Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?Final ?Report ?Remaining ?Recommendations 1 ? WHOIS ?Access Recommendation ?#2: ?The ?GNSO ?should ? request ?that ?the ?ICANN ?Compliance ?Department ?publish ? more ?data ?about ?WHOIS ?accessibility, ?on ?at ?least ?an ?annual ? basis. ?This ?data ?should ?include ?a) ?the ?number ?of ?registrars ? that ?show ?a ?pattern ?of ?unreasonable ?restriction ?of ?access ?to ? their ?port ?43 ?WHOIS ?servers, ?and ?b) ?the ?results ?of ?an ?annual ? compliance ?audit ?of ?compliance ?with ?all ?contractual ?WHOIS ? access ?obligations ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?3 ?February ?2011 ?meeting, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?asked ?Policy ? Staff ?to ?forward ?the ?two ?issues ? identified ?by ?the ?RAP ?DT ?as ?having ? low ?resource ?requirements, ? WHOIS ?Access ?recommendation ? #2 ?and ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices ? recommendation ?#1, ?to ?ICANN ? Compliance ?Staff ?for ?resolution. ? Policy ?Staff ?has ?forwarded ?this ? request ?to ?Compliance ?Staff ?and ?a ? response ?was ?received ?23 ?Feb. ? (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-?‐ lists/archives/council/msg10766.h tml). ?A ?discussion ?with ? Compliance ?Staff ?was ?held ?in ?San ? Francisco. Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO ?refer ?this ?issue ?to ?ICANN's ? Contractual ?Compliance ?department ?for ?possible ? enforcement ?action, ?including ?investigation ?of ?misuse ?of ? WHOIS ?data ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?3 ?February ?2011 ?meeting, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?asked ?Policy ? Staff ?to ?forward ?the ?two ?issues ? identified ?by ?the ?RAP ?DT ?as ?having ? low ?resource ?requirements, ? WHOIS ?Access ?recommendation ? #2 ?and ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices ? recommendation ?#1, ?to ?ICANN ? Compliance ?Staff ?for ?resolution. ? Policy ?Staff ?has ?forwarded ?this ? request ?to ?Compliance ?Staff ?and ?a ? response ?was ?received ?23 ?Feb. ? (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-?‐ lists/archives/council/msg10766.h tml). ?A ?discussion ?with ? Compliance ?Staff ?was ?held ?in ?San ? Francisco. ?See ?also ?conditional ? recommendation ?#2. ? 1 Listed ?as ?ranked ?by ?the ?RAP-?‐IDT, ?see ?letter ?http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-?‐idt-?‐to-?‐gnso-?‐ council-?‐15nov10-?‐en.pdf ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Malicious ?Use ?of ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#1: ?The ? RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?creation ?of ?non-?‐binding ?best ? practices ?to ?help ?registrars ?and ?registries ?address ?the ?illicit ? use ?of ?domain ?names. ?This ?effort ?should ?be ?supported ?by ? ICANN ?resources, ?and ?should ?be ?created ?via ?a ?community ? process ?such ?as ?a ?working ?or ?advisory ?group ?while ?also ?taking ? the ?need ?for ?security ?and ?trust ?into ?consideration.The ?effort ? should ?consider ?(but ?not ?be ?limited ?to) ?these ?subjects: ? Practices ?for ?identifying ?stolen ?credentials ? ? Practices ?for ?identifying ?and ?investigating ?common ?forms ? of ?malicious ?use ?(such ?as ?malware ?and ?phishing) ? ? Creating ?anti-?‐abuse ?terms ?of ?service ?for ?inclusion ?in ? Registrar-?‐Registrant ?agreements, ?and ?for ?use ?by ?TLD ? operators. ? ? Identifying ?compromised/hacked ?domains ?versus ?domain ? registered ?by ?abusers ? ? Practices ?for ?suspending ?domain ?names ? ? Account ?access ?security ?management ? ? Security ?resources ?of ?use ?or ?interest ?to ?registrars ?and ? registries ? ? Survey ?registrars ?and ?registries ?to ?determine ?practices ? being ?used, ?and ?their ?adoption ?rates. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?meeting ?on ?3 ?February ?2011, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?resolved ?to ? request ?a ?discussion ?paper ?on ?the ? creation ?of ?non-?‐binding ?best ? practices ?to ?help ?registrars ?and ? registries ?address ?the ?abusive ? registrations ?of ?domain ?names ?in ? accordance ?with ?the ?Registration ? Abuse ?Policies ?Working ?Group ? Final ?Report. ?Staff ?intends ?to ? publish ?a ?preliminary ?version ?of ? the ?discussion ?paper ?in ?time ?for ? the ?ICANN ?meeting ?in ?Singapore ? for ?Community ?input ?prior ?to ? finalizing ?the ?paper ?for ?submission ? to ?the ?GNSO ?Council. ? WHOIS ?Access Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?GNSO ?should ? determine ?what ?additional ?research ?and ?processes ?may ?be ? needed ?to ?ensure ?that ?WHOIS ?data ?is ?accessible ?in ?an ? appropriately ?reliable, ?enforceable, ?and ?consistent ?fashion. The ?GNSO ?Council ?should ?consider ?how ?such ?might ?be ?related ? to ?other ?WHOIS ?efforts, ?such ?as ?the ?upcoming ?review ?of ? WHOIS ?policy ?and ?implementation ?required ?by ?ICANN's ?new ? Affirmation ?of ?Commitments. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? ? Cybersquatting Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ?Development ?Process ? by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ?investigate ?the ?current ? state ?of ?the ?UDRP, ?and ?consider ?balanced ?revisions ?to ?address ? cybersquatting ?if ?appropriate. ?This ?effort ?should ?consider: ? How ?the ?UDRP ?has ?addressed ?the ?problem ?of ? cybersquatting ?to ?date, ?and ?any ? insufficiencies/inequalities ?associated ?with ?the ?process. ? Whether ?the ?definition ?of ?cybersquatting ?inherent ?within ? the ?existing ?UDRP ?language ?needs ?to ?be ?reviewed ?or ? updated. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? The ?GNSO ?Council ?request ?an ? Issue ?Report ?on ?the ?state ?of ?the ? UDRP ?at ?its ?meeting ?on ?3 ?February ? 2011. ?A ?Drafting ?Team ?was ? convened ?to ?provide ?guidance ?to ? Staff ?for ?Issue ?Report. ?A ?Webinar ? was ?held ?10 ?May ?to ?solicit ? facts/input. ?Suggestion ?to ?have ?a ? "Preliminary ?Issue ?Report" ? published ?prior ?to ?Singapore ? Meeting, ?with ?the ?"Final ?Issue ? Report" ?to ?be ?published ?after ?a ? public ?comment ?period ?closes. ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Uniformity ?of ?Contracts: View ?A: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?creation ?of ?an ?Issues ? Report ?to ?evaluate ?whether ?a ?minimum ?baseline ?of ? registration ?abuse ?provisions ?should ?be ?created ?for ?all ?in-?‐ scope ?ICANN ?agreements, ?and ?if ?created, ?how ?such ?language ? would ?be ?structured ?to ?address ?the ?most ?common ?forms ?of ? registration ?abuse. View ?B: ?Opposed ?to ?the ?recommendation ?for ?an ?Issues ? Report ?as ?expressed ?in ?view ?A ? Strong ? Support ?but ? Significant ? Opposition ? ? Gripe ?Sites; ?Deceptive ?and/or ?Offensive ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#1: Rough ?Consensus: ?Make ?no ?recommendation. ?The ?majority ?of ? RAPWG ?members ?expressed ?that ?gripe ?site ?and ?offensive ? domain ?names ?that ?use ?trademarks ?should ?be ?addressed ?in ? the ?context ?of ?cybersquatting ?and ?the ?UDRP ?for ?purposes ?of ? establishing ?consistent ?registration ?abuse ?policies ?in ?this ?area, ? and ?that ?creating ?special ?procedures ?for ?special ?classes ?of ? domains, ?such ?as ?offensive ?domain ?names, ?may ?present ? problems. Alternate ?view: ?The ?URDP ?should ?be ?revisited ?to ?determine ? what ?substantive ?policy ?changes, ?if ?any, ?would ?be ?necessary ? to ?address ?any ?inconsistencies ?relating ?to ?decisions ?on ?"gripe" ? names ?and ?to ?provide ?for ?fast ?track ?substantive ?and ? procedural ?mechanisms ?in ?the ?event ?of ?the ?registration ?of ? deceptive ?domain ?names ?that ?mislead ?adults ?or ?children ?to ? objectionable ?sites. ? Rough ? Consensus ? RAPWG ?Rough ?Consensus ?to ?make ? no ?recommendation, ?so ?no ?further ? action ?required ?at ?this ?stage. ? Cybersquatting Recommendation ?#2: View ?A: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ? Development ?Process ?by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ? investigate ?the ?appropriateness ?and ?effectiveness ?of ?how ?any ? Rights ?Protection ?Mechanisms ?that ?are ?developed ?elsewhere ? in ?the ?community ?(e.g. ?the ?New ?gTLD ?program) ?can ?be ? applied ?to ?the ?problem ?of ?cybersquatting ?in ?the ?current ?gTLD ? space. View ?B: ?The ?initiation ?of ?such ?a ?process ?is ?premature; ?the ? effectiveness ?and ?consequences ?of ?the ?Rights ?Protection ? Mechanisms ?proposed ?for ?the ?new ?TLDs ?is ?unknown. ? Discussion ?of ?RPMs ?should ?continue ?via ?the ?New ?TLD ? program. ?Experience ?with ?them ?should ?be ?gained ?before ? considering ?their ?appropriate ?relation ?(if ?any) ?to ?the ?existing ? TLD ?space. ? ? View ?A: ? Supported ?by ? 7 ?Members ? ? ? ? ? View ?B: ? Supported ?by ? 7 ?Members ? ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#2 conditional ? on ?#1: ?The ?following ?recommendation ?is ?conditional. ?The ?WG ? would ?like ?to ?learn ?the ?ICANN ?Compliance ?Department's ? opinions ?regarding ?Recommendation ?#1 ?above, ?and ?the ?WG ? will ?further ?discuss ?Recommendation ?2 ?looking ?forward ?to ?the ? WG's ?Final ?Report. ? The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ? Development ?Process ?by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ? investigate ?fake ?renewal ?notices. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? See ?also ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#1 ? Meta ?Issue: ?Collection ?and ?Dissemination ?of ?Best ?Practices: ? The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO, ?and ?the ?larger ? ICANN ?community ?in ?general, ?create ?and ?support ?structured, ? funded ?mechanisms ?for ?the ?collection ?and ?maintenance ?of ? best ?practices. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Cross-?‐TLD ?Registration ?Scam: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ? GNSO ?monitor ?for ?Cross-?‐TLD ?registration ?scam ?abuse ?in ?the ? gTLD ?space ?and ?co-?‐ordinate ?research ?with ?the ?community ?to ? determine ?the ?nature ?and ?extent ?of ?the ?problem. ?The ?WG ? believes ?this ?issue ?warrants ?review ?but ?notes ?there ?is ?not ? enough ?data ?at ?this ?time ?to ?warrant ?an ?Issues ?Report ?or ?PDP. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Meta ?Issue Uniformity ?of ?Reporting: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO, ?and ?the ?larger ?ICANN ? community ?in ?general, ?create ?and ?support ?uniform ?reporting ? processes. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Gripe ?Sites; ?Deceptive ?and/or ?Offensive ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#2: View ?A: ?Turn ?down ?a ?proposed ?recommendation ?that ? registries ?develop ?best ?practices ?to ?restrict ?the ?registration ?of ? offensive ?strings. View ?B: ?Registries ?should ?consider ?developing ?internal ?best ? practice ?policies ?that ?would ?restrict ?the ?registration ?of ? offensive ?strings ?in ?order ?to ?mitigate ?the ?potential ?harm ?to ? consumers ?and ?children. ? Strong ? Support ?(View ? A), ?but ? Significant ? Opposition ? (View ?B) ? ? Domain ?Kiting Tasting: ?It ?is ?unclear ?to ?what ?extent ?domain ? kiting ?happens, ?and ?the ?RAPWG ?does ?not ?recommend ?policy ? development ?at ?this ?time. ?The ?RAPWG ?suggests ?that ?the ? Council ?monitor ?the ?issue ?(in ?conjunction ?with ?ongoing ? reviews ?of ?domain-?‐tasting), ?and ?consider ?next ?steps ?if ? conditions ?warrant. ? Rough ? Consensus ? ?
下载该文档
文档格式：PDF
更新时间：2014-08-21
下载次数：0
点击次数：1
Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?Final ?Report ?Remaining ?Recommendations 1 ? WHOIS ?Access Recommendation ?#2: ?The ?GNSO ?should ? request ?that ?the ?ICANN ?Compliance ?Department ?publish ? more ?data ?about ?WHOIS ?accessibility, ?on ?at ?least ?an ?annual ? basis. ?This ?data ?should ?include ?a) ?the ?number ?of ?registrars ? that ?show ?a ?pattern ?of ?unreasonable ?restriction ?of ?access ?to ? their ?port ?43 ?WHOIS ?servers, ?and ?b) ?the ?results ?of ?an ?annual ? compliance ?audit ?of ?compliance ?with ?all ?contractual ?WHOIS ? access ?obligations ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?3 ?February ?2011 ?meeting, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?asked ?Policy ? Staff ?to ?forward ?the ?two ?issues ? identified ?by ?the ?RAP ?DT ?as ?having ? low ?resource ?requirements, ? WHOIS ?Access ?recommendation ? #2 ?and ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices ? recommendation ?#1, ?to ?ICANN ? Compliance ?Staff ?for ?resolution. ? Policy ?Staff ?has ?forwarded ?this ? request ?to ?Compliance ?Staff ?and ?a ? response ?was ?received ?23 ?Feb. ? (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-?‐ lists/archives/council/msg10766.h tml). ?A ?discussion ?with ? Compliance ?Staff ?was ?held ?in ?San ? Francisco. Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO ?refer ?this ?issue ?to ?ICANN's ? Contractual ?Compliance ?department ?for ?possible ? enforcement ?action, ?including ?investigation ?of ?misuse ?of ? WHOIS ?data ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?3 ?February ?2011 ?meeting, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?asked ?Policy ? Staff ?to ?forward ?the ?two ?issues ? identified ?by ?the ?RAP ?DT ?as ?having ? low ?resource ?requirements, ? WHOIS ?Access ?recommendation ? #2 ?and ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices ? recommendation ?#1, ?to ?ICANN ? Compliance ?Staff ?for ?resolution. ? Policy ?Staff ?has ?forwarded ?this ? request ?to ?Compliance ?Staff ?and ?a ? response ?was ?received ?23 ?Feb. ? (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-?‐ lists/archives/council/msg10766.h tml). ?A ?discussion ?with ? Compliance ?Staff ?was ?held ?in ?San ? Francisco. ?See ?also ?conditional ? recommendation ?#2. ? 1 Listed ?as ?ranked ?by ?the ?RAP-?‐IDT, ?see ?letter ?http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-?‐idt-?‐to-?‐gnso-?‐ council-?‐15nov10-?‐en.pdf ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Malicious ?Use ?of ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#1: ?The ? RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?creation ?of ?non-?‐binding ?best ? practices ?to ?help ?registrars ?and ?registries ?address ?the ?illicit ? use ?of ?domain ?names. ?This ?effort ?should ?be ?supported ?by ? ICANN ?resources, ?and ?should ?be ?created ?via ?a ?community ? process ?such ?as ?a ?working ?or ?advisory ?group ?while ?also ?taking ? the ?need ?for ?security ?and ?trust ?into ?consideration.The ?effort ? should ?consider ?(but ?not ?be ?limited ?to) ?these ?subjects: ? Practices ?for ?identifying ?stolen ?credentials ? ? Practices ?for ?identifying ?and ?investigating ?common ?forms ? of ?malicious ?use ?(such ?as ?malware ?and ?phishing) ? ? Creating ?anti-?‐abuse ?terms ?of ?service ?for ?inclusion ?in ? Registrar-?‐Registrant ?agreements, ?and ?for ?use ?by ?TLD ? operators. ? ? Identifying ?compromised/hacked ?domains ?versus ?domain ? registered ?by ?abusers ? ? Practices ?for ?suspending ?domain ?names ? ? Account ?access ?security ?management ? ? Security ?resources ?of ?use ?or ?interest ?to ?registrars ?and ? registries ? ? Survey ?registrars ?and ?registries ?to ?determine ?practices ? being ?used, ?and ?their ?adoption ?rates. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? At ?its ?meeting ?on ?3 ?February ?2011, ? the ?GNSO ?Council ?resolved ?to ? request ?a ?discussion ?paper ?on ?the ? creation ?of ?non-?‐binding ?best ? practices ?to ?help ?registrars ?and ? registries ?address ?the ?abusive ? registrations ?of ?domain ?names ?in ? accordance ?with ?the ?Registration ? Abuse ?Policies ?Working ?Group ? Final ?Report. ?Staff ?intends ?to ? publish ?a ?preliminary ?version ?of ? the ?discussion ?paper ?in ?time ?for ? the ?ICANN ?meeting ?in ?Singapore ? for ?Community ?input ?prior ?to ? finalizing ?the ?paper ?for ?submission ? to ?the ?GNSO ?Council. ? WHOIS ?Access Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?GNSO ?should ? determine ?what ?additional ?research ?and ?processes ?may ?be ? needed ?to ?ensure ?that ?WHOIS ?data ?is ?accessible ?in ?an ? appropriately ?reliable, ?enforceable, ?and ?consistent ?fashion. The ?GNSO ?Council ?should ?consider ?how ?such ?might ?be ?related ? to ?other ?WHOIS ?efforts, ?such ?as ?the ?upcoming ?review ?of ? WHOIS ?policy ?and ?implementation ?required ?by ?ICANN's ?new ? Affirmation ?of ?Commitments. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? ? Cybersquatting Recommendation ?#1: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ?Development ?Process ? by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ?investigate ?the ?current ? state ?of ?the ?UDRP, ?and ?consider ?balanced ?revisions ?to ?address ? cybersquatting ?if ?appropriate. ?This ?effort ?should ?consider: ? How ?the ?UDRP ?has ?addressed ?the ?problem ?of ? cybersquatting ?to ?date, ?and ?any ? insufficiencies/inequalities ?associated ?with ?the ?process. ? Whether ?the ?definition ?of ?cybersquatting ?inherent ?within ? the ?existing ?UDRP ?language ?needs ?to ?be ?reviewed ?or ? updated. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? The ?GNSO ?Council ?request ?an ? Issue ?Report ?on ?the ?state ?of ?the ? UDRP ?at ?its ?meeting ?on ?3 ?February ? 2011. ?A ?Drafting ?Team ?was ? convened ?to ?provide ?guidance ?to ? Staff ?for ?Issue ?Report. ?A ?Webinar ? was ?held ?10 ?May ?to ?solicit ? facts/input. ?Suggestion ?to ?have ?a ? "Preliminary ?Issue ?Report" ? published ?prior ?to ?Singapore ? Meeting, ?with ?the ?"Final ?Issue ? Report" ?to ?be ?published ?after ?a ? public ?comment ?period ?closes. ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Uniformity ?of ?Contracts: View ?A: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?creation ?of ?an ?Issues ? Report ?to ?evaluate ?whether ?a ?minimum ?baseline ?of ? registration ?abuse ?provisions ?should ?be ?created ?for ?all ?in-?‐ scope ?ICANN ?agreements, ?and ?if ?created, ?how ?such ?language ? would ?be ?structured ?to ?address ?the ?most ?common ?forms ?of ? registration ?abuse. View ?B: ?Opposed ?to ?the ?recommendation ?for ?an ?Issues ? Report ?as ?expressed ?in ?view ?A ? Strong ? Support ?but ? Significant ? Opposition ? ? Gripe ?Sites; ?Deceptive ?and/or ?Offensive ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#1: Rough ?Consensus: ?Make ?no ?recommendation. ?The ?majority ?of ? RAPWG ?members ?expressed ?that ?gripe ?site ?and ?offensive ? domain ?names ?that ?use ?trademarks ?should ?be ?addressed ?in ? the ?context ?of ?cybersquatting ?and ?the ?UDRP ?for ?purposes ?of ? establishing ?consistent ?registration ?abuse ?policies ?in ?this ?area, ? and ?that ?creating ?special ?procedures ?for ?special ?classes ?of ? domains, ?such ?as ?offensive ?domain ?names, ?may ?present ? problems. Alternate ?view: ?The ?URDP ?should ?be ?revisited ?to ?determine ? what ?substantive ?policy ?changes, ?if ?any, ?would ?be ?necessary ? to ?address ?any ?inconsistencies ?relating ?to ?decisions ?on ?"gripe" ? names ?and ?to ?provide ?for ?fast ?track ?substantive ?and ? procedural ?mechanisms ?in ?the ?event ?of ?the ?registration ?of ? deceptive ?domain ?names ?that ?mislead ?adults ?or ?children ?to ? objectionable ?sites. ? Rough ? Consensus ? RAPWG ?Rough ?Consensus ?to ?make ? no ?recommendation, ?so ?no ?further ? action ?required ?at ?this ?stage. ? Cybersquatting Recommendation ?#2: View ?A: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ? Development ?Process ?by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ? investigate ?the ?appropriateness ?and ?effectiveness ?of ?how ?any ? Rights ?Protection ?Mechanisms ?that ?are ?developed ?elsewhere ? in ?the ?community ?(e.g. ?the ?New ?gTLD ?program) ?can ?be ? applied ?to ?the ?problem ?of ?cybersquatting ?in ?the ?current ?gTLD ? space. View ?B: ?The ?initiation ?of ?such ?a ?process ?is ?premature; ?the ? effectiveness ?and ?consequences ?of ?the ?Rights ?Protection ? Mechanisms ?proposed ?for ?the ?new ?TLDs ?is ?unknown. ? Discussion ?of ?RPMs ?should ?continue ?via ?the ?New ?TLD ? program. ?Experience ?with ?them ?should ?be ?gained ?before ? considering ?their ?appropriate ?relation ?(if ?any) ?to ?the ?existing ? TLD ?space. ? ? View ?A: ? Supported ?by ? 7 ?Members ? ? ? ? ? View ?B: ? Supported ?by ? 7 ?Members ? ? Overview ?of ?Registration ?Abuse ?Policies ?(RAP) ?Working ?Group ?Recommendations ? Description ? RAPWG ?Level ? of ?Consensus ? Pending ?action/status ? Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#2 conditional ? on ?#1: ?The ?following ?recommendation ?is ?conditional. ?The ?WG ? would ?like ?to ?learn ?the ?ICANN ?Compliance ?Department's ? opinions ?regarding ?Recommendation ?#1 ?above, ?and ?the ?WG ? will ?further ?discuss ?Recommendation ?2 ?looking ?forward ?to ?the ? WG's ?Final ?Report. ? The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ?initiation ?of ?a ?Policy ? Development ?Process ?by ?requesting ?an ?Issues ?Report ?to ? investigate ?fake ?renewal ?notices. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? See ?also ?Fake ?Renewal ?Notices Recommendation ?#1 ? Meta ?Issue: ?Collection ?and ?Dissemination ?of ?Best ?Practices: ? The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO, ?and ?the ?larger ? ICANN ?community ?in ?general, ?create ?and ?support ?structured, ? funded ?mechanisms ?for ?the ?collection ?and ?maintenance ?of ? best ?practices. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Cross-?‐TLD ?Registration ?Scam: ?The ?RAPWG ?recommends ?the ? GNSO ?monitor ?for ?Cross-?‐TLD ?registration ?scam ?abuse ?in ?the ? gTLD ?space ?and ?co-?‐ordinate ?research ?with ?the ?community ?to ? determine ?the ?nature ?and ?extent ?of ?the ?problem. ?The ?WG ? believes ?this ?issue ?warrants ?review ?but ?notes ?there ?is ?not ? enough ?data ?at ?this ?time ?to ?warrant ?an ?Issues ?Report ?or ?PDP. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Meta ?Issue Uniformity ?of ?Reporting: ?The ?RAPWG ? recommends ?that ?the ?GNSO, ?and ?the ?larger ?ICANN ? community ?in ?general, ?create ?and ?support ?uniform ?reporting ? processes. ? Unanimous ? Consensus ? ? Gripe ?Sites; ?Deceptive ?and/or ?Offensive ?Domain ?Names Recommendation ?#2: View ?A: ?Turn ?down ?a ?proposed ?recommendation ?that ? registries ?develop ?best ?practices ?to ?restrict ?the ?registration ?of ? offensive ?strings. View ?B: ?Registries ?should ?consider ?developing ?internal ?best ? practice ?policies ?that ?would ?restrict ?the ?registration ?of ? offensive ?strings ?in ?order ?to ?mitigate ?the ?potential ?harm ?to ? consumers ?and ?children. ? Strong ? Support ?(View ? A), ?but ? Significant ? Opposition ? (View ?B) ? ? Domain ?Kiting Tasting: ?It ?is ?unclear ?to ?what ?extent ?domain ? kiting ?happens, ?and ?the ?RAPWG ?does ?not ?recommend ?policy ? development ?at ?this ?time. ?The ?RAPWG ?suggests ?that ?the ? Council ?monitor ?the ?issue ?(in ?conjunction ?with ?ongoing ? reviews ?of ?domain-?‐tasting), ?and ?consider ?next ?steps ?if ? conditions ?warrant. ? Rough ? Consensus ? ?