Re: [gnso-rap-dt] "material predicate"

[Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg et al:

We had a chance to look over the abuse definition again. That definition
(which we all drafted together) is well-crafted, succinct and clear and, my
concern is that by adding long descriptive notes we might actually be
complicating the definition.   The words ³material predicate² of the abuse
necessarily implies a link between the predicate act and the abuse and
material implies that it must be significant. (We might simply add the word
³act² after the word predicate if that makes it more clear.) I would suggest
that we stick with the original definition so that we can move on to
addressing the other registration abuses.

Thanks ­ Fred 


On 1/26/10 8:26 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear WG:
>  
> I went back to the mail archives.  Our definition of ³abuse² is:
> ³Abuse is an action that:
> a.         Causes actual and substantial harm, or is a material predicate of
> such harm, and
> b.         Is illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise considered contrary to
> the intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such purpose is
> disclosed.²
>  
> That definition is indebted to the ³Working Definitions for Key Terms that May
> be Used in Future WHOIS Studies" prepared by the GNSO Drafting Team:
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18feb
> 09.pdf 
> That doc said: ³When applied to Whois data, such harmful actions may include
> the generation of spam, the abuse of personal data, intellectual property
> theft, loss of reputation or identity theft, loss of data, phishing and other
> cybercrime related exploits, harassment, stalking, or other activity with
> negative personal or economic consequences. The predicate to harmful action
> often includes automated email harvesting, domain name registration by
> proxy/privacy services to aid wrongful activity, and support of false or
> misleading registrant data. Predicate acts might include the use of Whois data
> to develop large email lists for commercial purposes.²
>  
> Back in our original deliberations, Roland Perry made some notes including:
> "There's huge leap between an unloaded rifle in my home and armed robbery."
> And James said yesterday that bank robberies are bad, but we can¹t stop them
> by outlawing cars, which could be used as getaway vehicles.
>  
> So I see this point:  there must be a clear link between the predicate and the
> abuse, and justification enough to address the abuse by addressing the
> predicate.
>  
> How about we add a bullet to explain what a predicate is?  My attempt:
>  
> ³A predicate is a related action or enabler.  There must be a clear link
> between the predicate and the abuse, and justification enough to address the
> abuse by addressing the predicate (enabling action).  For example: an abusive
> action is preventing registrants from transferring their domains names to the
> registrars of their choice.  A predicate to that harmful action might be the
> provision of false or misleading WHOIS data.²
>  
> What do you think?
>  
> All best,
> --Greg
>  
>  
> **********************************
> Greg Aaron
> Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security
> Afilias
> vox: +1.215.706.5700
> fax: 1.215.706.5701
> gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> **********************************
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
> and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>  
>  
>