ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] Preliminary IR on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Preliminary IR on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:35:45 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


In reviewing this report related to whether the ALAC should comment on it or not, a question came to mind.

I do not disagree with the staff assessment that this subject is within the scope of the GNSO. However, it is far from clear to me if this effort needs to be a GNSO effort. For the most part, it would seem that this the work could be carried out as a staff effort (not necessarily Policy Staff although they might be involved) if it was of sufficiently high priority to ICANN.

Although the end work product could be viewed as GNSO Policy, it could also fall under the heading of contractual terms which often is an outcome of bilateral negotiations and not formal GNSO action. The only benefit I see of it coming through the GNSO is that then there is a higher threshold for the Board to not implement. And even if this is necessary, that does not see a valid reason that it falls on the GNSO to do the very significant research involved instead of it being a staff (or externally contracted), ICANN funded, effort.

Alan




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