On recommendation #2 can we include advice on contacting the registrar of record in the first instance?

This is will get the overwhelming majority of harms cited by IGOs & INGOs dealt with for free and in hours if not minutes. It will also deal with non-infringing domains with significant harms (eg. credit card fraud on for humanitarian campaigns etc.) for which URS & UDRP claims will never succeed. It should therefore not only assuage GAC concerns it should also exceed their advice in several ways.(Free / much faster than both URS & UDRP / works for harms on both infringing & non-infringing domains)

Something like:

ICANN Policy Guidance should advise the IGOs and INGOs in the first instance to contact the registrars of record for any domains involved in the harms they are seeking address. The overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to deal with such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner. In the unlikely event a registrar would not wish to help ICANN has contractual provisions in place to investigate the reasons for such a decision.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Working Group members,

Please find attached an updated document where the proposed draft text for each of the likely recommendations has now been updated following Working Group discussions and George’s suggestions that he sent to this list yesterday. Staff has also updated the consensus level designations based on the Working Group’s most recent deliberations. In line with Petter’s reminder to focus on the task at hand (i.e. coming to agreement on the final consensus levels) and in view of the fact that GNSO PDP Final Reports do not attribute support or non-support to specific Working Group members, we have also deleted the names that appeared in the 11 June version of this document.

Following the Working Group’s meeting this week and assuming that agreement can be reached on final consensus levels for all recommendations, staff will proceed to incorporate the final recommendations text into an updated Final Report, with corresponding updates and edits as appropriate. In this regard, and to George’s question as to the nature of the changes to Recommendation #3 from the Initial Report to the current version, staff notes that the question whether to retain, amend or delete the original text depended on the progress of the Working Group’s discussions on the immunity question (especially whether specific changes might in fact be needed if Option 1 attains consensus).

Thanks and cheers

Mary & Steve

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 13:20
To: "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda for the WG call on 21 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC

Dear WG Members,

Please find the proposed agenda for the WG call on 21 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Welcome / SOIs
Gauging Consensus Level Designations
Next Steps (e.g., minority statements, Final Report)
AOB

For item 2, as noted by Mary, you can expect to see a red-lined document sent separately that captures the changes suggested by George.

Best,

Steve & Mary

Steven Chan 

Policy Director, GNSO Support

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 

steve.chan@icann.org

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp