|
Thanks Liz. I appreciate the attempt
to clarify, but I am still not clear about what is in and out of potential
scope. With both the UDRP (cybersquatting) and fast flux exploits, nobody
would care whether the domain in question was registered, if it were not used
in a criminal and/or infringing (aka abusive) manner. The ICANN Board
(wrt the UDRP) and ICANN Staff and GNSO Council (wrt fast flux exploits) have
found that abusive registrations are within scope of GNSO policy development,
and there is further support for that in the mission statement. I don’t understand the distinction
that Staff seems to be trying to make now, nor how it impacts the
Council’s decision-making on next steps to address this Issues Report.
If any Councilors or Staff have ideas, I’d love to hear them.
My thought is we should launch a PDP to determine whether gTLD registries and
registrars should have a consistent set of minimum standards and processes to
deal with abusive registrations. Assuming so, what are those standards
and processes? The Afilias funnel request provides one possible way,
several other ideas have been floated in the Fast Flux WG, in ICM’s .xxx
proposal re “Rapid Takedown”, and elsewhere. Policy development is imperative to
address the current volume of abusive registrations, and especially with
newTLDs coming online next year, and with the expected growth in use of
IDNs. Private and public law enforcement entities are already overstressed
to deal with the volume and intensity of abusive registration problems, and the
growth of the domain space will only increase that stress. Businesses,
individuals and non-profit entities cannot be expected to continue footing the
bill for so-called ‘defensive registrations’ in effort to protect
their brands, and instead ICANN must develop post-registration mechanisms to
effectively deal with abusive registrations. A solid set of minimum
standards and processes, required of all accredited registrars and gTLD
registries, would be a good start. Thanks, Mike From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Mike and all, Thank you for your inquiry. The sentences you asked
about in the registration abuse issues report should be read in the context of
the preceding sentences in that paragraph, which read as follows: "Note, section 4.2.3 of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement between ICANN and accredited registrars provides for the
establishment of new and revised consensus policies concerning the registration
of domain names, including abuse in the registration of names, but policies
involving the use of a domain name (unrelated to its registration) are outside
the scope of policies that ICANN could enforce on registries and/or
registrars." For your reference, RAA section 4.2.3 provides that ICANN
may obligate registrars to implement new policies concerning the
"resolution of disputes concerning the registration of Registered Names
(as opposed to the use of such domain names), including where the policies take
into account use of the domain names ..." <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#4.2.3> In the case of fast flux we said that some aspects of fast
flux hosting are within scope because fast flux involves the rapid update of
nameserver registration records in gTLDs. Rapid update of nameserver
registration records specifically involves the registration of names, which can
be distinguished from a case where a name, once registered, resolves to a site
that contains infringing or otherwise abusive content. While ICANN could
change policy with regard to updates of nameserver registration records, ICANN
might not be able to impose any new obligations on registrars concerning pure
content/use disputes. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Liz From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sorry, tired today, re-sending to clarify
that this is a request for clarification from ICANN Counsel, not the GNSO
Council. Thanks. From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Hi, I refer to Sec. 7.1 of the Report, which ends with these
sentences: The use of domain names may be taken into account when establishing or
changing registration policies. Thus, potential changes to existing contractual
provisions related to abuse in the registration of names would be within scope
of GNSO policy making. Consideration of new policies related to the use of a
domain name unrelated to its registration would not be within scope. Could ICANN Counsel please clarify this language?
Specifically, what could be “use of a domain name unrelated to its
registration”? If this means “any use of a domain name after
it is registered”, then how is that opinion consistent with prior
enactment of the UDRP, and Counsel’s opinion in the Issues Report re Fast
Flux Hosting (Mar. 31, 2008, p. 14): General Counsel’s opinion is that some aspects
relating to the subject of fast flux hosting are within scope of the ICANN
policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. As fast flux
hosting activities concern gTLDs, the issue is within the
scope of the GNSO to address. This clarification and/or further analysis
might be very helpful for the Council in considering the latest Issues Report
in the coming weeks, before our next meeting. Thanks, Mike R. |