<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I had to abandon the call half-way through
yesterday but after reading the GNSO motions and the subsequent exchanges
below, I would like to add brief comments. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My concern is that some recommendations
have been discarded completely within this motion, which is not acceptable.
There needs to be some follow through so that even if the council
relegates items to a lower priority, that they remain on the 'to do' pile
or a clear reason provided to ditch any recommendations completely.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In terms of the prioritisation, I would
prefer to see the leading effort and resource applied to the Best Practices
effort against Malicious Use, as this achieved unanimous consensus within
the RAP WG. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">With regards to the UDRP, I believe
this does need to be reviewed for improvements now that it has been in
place for a number of years untouched but I also recall that when the RAP
WG began looking at these issues a couple of years back, it was anticipated
the new gTLDs would have been launched well before this type of review
could be undertaken, with the advantage of seeing how the new landscape
impacted on the existing policy and processes. This is obviously
not the case and the work would potentially clash with the new gTLD launch
activities, which needs to be taken into account before proceeding with
a PDP. I also appreciate the concerns about UDRP dilution which is a real
threat and wonder if the BC can work with the IPC to consider alternative
wording for a motion that takes this forward in a reasonable timeframe
but safeguards/ring-fences existing policy elements as a minimum requirement?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Martin<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="Arial"><b>Martin C SUTTON</b> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="Arial">Group Risk </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ<br>
Group Security & Fraud Risk<br>
8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom</font>
<br><font size=1 color=red face="Arial">________________________________________________________________<br>
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Phone. +44 (0)20
7991 8074 / 7991 8074</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Mobile. +44 (0)
7774556680</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Email.
</font><a href=mailto:martinsutton@hsbc.com><font size=1 color=red face="Arial"><u>martinsutton@hsbc.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 color=red face="Arial">________________________________________________________________</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=41%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Berry Cobb"
<berrycobb@infinityportals.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jan 10 2011 19:50</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#808080 face="sans-serif"><b>Mail Size: 25520</b></font>
<br>
<td width=58%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan
13 - Motion #5 RAP</font></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">I guess I was a sleep at
the wheel this morning for the call. I had not seen the GNSO motions
prior to our call, and after hearing the discussion this AM, I knew something
seemed suspicious. The early morning fog prevented me from responding.
Thanks to Mike for posting this to the list.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">As this motion #5 on RAP
stands, I support a vote of “NO”. At the very least, this motion
does not consider all the recommendations of the RAP and it does not make
any reference to all the other RAP recommendations. Why would the
remainder of the RAP recommendations be omitted? I am not familiar
with how the Council reviews, submits motions, and votes on WG recommendations,
but I find this current motion creating a gap and perhaps jeopardizing
the WG process. Being a member of the RAP-IDT, helping to create
a priority list, I guess I never expected a motion resulting in a “hunt
& peck” exercise. Lastly, I do not want to speculate on the
motivation of the Contracted Parties, who are the ones that submitted and
seconded this motion, but I do think Mike touches on a fair question of
why the current motion bypasses higher ranked RAP recommendations, like
the Best Practices effort on Malicious Use (which received unanimous consensus
by the RAP WG). Swiss cheese with lots of holes is my is my gut feel.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">WRT to the Fast Flux motion
& recommendations, I cannot comment as I did not participate and this
was before my time at ICANN. However, one result of that WG also
contains a “best practices” recommendation. While I do not want
to delay the FF efforts, I believe there to be more momentum for the RAP
Best Practices Recommendation to act as the pilot for Best Practices Efforts
within the ICANN\GNSO span of control. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">WRT to the UDRP recommendation
from RAP…..I agree with Mike that this will be fight, although that was
not prevalent when the WG developed Unanimous Consensus on this recommendation.
The UDRP recommendation priority created a lot of friction within
the RAP-IDT. And if I recall correctly from our BC session this morning,
a few of our members support delaying this PDP on UDRP. I will remind
that the BC did submit a position on the RAP Interim Report supporting
this recommendation, although no formal position was established on the
RAP Final Report. Personally, I see fractures of the UDRP on both
sides (brand holders vs domain investors). It is time to review,
update, and improve the UDRP. I support its current prioritization
as defined by the RAP IDT. In same breath, if this will put us at
odds with the IPC, I can also support saving this battle for another day.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">To add clarification to Mike’s
comments about the RAP Uniformity of Contracts recommendation……… The
conundrum about this recommendation is that it only received “strong support
but significant opposition” during the Pre-PDP WG efforts. However,
within the RAP-IDT efforts to prioritize all the recommendations, it received
a third or fourth place priority over “unanimous consensus” RAP recommendations.
The RAP-IDT deliberated this issue some, and the conclusion is that
the GNSO council should address this by first voting the UofC recommendation
up or down first and then figure out if and how to move forward.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Bottom line, I recommend
the BC & our Councilors support the priority assignment recommendations
from the RAP IDT team and any motion presented to the GNSO Council about
RAP efforts should be all encompassing. Vote each RAP recommendation
Up or Down, then assign the “UP” recommendations to the Prioritization
Queue for WGs, and build a sense of urgency to get things moving along.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Thanks, B</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Berry Cobb</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Infinity Portals LLC</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">berrycobb@infinityportals.com</font>
<br><a href=http://infinityportals.com/><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">http://infinityportals.com</font></a>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">720.839.5735</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [</font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 face="Tahoma">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Rodenbaugh<b><br>
Sent:</b> Monday, January 10, 2011 7:31 AM<b><br>
To:</b> 'bc - GNSO list'<b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Thanks Marilyn for forwarding,
I guess I’ve been deleted from the Council list… so will ask to be added
again.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">I have some concern about
the resolutions re Fast Flux and especially re Registration Abuse Policies.
I think folding the FF recos into the RAP recos is ok in concept,
but we can see that the contract parties are trying to bury that portion
of the work re ‘best practices’. It was identified as the top priority
after the two ‘low hanging fruit’ items identified by the RAP-Implementation
Drafting Team. Yet, the motion addresses only those two items and
the UDRP review, which was identified as 3d priority.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">I know the IPC will vehemently
fight against UDRP review now. My strong view is it is not time for
that fight yet either, it will be a big fight… and that the non-controversial
yet difficult Best Practices work should be done first as recommended by
the Implementation Team, and indeed that work might help to inform the
UDRP review effort. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Also Item IV of the RAP-IDT
recos, Uniformity of Contracts, is a key issue for all non-contracting
party stakeholders. By mass in RAP-IDT, the contracting parties got
a low priority, but from our perspective it should be a bigger priority
that UDRP review. At minimum, there should be a plan to start that
work, as well as the Best Practices work, before any agreement on UDRP
review is made.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Curious how other members,
particularly those that have been active in the RAP group, thing about
these motions pending before Council.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Mike Rodenbaugh</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">RODENBAUGH LAW</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087</font>
<br><a href=http://rodenbaugh.com/><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>http://rodenbaugh.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [</font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 face="Tahoma">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marilyn Cade<b><br>
Sent:</b> Monday, January 10, 2011 6:47 AM<b><br>
To:</b> bc - GNSO list<b><br>
Subject:</b> [bc-gnso] council agenda for Jan 13</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htm"><font size=3 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-13jan11-en.htm</u></font></a>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br>
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you
may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and all copies
from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions.