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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fred and Team:

My only concern is that this phrase could be employed to sweep up a
number of benign services and tools simply because individuals chose to
misuse them.  

For example, registrars will often suggest alternative names if a
registrant's desired string is taken.  This algorithm isn't too
sophisticated, it just adds a phrase like "online" or "website" to the
end of a search string whenever the first choice is taken.  So, an
abuser could type in "<famousbrand>.com," and the tool will suggest
"<famousbrand-online>.com" or "<famousbrand-website>.com."  The
suggestion itself isn't the "material predicate," as the algorithm
simply isn't smart enough to know the difference or intent.  In fact, if
one were to search on an ICANN or IANA Reserved String, it could
probably generate the same results.

So, if there's a way we can encompass this idea without overburdening
the definition, that would be ideal.  Maybe just adding "act" is
sufficient, but I'll leave that to the group.  

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] "material predicate"
From: Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 29, 2010 5:35 pm
To: Greg Aaron <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, RAP-WG <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Faisal Shah <fshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 Re: [gnso-rap-dt] "material predicate" 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 “material
predicate” 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 “act” 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 “abuse” is:
 “Abuse 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.”
  
 That definition is indebted to the “Working 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-18feb09.pdf

 That doc said: “When 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.”
  
 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 can’t 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:
  
 “A 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.”
  
 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.