3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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.
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.
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@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<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 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@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
Mary, I believe the Working Group recommended that even though this would not be a “PDP”, it should follow the PDP processes. Stephane – I am reviewing this motion with my stakeholder group and will hopefully be able to respond to your question after that. Unfortunately our SG meeting is not until the day before the meeting, so it may not be until then that I have a definitive answer. Thanks. 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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:15 AM 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<mailto: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<http://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<http://law.unh.edu>
Thanks Tim and Jeff. Please let us know when you can. Stéphane Le 27 janv. 2011 à 15:10, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Mary,
I believe the Working Group recommended that even though this would not be a “PDP”, it should follow the PDP processes.
Stephane – I am reviewing this motion with my stakeholder group and will hopefully be able to respond to your question after that. Unfortunately our SG meeting is not until the day before the meeting, so it may not be until then that I have a definitive answer.
Thanks.
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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:15 AM 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
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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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 <http://law.unh.edu> law.unh.edu
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
On 01/31/2011 01:17 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
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?
I propose we defer this question until we see whether the motion has a third Resolved. --Wendy
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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
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
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@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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 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
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 -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 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
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@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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org> 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@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 <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 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
Still considering it. I think I'd like to hear answers to Mary's questions first. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:56:59 To: Zahid Jamil<zahid@dndrc.com> Cc: 'GNSO Council'<council@gnso.icann.org> 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.
participants (6)
-
Mary Wong -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
tim＠godaddy.com -
Wendy Seltzer -
Zahid Jamil