Re: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, we did have input from ICANN Compliance in relation to several issues 
that the WG discussed. See for example Compliance input on WHOIS access related 
questions (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00432.html). Also, the 
WG was made aware of the challenges relating to potential enforcement actions 
in relation to fake renewal notices and as a result, the WG adopted a 
conditional recommendation (recommendation #2) on this issue noting that 'If 
the ICANN Compliance Department sees no ability to enforce or act against Fake 
Renewal Notice abuse as per Recommendation #1 above, the RAPWG recommends that 
the GNSO initiate a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report 
to further investigate this abuse'. This recommendation achieved unanimous 
consensus from the RAP WG.

In addition, in relation to WHOIS access, it might also be worth pointing out 
that there is a second recommendation relating to this issue which states that 
'the GNSO should determine what additional research and processes may be needed 
to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, 
enforceable, and consistent fashion. The GNSO Council should consider how such 
might be related to other WHOIS efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS 
policy and implementation required by ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments'. 
This recommendation also achieved unanimous consensus.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:58:51 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations

I have to say that this is in my view a disappointing response from ICANN 
compliance staff. Why is it only now after the process is complete and the 
recommendations have been through extensive public comment periods, a final 
report, a drafting team's final report and a couple of years, that we find out 
icann compliance cannot or will not do some of the requested activities?

I believe public comment periods at a minimum should not only be for the 
community to make comment, but MUST also be used by ICANN staff to make their 
comments known. It cannot always be that icann staff waits until after 
something gets completely through a process to reveal for the first time that 
there is an issue. Too many people work too hard on these groups to do what 
they believe is right and in the best interests of the community only to find 
out after the entire process that ICANN staff does not want to do something or 
cannot do something.

I realize this was not a PDP, but this issue was discussed by the PDP Work Team 
and this type of feedback is explicitly called out.

I would like to hear from ICANN staff on the call tomorrow about what we can do 
moving forward to get this feedback earlier in the process.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>



From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 03:47 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations

Dear All,

Please find attached the response from ICANN's Compliance Department in 
relation to resolved #1 of the recently adopted motion on the Registration 
Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council 
instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP 
IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and 
Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for 
resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council 
with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a 
timely manner).

Pam Little, Interim Head of Contractual Compliance, is not available to 
participate in the Council meeting coming Thursday, but she is happy to take 
further comments / questions by email. In addition, she has indicated that she 
is available to discuss the response and any further questions in person with 
the Council during the weekend session at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco, 
if required.

With best regards,

Marika