ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:13:40 -0800
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcvTblVt8kmeu8DyTZSJSMWK2k967AAANt7A
  • Thread-topic: [council] Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations

Forwarded on behalf of : Ken Stubbs

Ken Stubbs wrote:

Plz fwd on my behalf to the council...

I believe it goes further than the issues you have surfaced here Jeff.

ICANN compliance staff should have been involved much earlier in the process 
(Actually from the inception of the original WG).
This would have allowed them to identify issues like they have outlined in the 
letter received recently (see attached letter)
"early on" and made it easier for both the WG as well as ICANN staff to develop 
recommendations that were capable of being effectively implemented.

At the same time it would have put ICANN on notice that there many be required 
in the future necessary changes in staffing, procedures as well
as implementation methodologies needed to adapt to evolving DNS environments 
and their related issues.

The kinds of issues pointed out here represent a "troubling" continuing 
"policy-development and management" pattern that needs to be addressed at the 
highest levels of ICANN management if
we want to these processes to be more efficient and effective in the future.

Ken Stubbs

-------- Original Message --------

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


Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:58:51 -0500


Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>



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.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 03:47 AM
To: 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,


Attachment: Response to GNSO Council re RAP WG Recommendations (23Feb2011)-1.doc
Description: Response to GNSO Council re RAP WG Recommendations (23Feb2011)-1.doc

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>