Registration Abuse Policies Working Group: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:UnderConstruction.png]] | [[Image:UnderConstruction.png]] | ||
'''RAP WG''' is the abbreviation for '''Registration Abuse Policies Working Group'''. On 25 September 2008, the Generic Name Support Organization ([[GNSO]]) adopted a motion requesting a report on the issues | '''RAP WG''' is the abbreviation for '''Registration Abuse Policies Working Group''' (also known as '''WGRAP''', or '''Working Group on Registration Abuse Policies'''). On 25 September 2008, the Generic Name Support Organization ([[GNSO]]) adopted a motion requesting a report on the issues regarding the abuse provisions for the [[registry]] and [[registrar]] agreements. The report highlighted the provisions relevant to abuse that were involved in the registry-registrar agreements, and also included several recommendations. Considering this, the GNSO Council in December 2008 agreed to Charter a Working Group to look into the open problems mentioned in the Report; the RAP WG was chartered in February 2009.<ref>[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf gnso.icann.org RAP WG final report, May 29, 2010; retrieved 5 June 2011]</ref> | ||
== | ==Overview== | ||
The main | The main objective of the RAP WG is to gather facts, provide the necessary focus and define terms and definition of the various policy issues so that GNSO Council is able to make quality decisions on whether there is a need to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on registration abuse.<ref>[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/rap-charter-07july09.html RAP Charter]</ref> | ||
The | The mission of the RAP WG is to define domain name registration abuse independently from abuse that occurs from the use of a registered domain name. The RAP WG is also to to identify what issues regarding registration abuse fall under the purview of [[ICANN]]'s mission, as well as to identify the various policies set by ICANN that are binding to [[gTLD]] operators and ICANN accredited registrars. | ||
ICANN also mandated that the RAP WG conduct additional research conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, etc. ICANN also stipulated that, based on this research, the WG will have to identify and recommend certain policy issues and processes for further consideration.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2009/03/02/icann-starts-working-group-on-registration-abuse-policies-wgrap-is-domain-parking-an-abuse/ thedomains.com]</ref> | |||
== Structure == | == Structure == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
The RAP WG functions on the basis of a consensus. This means that it considers the points of view of all until the chair of the group ascertains that the point of view of the all the members has been understood and covered. Consensus views are included in the names and affiliations in the agreement whereas the minority views are included in the discussion in the WG report. <ref name="link3">[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/rap-charter-07july09.html gnso.icann.org]RAP charter</ref> | The RAP WG functions on the basis of a consensus. This means that it considers the points of view of all until the chair of the group ascertains that the point of view of the all the members has been understood and covered. Consensus views are included in the names and affiliations in the agreement whereas the minority views are included in the discussion in the WG report. <ref name="link3">[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/rap-charter-07july09.html gnso.icann.org]RAP charter</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 01:39, 3 August 2011
RAP WG is the abbreviation for Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (also known as WGRAP, or Working Group on Registration Abuse Policies). On 25 September 2008, the Generic Name Support Organization (GNSO) adopted a motion requesting a report on the issues regarding the abuse provisions for the registry and registrar agreements. The report highlighted the provisions relevant to abuse that were involved in the registry-registrar agreements, and also included several recommendations. Considering this, the GNSO Council in December 2008 agreed to Charter a Working Group to look into the open problems mentioned in the Report; the RAP WG was chartered in February 2009.[1]
Overview[edit | edit source]
The main objective of the RAP WG is to gather facts, provide the necessary focus and define terms and definition of the various policy issues so that GNSO Council is able to make quality decisions on whether there is a need to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on registration abuse.[2]
The mission of the RAP WG is to define domain name registration abuse independently from abuse that occurs from the use of a registered domain name. The RAP WG is also to to identify what issues regarding registration abuse fall under the purview of ICANN's mission, as well as to identify the various policies set by ICANN that are binding to gTLD operators and ICANN accredited registrars.
ICANN also mandated that the RAP WG conduct additional research conducted to include the practices of relevant entities other than the contracted parties, such as abusers, registrants, law enforcement, service providers, etc. ICANN also stipulated that, based on this research, the WG will have to identify and recommend certain policy issues and processes for further consideration.[3]
Structure[edit | edit source]
The RAP WG consists of interested stakeholders and constituency representatives who work together with other knowledgeable organizations and individuals in order to research various issues and derive wider definitions for issues mentioned in the Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report and then subsequently take the necessary steps as mentioned in the Charter.[4]
The RAP WG functions on the basis of a consensus. This means that it considers the points of view of all until the chair of the group ascertains that the point of view of the all the members has been understood and covered. Consensus views are included in the names and affiliations in the agreement whereas the minority views are included in the discussion in the WG report. [5]
References[edit | edit source]