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 -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 To: GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org> 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 LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com> CC: "'GNSO Council'" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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 credentials Practices 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 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. 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@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu