ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    

PIR Comments on the RRDRP

  • To: <5gtld-base@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: PIR Comments on the RRDRP
  • From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:19:55 -0500

PIR appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments on the RRDRP in
this extended comment period.  Our comments are included below, and
attached in full form. We would welcome further discussion with ICANN
and the community on this proceeding.


Best regards, 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  |  



Public Interest Registry



Issue URL:


Public Interest Registry, manager of the registry of the .ORG top level
domain, ('PIR") appreciates the opportunity to share its views with
ICANN regarding the RRDRP during this extended comment period. 


The RRDRP, in our view, has received too little attention. It is aimed
at a group of registries which do not yet exist - Community-based
Registries ("Community TLDs") - and the group does not yet have
experienced and well-informed registry members to review and critique
these procedures. We believe the challenge procedures set forth in the
RRDRP will expose these same Community TLDs to a level of harassment and
abuse that is higher than that faced by existing TLDs. 


The risk under the RRDRP is extraordinary. Any decision by a Provider
may include as remedies: 

-         "suspension of accepting new domain name registration in the
gTLD", and 

-        "the termination of a registry agreement."  


ICANN should provide the Community TLDs, and their registrants, with
special protections. Instead, the RRDRP provides them with more threats
and more exposure to serious risks.


We recommend that:

-        The standards for challenging a TLD must be set at a fair and
high level; 

-        There be an Independent Threshold Review as in the PDDRP to
limit meritless complaints; and  

-        The Individual Complaint proceeding proposed for the first time
in Footnote 1 of the RRDRP (only in DAG5 and without public discussion)
be deleted on the grounds that it has not been properly explained,
justified or vetted with the Internet Community.

Detailed comments follow, and PIR would welcome the opportunity to
discuss them with ICANN's attorneys and staff.



I.                  Footnote 1 must be deleted. 


Footnote 1 is a wholly new addition to DAG5. There is no comment citing
reasons for its addition, and it strays far from anything introduced in
earlier versions of the Guidebook.


Under Footnote 1, any Community TLD would be exposed to a series of
challenges to individual second level domain name registrations. This is
unprecedented exposure to risk. Allowing a Community TLD to be
challenged for each and every domain name registration opens up the
floodgates of harassment and abuse.



II.                The RRDRP should have the same procedures and
safeguards as the PDDRP.


The PDDRP and the RRDRP are similar types of proceedings. They allow
third parties to challenge new gTLD Registries. With similar purposes
and parties, the two Procedures should reflect similar procedures, yet
PDDRP procedures are far more rigorous. Community TLDs are likely to
have fewer resources than their other registry counterparts. As a matter
of public interest and public policy, the protections against abuse in
the RRDRP should be as strong as in the PDDRP, including:


A.    Parties to the Dispute must not be allowed to have two chances at
the same case in two different procedures (PDDRP and RRDRP).


B.    Footnote 1 must be deleted.


C.    Standing and Standards - As in the PDDRP, the RRDRP must have high
requirement for standing and standards in the RRDRP. ICANN should raise
the requirements and set a clear and reasonable burden of proof on the
Complainant. Standing should not be allowed to provide ammunition for
those who lost fights in their communities - including the fight to run
the Community TLD (and now seek to show their "harm") and/or the grudges
and differences that run through almost all communities.


D.    The complaint requirements should be changed - At a minimum, the
aggrieved party must show by clear and convincing evidence that:

1.     It has an ongoing relationship with a defined community that
consists of a restricted population that the gTLD supports, 

2.     The Registry has failed  in a substantial and consistent manner
to serve the defined community (as the Registry has defined it and as
ICANN has accepted in the Registry Agreement), 

3.     The registry operator's affirmative conduct has caused
substantial harm to the complainant, and

4.     There is a pattern of bad conduct harmful to the complainant. 


E.     Threshold Review - The RRDRP should include an independent
Threshold Review for the same reasons the PDDRP includes such a review.
The wording of the Threshold Review, as carefully set out in the current
PDDRP, should be added into the RRDRP -- with only minor changes for
differences in the proceeding. A certification that the party has not
already filed a similar action against the Community TLD in another
ICANN proceeding should be added. 




PIR appreciates this opportunity to submit these comments, and looks
forward to significant improvements in the RRDRP that reflect the real
world needs of Community TLDs. These new Registries will bring diversity
and outreach to the domain name system and deserve protection.



Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846|  www.pir.org
<http://www.pir.org>  |  


Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>   |  .ORG Blog
<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>  | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>  | 
YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>  | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz>  |


Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then


Attachment: PIR RRDRP Comments FINAL.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF Document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index    

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy