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

Wed Feb 23 18:13:40 UTC 2011

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 --------
Subject:

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

Date:

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

From:

Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us><mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>

To:

'marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>' <marika.konings at icann.org><mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>, 'council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>' <council at gnso.icann.org><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

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.

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz>

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 03:47 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org><mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
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,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110223/db15f22a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response to GNSO Council re RAP WG Recommendations (23Feb2011)-1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 62464 bytes
Desc: Response to GNSO Council re RAP WG Recommendations (23Feb2011)-1.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110223/db15f22a/ResponsetoGNSOCouncilreRAPWGRecommendations23Feb2011-1.doc>