|Comment/Reply Periods (*)||Important Information Links|
|Comment Open:||20 February 2013|
|Comment Close:||22 March 2013|
|Close Time (UTC):||23:59 UTC||Public Comment Announcement|
|Reply Open:||Cancelled – No Comments||To Submit Your Comments (Forum Closed)|
|Reply Close:||View Comments Submitted|
|Close Time (UTC):||Report of Public Comments|
|Purpose (Brief):||At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.|
|Current Status:||This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report.|
|Next Steps:||The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration.|
|Staff Contact:||Marika Konings||Email:||email@example.com|
|Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose|
This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Reporting, as a required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be initiated.
The 2009 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports' and as a result recommended in its Final Report that "the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes."
In March of 2012 based on the GNSO Council request, the ICANN Contractual Compliance Department presented its findings on existing systems that:
Further, the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Contractual Compliance Department and former members of the RAPWG volunteered to provide additional information on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented. Alumni members created and presented the findings to the GNSO Council in September of 2012.
During GNSO Council deliberations in October 2012, The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.
ICANN Staff welcome community input on the findings as well as conclusions of this Preliminary Issue Report.
|Section II: Background|
|The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by the GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between registration abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of abuse, and understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within agreements in order to identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG identified a total of 14 recommended actions that could address various forms of registration abuse. Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP Review, malicious use of domain names and several others. The specific recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue Report stated: "the need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports and that the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes."|
|Section III: Document and Resource Links|
|Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting [PDF, 1.49 MB]|
|Section IV: Additional Information|
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.