RE: [gnso-rap-dt] ACTION REQUIRED - Please Review & Comment on Uniformity of Contracts Recommendations Report
Dear Berry and UoC friends:
Attached please find a marked-up version with edits and comments. Also
below are some thoughts. Please take them for what they are worth, from one
member among many.
The doc has a section that says what contracts there are and generally how
they vary, but then it then segues into recommendations. Is there enough
discussion of which variances are key and why - what it all means? It seems
very important to do that in order to support any recommendations. We do
not know if uniformity for its own the sake is a good thing.
Here's some background on some existing anti-abuse policy. This is an
example of how a contractual variances issue might boil down.
The .INFO Domain Anti-Abuse Policy was announced pursuant to section 3.5.2
of the Registry-Registrar Agreement ("RRA") in effect between Afilias and
each of its Registrars. PIR basically did the same thing for .ORG. That
language says:
<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm> says:
"3.5. Compliance with Terms and Conditions. Registrar shall comply with each
of the following requirements, and further shall include in its registration
agreement with each Registered Name Holder, as applicable, an obligation for
such Registered Name Holder to comply with each of the following
requirements:
3.5.2. operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the
Registry TLD established from time to time by Afilias in a non-arbitrary
manner and applicable to all registrars, including affiliates of Afilias,
and consistent with ICANN's standards, policies, procedures, and practices
and Afilias' Registry Agreement with ICANN. Additional or revised Afilias
operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the Registry
TLD shall be effective upon thirty days notice by Afilias to Registrar. If
there is a discrepancy between the terms required by this Agreement and the
terms of the Registrar's registration agreement, the terms of this Agreement
shall supercede those of the Registrar's registration agreement"
So, this is some language that allows a registry to set an anti-abuse policy
for itself: http://www.info.info/info/abusive_use_policy
I think an unanswered question is whether the other extant RRAs have similar
language. Your eval of the RRAs says "However, they lack sufficient abuse
definitions and indemnification language to combat abuse." But if they have
language like 3.5.2, is that really true?
Is a conclusion that all registries should have contractual language that
allows them to set such policies for themselves? Or should the RAPWG go
farther and recommend an Abuse Provision Baseline (APB) that all relevant
contracted parties would be forced to adopt?
Note that the Afilias, PIR, and Neustar anti-abuse policies seem to have two
important aspects:
1) They give the registry the right to suspend domains for violations. And,
2) They do not force registrars to suspend domain names. This avoids an
indemnification dilemma.
All best,
--Greg
_____
From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:01 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] ACTION REQUIRED - Please Review & Comment on
Uniformity of Contracts Recommendations Report
Importance: High
RAP WG,
Please follow the link to the UoC wiki. There you will find the UoC
Recommendations report for your review and comment. Please send all
feedback to the list. Berry, will compile all comments and changes to
incorporate in to the next version.
https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?uniformity_sub_team
We appreciate your assistance. Thank you.
Berry A. Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891
Attachment:
RAPWG-UofC_Recommendation_Draft_edit3DEC2009.doc
|