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
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:40
PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE:
[council] Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from
Counsel
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
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:51
AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE:
[council] Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from
Counsel
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
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:36
AM
To: 'GNSO
Council'
Subject: [council]
Issues Report re Abuse Policies -- request for clarification from
Council
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.