Thanks Marika. With regard to the first option below, perhaps before preparing a formal request of the RrSG to provide information, we should ask whether the RrSG has, or could reasonably collect, the information at all. My initial read is that they likely don't, as SG members are very unlikely to be substantively tracking fake renewal notices, except perhaps as they relate to the rate at which customers call to ask quesitons about such a practice. Even then, those questions may or may not relate to a name that was actually moved due to a fake notice. Regardless, I'm happy to pose the question to registrars -- I'm sure it would better inform us of what data, if any, is actually available. Given the workload of the council, surely it would be wise to deal in facts and not guesses. I am in favor of continuing the discussion currently under way with the ccNSO for the same reason. Thanks -- Mason ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Marika Konings Sent: Tue 11/22/2011 3:03 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting Dear All, As requested in follow up to item 7 on the GNSO Council's agenda of last week related to cross-Tld registration scam and domain kiting, these are the different options I suggested during the GNSO Council meeting that the Council may want to consider in further detail: * Adding these issues to the mandate of the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team which is tasked to prepare a request for information for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain further information on the issue of Fake Renewal Notices in order to help inform the GNSO Council on the appropriate next steps, if any. As there are certain similarities, especially between the cross-tld registration scam and fake renewal notices, it might be possible for this DT to also try and obtain further information on that specific issue to help inform the Council's deliberations. * Continue discussions on the topic of cross-TLD registration scam with the ccNSO to discuss whether there are any steps that could be taken or considered jointly. The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council had some initial discussions on this topic at its meeting in Dakar and as this is an issue that also affects ccTLDs there might be common approaches to be explored. As noted, such approaches might involve improved communication / education in relation to this issue as it is not clear at this stage that this issue could be addressed through policy development. * Do nothing - as there is no set mechanism for data gathering or monitoring of abuses at the moment or any evidence that these practices are in non-compliance with ICANN policies or agreements, the GNSO Council could decide to not undertake any further action at this stage. Note, at any point in time, should further information or data become available, any Council member or SO/AC could raise this issue again for further consideration. The GNSO Council may want to consider one or more of the options outlined above, or maybe there are also other avenues to be considered. Council members are invited to comment on the options suggested and/or provide any other options for consideration. With best regards, Marika Background The RAPWG recommended that the GNSO monitor for Cross-TLD registration scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate research with thecommunity to determine the nature and extent of the problem. The WG believed this issue warranted review but noted there is not enough data at this time to warrant an Issue Report or PDP. In relation to domain kiting, the RAPWG noted that it is unclear to what extent domain kiting happens, and the RAPWG does not recommend policy development at this time. The RAPWGsuggests that the Council monitor the issue (in conjunction with ongoing reviews of domain-tasting), and consider next steps if conditions warrant. The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October that the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the SSAC the findings of the RAP WG in this regard andrequest that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. This communication was sent to the SSAC, but the SSAC has declined taking on this work noting that 'we are, of course, ready to perform rigorous analysis if more data regarding these or other alleged abuses is available'. The topic of cross-TLD registration scam was also discussed in the meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse also affects ccTLDs.