Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Registration vs. Use / Scope Issues -- Roland's question about eligibility criteria

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <CC5B83375E6842DF9649014DEEA2F786@xxxxxxxxxxx>, at 11:36:44 
on Fri, 29 May 2009, Greg Aaron <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> To register a .MUSEUM name, one must be a museum as per the registry's
> eligibility requirements.  .BIZ registration terms state that .BIZ domain
> names are to be "used primarily for bona fide business or commercial
> purposes."  .MOBI Web sites must adhere to certain formatting requirements.
> Many ccTLDs have "nexus" requirements, requiring registrants to be citizens
> or residents in the relevant country.
>
> As a practical matter, non-compliance is sometimes discovered long after the
> domain name is created,
In which case, was the original registration (assuming it was always 
non-compliant) defacto "abusive"?  [see below, but in the sense that it 
is capable of causing harm, even if not every instance is proven to 
cause harm].
> and it seems that registrants can fall out of eligibility in some TLDs.
Indeed so.

> I assume that as long as a registration contract is in effect, it can 
> be enforced.
I had assumed (perhaps wrongly, maybe we do need a different 
"de-registration abuse WG") that part of the mission here was to advise 
whether "ICANN may establish policies that are binding on gTLD registry 
operators and ICANN-accredited registrars" to cover such circumstances.
> Here's something to consider: the difference between "abusive" and
> "noncompliant."  Abuse entails some harm to someone, while some noncompliant
> registrations might not hurt anyone.
But if *some* non-compliant registrations *are* capable of hurting 
someone, surely we can't turn our backs on the whole issue?
Only some people arriving at airports are carrying bombs, but we still 
subject everyone to screening.
> An abuse issue might be common and shared across TLDs, while an 
> eligibility/compliance issue might be particular or unique to one 
> specific TLD.
Which is why I suggested several weeks ago that one of the abuse 
criteria should be "That which infringes a [particular] Registry's 
policy".
We can't predict the future when it comes to specifying an exhaustive 
list of potential abuses, but what we can confidently predict is that 
whatever new rules appear in the future, some criminals will try to 
break those rules to the detriment of the rest of us.
--
Roland Perry