RE: [council] Proposed Motion - Registration Abuse Policies Working Group

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:17 PM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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>>