Re: [council] Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Zahid.

This motion has been added to the draft agenda and awaits a second.

Stéphane



Le 13 sept. 2011 à 00:12, Zahid Jamil a écrit :

> Dear Councillors,
>  
>  
> Please find below a motion on RAP I am proposing for the next GNSO Council 
> call:
>  
> Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group 
> Recommendations
> 
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its 
> report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and 
> decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach 
> with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse 
> Policies Working Group Final Report;
> 
> Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team 
> submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working 
> Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its 
> meeting on 3 February 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation 
> to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 
> and a response was received on 23 February 2011 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In 
> addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in 
> San Francisco.
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in 
> further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore 
> based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff 
> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).
> 
> NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
> 
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its 
> feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no 
> further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the 
> commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance 
> activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual 
> basis' (see 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its 
> feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines 
> that no further work on this recommendation is needed.  
> 
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed 
> from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake 
> Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested 
> of Staff.  The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder 
> Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the 
> issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP 
> WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested.  A small 
> group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others 
> interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such 
> a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the 
> information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.
> 
> RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council 
> requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of 
> WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the 
> WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or 
> timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the 
> GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next 
> steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this 
> recommendation.
> 
> RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and 
> Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of 
> this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it 
> evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, 
> which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries 
> address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to 
> Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the 
> GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this 
> Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the 
> Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.
> 
> RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and 
> Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the 
> Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG 
> in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or 
> monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO 
> Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that 
> further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these 
> two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of 
> cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting 
> with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.
> 
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of 
> Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and 
> hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems 
> to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made 
> since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and 
> any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. 
> Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and 
> considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of 
> such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.
> 
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the 
> GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline 
> of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN 
> agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address 
> the most common forms of registration abuse.
> RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or 
> Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation 
> #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the 
> GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations 
> at this time.
> 
> RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names 
> recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this 
> recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called 
> for at this time.    
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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.
>