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

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <716d09d70904151333m63eefed6j978326e5139c5aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
at 16:33:14 on Wed, 15 Apr 2009, George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx> 
writes
> > 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).
What? Even new gTLDs like (for example) .paris. They could easily have a 
condition that you mustn't advertise nazi memorabilia for sale (because 
that's illegal in France). A new gtld for .sydney might not have the 
same issue.
OK, these are almost "pseudo ccTLDs". Another example: you can't 
register in .museum unless you are a museum. It would be an abuse if you 
pretended to be a museum. Few other gTLDs have a similar restriction.
> 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.
The rules do need to be set by the public, but not the entire public 
perhaps. Maybe only that part of the public which has a significant 
stake in a particular gTLD.
You can argue (and I might well agree) that the whole world has a stake 
in .com, .org and a few others. Who has a stake in .int?
> So, in conclusion, leaving it up to the registry operator would not be
> something I would or could support.
Isn't part of the task of this WG to decide what sorts of "global" 
policies might be appropriate, and which gTLDs they need to be applied 
to? There's an assumption, for example, that WASP values [should] apply 
to the whole world, which isn't in fact the case. (In some places people 
have more restrictive values, in other places less restrictive).
--
Roland Perry