Re: [gnso-rap-dt] "material predicate" (oops, forgot to copy the list...)

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'm inclined to go with Fred on "keep it clear/simple" -- James, maybe we could 
find a place in the text close by to the definition to put your qualifying 
paragraph?  i agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying but i worry about 
turning our definition into bafflegab.  

mikey

PS -- nice timestamp on that last post James.  what were we doing at that 3am 
hour??  :-)


On Jan 30, 2010, at 2:50 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)