Re: [gnso-rap-dt] for discussion: the definition of "abuse"

[George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> Different registries operate under different legal systems and therefore are
> likely to have different rules. So an alternative is to say that "abuse is:
> That which infringes a Registry's policy".

I would strongly disagree with that definition for gTLDs (ccTLDs can
do whatever they want).

First, while registry operators often act as if they "own" the gTLD,
it's really something that belongs to the public As Tim Berners-Lee
wrote 5 years ago in the context of new gTLDs:

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD

"The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by
design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a
whole."

In my view, the rules/policies need to be set by the public, not by a
profit-maximizing registry operator whose interests are not
necessarily aligned with those of the public. If you asked VeriSign,
adding a wildcard into the dot-com zone wasn't "abusive" -- it was a
helpful feature! ;)

This is why I was so greatly opposed to Afilias' dot-info and PIR's
dot-org abuse policies, which should have waited for a public
consensus from ICANN (like something coming out of this workgroup)
that would meet the PDP standards of the GNSO and pass through the
Board. See:

http://blog.pir.org/?p=108
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090108_pir_anti_abuse_policy_domain_names/
http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=97280
http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=91572

for some background. The language in their policies is simply hideous.
I know we've spent some time coming up with an appropriate definition
of abuse -- I wish they should have consulted far more broadly before
bringing out their policies into a production environment.

So, in conclusion, leaving it up to the registry operator would not be
something I would or could support.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/