid. > > > > > > Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly? > > > > > > > > Stéphane > > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3: > > > > RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: > > > > Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.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 > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

3 2

Proposed Friendly Amendment to Zahid's Amendment to RAP motion
by Neuman, Jeff Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

All, The RySG is proposing a friendly amendment to Zahid's proposed amendment to the RAP Motion. We understand Zahid's motion is not considered friendly by Tim, so there will be a vote on Zahid's proposal. As discussed on an RySG call this morning, the RySG will support Zahid's proposed amendment if his motion is amended by adding the word "possible" in the sentence: * Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators. So the full amendment would read: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with 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, and for use by TLD operators. * 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. The rationale is that the premise of the work is for the creation of non-binding best practices and adding this word is in line with that notion. We hope this will be considered friendly. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0