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

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message 
<716d09d70904160826w1d12526djf00cb6212d8fcec2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, at 
11:26:20 on Thu, 16 Apr 2009, George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx> writes
> > > 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.
> As things currently stand, yes, I would oppose it even for new gTLDs
> like .paris (in your example). The reason I would do so is that ICANN
> currently considers them equal and identical to existing gTLDs like
> .com/net/org/biz/info, and because existing gTLDs have the infamous
> "equitable treatment" clause, see 3.2(b) of say:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06.htm
>
> "Equitable Treatment.  ICANN shall not apply standards, policies,
> procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and
> shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless
> justified by substantial and reasonable cause."
I don't think I was suggesting that ICANN treated gTLDs differently. 
They would all have the same definition of abuse, and one that wasn't 
arbitrary or unjustified because *this WG* is the process to ensure it's 
neither of those.
> Since ICANN is putting equitable treatment clauses in every
> contract, one has to spend too much time worrying that a bad new
> clause in some minor gTLD will cause a cascade effect with every gTLD
> registry operator wanting that same clause.
But these are clauses mandating "better" behaviour by the registrants. 
Are you really suggesting that TLDs should be discouraged from 
introducing such things?
Conversely, does ICANN have an obligation to ensure that all gTLDS are 
"equally anarchic", by discouraging better community safety rules within 
one particular gTLD?
--
Roland Perry