I received it from John via the list.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:23:01
To: 'Adrian
Kinderis'<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
'john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
'Marika Konings'<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for
non-binding best practices
We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda
shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic.
On a separate note, for some reason I did not
get john's e-mail until Adrian replied. Is this
just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem?
Thanks,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Vice President, Law and Policy
Neustar, Inc
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
P: 571-434-5772
M: 202-549-5079
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the
potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please?
The Registrars will have lots to say here J
I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of
a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
Marika & fellow Coucillors:
While I am totally supportive of working to
reach agreement on a shared definition of "best
practices" -- their identification,
implementation and measurement -- there is
something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest.
As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe
(www.truste.com), the online privacy rights
organization that manages a seal program for
data collection and use, I am familiar with the
consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver.
In the case of non-binding policies it may be
that such an approach -- a seal granted and
monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make
the implementation of these policies a matter of
competitive advantage for registrars and registries.
As the non-binding best practices are
identified, they can be used as a way to review
business practices and earn (or not) a seal of
approval for the applying party. The seal can
them become a part of that company's competitive
marketing. Consumers can then choose to work
with a company based on their commitment to
those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance.
This could be a way to supplement the consensus
policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage.
Cheers,
Berard
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices
to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear All,
As requested by the GNSO Council,
please find attached the discussion paper on
'the creation of non-binding best practices to
help registrars andregistries address the
abusive registrations of domain names' prepared
by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that
the GNSO Council consider opening a public
comment forum on this document to allow for
community input on the issues outlined in the
paper as well as the proposed next steps.
Should the Council agree with this suggestion,
a time has been tentatively reserved at the
ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop
on the paper and solicit community input
(scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00
10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback.
With best regards,
Marika