Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a Registration Abuse

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For your information, there is a policy development process currently ongoing 
addressing a number of issues related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 
(IRTP). Some of the questions that are part of this PDP is whether a process 
for urgent return / resolution of a domain name should be developed in cases of 
hijacking and whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers 
are needed. For further information, please see 
https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b.

With best regards,

Marika

On 9/1/09 9:05 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Registration" issues can be present after the creation of a domain name.
(We can have PDPs on transfers and post-expiration issues, for example.)
All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:51 PM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Reverse Domain Name Hijacking as a Registration
Abuse


In message
<20090901095444.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.e4672b37a5.wbe@xxxxxxxxx
ureserver.net>, at 09:54:44 on Tue, 1 Sep 2009, James M. Bladel
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>My only remaining question is one of scope:  Under what circumstances
>would Reverse Hijacking (which is an abuse of process governing
>existing
>names) be considered a "registration" abuse, versus a
>"post-registration" or "use" abuse?

I've lost track of whether we decided that the only time there can ever be
registration abuse is the instant a domain is first registered. (If we have,
it certainly clears the decks).

But I would argue that the instant of invoking a dispute resolution process
to change a domains registration under duress should also qualify.

And now I'm thinking along these lines, maybe activating any process to
transfer a domain - what if someone is duped into making a transfer (maybe
that's also one of the forms of 'theft' spoken of before) should be able to
be scrutinised under our remit.
--
Roland Perry