FW: [gnso-rap-dt] question for Mike Rodenbaugh regarding amendment language

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

 

Happy to try to clarify. nothing new here.  

 

I continue to disagree that "mandatory practices to deal with use of domain
names (unrelated to registration process abuses) seem outside of ICANN's
scope."  I know that is gospel for the contracting parties, and ICANN Staff
are always too happy to repeat it, but it ignores the UDRP and additional,
plain language in almost all of the Registry Agreements (except Verisign's).
It also ignores reality, as it is not generally possible to discern intent
to abuse at the time of registration -- more often that abusive intent is
only manifest upon occurrence of abuse.  

 

Furthermore, in reality, contracting parties can be held contributorily
liable for abuse of their systems, even to the point that they literally
could be sued out of existence and/or shutdown by a governmental authority,
which likely would cause huge problems for ICANN and for affected
registrants.  We all would like to avoid that possibility, so finding some
minimum anti-abuse standards, mandatorily applicable to all contract
parties, continues to make imminent sense to me.  Best practices would be a
step in the right direction, but might not be worth the paper on which they
are printed, not to mention all the time and effort that will go into
devising them.  It would be better to use that effort to devise some
mandatory/minimum rules that can be enforced by ICANN Staff.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:10 AM
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] question for Mike Rodenbaugh regarding amendment
language 

 

Hi, Mike.  The WG went through the final recommendations today, and I have a
question regarding your response to #30 (creation of best practices to
address illicit uses of domain names).

 

Your friendly amendment was: "The effort should also consider mandatory
minimum practices applicable to contracting parties, in addition to best
practices."  

 

The RAPWG did find an instance where there is an inherent relationship
between registration abuses and malicious uses of domains: WHOIS
accessibility (or lack of accessibility).  The group therefore agreed to
make two recommendations about that topic.  WHOIS accessibility is a
specific topic where the WG recommends that the GNSO look into practices
applicable to contracting parties.

 

Otherwise, your amendment seems incompatible with the Recommendation.  The
group has arrived at the best practice approach because mandatory practices
to deal with use of domain names (unrelated to registration process abuses)
seem outside of ICANN's scope.   

 

Can you offer clarification on your comments?

 

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.