The note below is from the Board's discussion on the topic: ---------- Steve Crocker noted that this action was triggered by bad behavior by one or more registries and he sent a note around expanding on this. He considered that if the Board is making an emergency ruling, we ought to include the rest of it, telling registrars that if they know that the information's leaking out by some registries, then they're obliged not to deal with those registries. ---------- My opinion is that before we request an issues report, and possibly start yet another PDP in the midst of our reform, that we as a group should fully understand what it is we're requesting a report on and why. The advice you suggest from the SSAC is a good idea. But I think it also is important for us to understand why the *cart hold* activity is happening. So we should request any other information that has already been collected and not made available such as the note Steve refers to above on registry activity that may be at the root of the problem. We shouldn't be expected to appropriately analyze this issue if there is existing information on it that we do not have access to. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running" From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Sat, April 05, 2008 2:46 am To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Hi, I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. References: - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html
- Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm
Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action."
My first questions: - Do we want/need to request an issues report? - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf> spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues surrounding the practice could be investigated further. thanks a.