Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working Group
All, Set forth below is a proposed motion to create a Registration Abuse Policies Working Group. (The attached file also contains the motion text.) The motion is the output of the drafting group. Do I have a second? K -*- Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy". Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report. Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse. Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. CHARTER Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses. Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to: * 'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established' 'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place' 'Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'. In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on. The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options. Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. SSAC Participation and Collaboration The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation. Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations. <<Draft motion - Registration Abuse Policies Charter - Updated 10 February 2009.doc>>
I second the motion. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:17 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working Group All, Set forth below is a proposed motion to create a Registration Abuse Policies Working Group. (The attached file also contains the motion text.) The motion is the output of the drafting group. Do I have a second? K -*- Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy". Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report. Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse. Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. CHARTER Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses. Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to: * 'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established' * 'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place' * 'Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'. In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on. The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options. Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. SSAC Participation and Collaboration The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation. Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations. <<Draft motion - Registration Abuse Policies Charter - Updated 10 February 2009.doc>>
Thanks to Kristina and all of the drafting team members for their work on this. I have three questions that don't seem to be answered in the Charter: 1) Is the additional research supposed to be done before the WG finishes its work? 2) Is the WG supposed to finish its work in 90 days after Mexico City or simply report on progress then? 3) Is the WG supposed to attempt to make a recommendation to the Council on whether to initiate a PDP or not? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:17 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working Group All, Set forth below is a proposed motion to create a Registration Abuse Policies Working Group. (The attached file also contains the motion text.) The motion is the output of the drafting group. Do I have a second? K -*- Whereas GNSO Council Resolution (20081218-3) dated December 18, 2008 called for the creation of a drafting team "to create a proposed charter for a working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues report on Registrations[sic] Abuse Policy". Whereas a drafting team has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the open issues documented in the issues report. Whereas it is the view of the drafting Team that the objective of the Working Group should be to gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed, in order to enable the GNSO Council to make an informed decision as to whether to launch PDP on registration abuse. Whereas the drafting team recommends that the GNSO Council charter a Working Group to (i) further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and (ii) take the steps outlined below. The Working Group should complete its work before a decision is taken by the GNSO Council on whether to launch a PDP. The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To form a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, to further define and research the issues outlined in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report; and take the steps outlined in the Charter. The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. CHARTER Scope and definition of registration abuse - the Working Group should define domain name registration abuse, as distinct from abuse arising solely from use of a domain name while it is registered. The Working Group should also identify which aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited registrars. This task should include an illustrative categorization of known abuses. Additional research and identifying concrete policy issues - The issues report outlines a number of areas where additional research would be needed in order to understand what problems may exist in relation to registration abuse and their scope, and to fully appreciate the current practices of contracted parties, including research to: * 'Understand if registration abuses are occurring that might be curtailed or better addressed if consistent registration abuse policies were established' * 'Determine if and how [registration] abuse is dealt with in those registries [and registrars] that do not have any specific [policies] in place' * 'Identify how these registration abuse provisions are [...] implemented in practice or deemed effective in addressing registration abuse'. In addition, additional research should be conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, and so on. The Working Group should determine how this research can be conducted in a timely and efficient manner -- by the Working Group itself via a Request for Information (RFI), by obtaining expert advice, and/or by exploring other options. Based on the additional research and information, the Working Group should identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. SSAC Participation and Collaboration The Working Group should (i) consider inviting a representative from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to participate in the Working Group; (ii) consider in further detail the SSAC's invitation to the GNSO Council to participate in a collaborative effort on abuse contacts; and (iii) make a recommendation to the Council about this invitation. Workshop at ICANN meeting in Mexico City on Registration Abuse Policies - In order to get broad input on and understanding of the specific nature of concerns from community stakeholders, the drafting team proposes to organize a workshop on registration abuse policies in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The Working Group should review and take into account the discussions and recommendations, if any, from this workshop in its deliberations. <<Draft motion - Registration Abuse Policies Charter - Updated 10 February 2009.doc>>
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosette, Kristina