Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To:
>> Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
>> CC:
>> "'GNSO Council'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more 
>> information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit 
>> law.unh.edu
> 
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +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/