RE: [council] Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from Counsel

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, tired today, re-sending to clarify that this is a request for
clarification from ICANN Counsel, not the GNSO Council.  Thanks.

 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:36 AM
To: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: [council] Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for
clarification from Council

 

Hi,

 

I refer to Sec. 7.1 of the Report, which ends with these sentences:

 

The use of domain names may be taken into account when establishing or
changing registration policies. Thus, potential changes to existing
contractual provisions related to abuse in the registration of names would
be within scope of GNSO policy making. Consideration of new policies related
to the use of a domain name unrelated to its registration would not be
within scope.

 

Could ICANN Counsel please clarify this language?  Specifically, what could
be "use of a domain name unrelated to its registration"?  If this means "any
use of a domain name after it is registered", then how is that opinion
consistent with prior enactment of the UDRP, and Counsel's opinion in the
Issues Report re Fast Flux Hosting (Mar. 31, 2008, p. 14):

 

General Counsel's opinion is that some aspects relating to the subject of
fast flux hosting are within scope of the ICANN policy process and within
the scope of the GNSO. As fast flux 

hosting activities concern gTLDs, the issue is within the scope of the GNSO
to address.

 

This clarification and/or further analysis might be very helpful for the
Council in considering the latest Issues Report in the coming weeks, before
our next meeting.

 

Thanks,

Mike R.