[council] Draft motions on Registration Abuse Policy

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In response to an action item from the last meeting, I have submitted  
3 possible motions in response to the Issues Report on Registration  
Abuse.  Some of the details still need to be filled out, but I wanted  
to get these to the council as soon as possible.  They are on the wiki.
They are conceived of as a sequence:

1 We set up a team to create a WG charter to deal with the open issues  
as recommended in the Issues Report
2. we vote on a PDP as required by the bylaws

3. if we do not approve the PDP at this time, we resolve to vote again  
on the PDP once the work has been completed by the WG.
thanks

a.


-------

Motions on Registration Abuse Policy (to be completed)

1.  WG motion

Made By: Avri Doria
Seconded:

Whereas:

The Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies  
indicated that further review, evaluation and study be done before a  
PDP is initiated,
Resolved:

That a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a  
working group to investigate the open issues documented in the issues  
report on Registrations Abuse Policy. Specifically:
       9.1 Review and Evaluate Findings
       A first step would be for the GNSO Council to review and  
evaluate the findings,
       taking into account that this report provides an overview of  
registration abuse
       provisions, but does not analyse how these provisions are  
implemented in practice
       and whether they are deemed effective in addressing  
registration abuse.
       9.2 Identify specific policy issues
       Following the review and evaluation of the findings, the GNSO  
Council would need to determine whether there are specific policy  
issues regarding registration abuse. As part of this determination it  
would be helpful to define the specific type(s) of abuse of concern,  
especially distinguishing between registration abuse and other types  
of abuse if relevant.
       9.3 Need for further research
       As part of the previous two steps, ICANN Staff would recommend  
that the GNSO Council determines where further research may be needed  
– e.g. is lack of uniformity a substantial problem, how effective are  
current registration abuse provisions in addressing abuse in practice,  
is an initial review or analysis of the UDRP required?

The WG charter should be ready for review by the council on or before  
15 January 2009 and will be voted on at the council meeting of 29  
January 2009.
2.  PDP motion

Made By: Avri Doria
Seconded:

Whereas: An Issues Report on GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse  
Policies has been produced and the by-laws (insert section #) require  
a vote on the formation of a Policy Development Process,
Resolved:

That a PDP on Registration Abuse Policy be initiated.

3. Contingent Motion

Made By: Avri Doria
Seconded:

Whereas: The motion to initiate a PDP at this time failed and a  
Working group has been formed to further investigate the issue  
presented in the Issues report
Resolved: The GNSO Council will reconsider initiating a PDP on  
Registration Abuse Policy once the Working has produced its report and  
it has been subject to constituency and public review.
Motions on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

Whereas:

An Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery has been  
produced and introduced to the GNSO Council.
Resolve:

The GNSO Council members will consult with their constituencies in  
preparation for a vote on a PDP and other possible motions at the  
Council meeting on 8 January.