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

[Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mike.


On 2/8/10 12:44 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> That is not precisely what I am saying.
>  
> A domain name registration lasts from the time it is registered until the time
> it is no longer registered.  If it is abused during that time, then it is
> within ICANN and its contracting parties¹ remit to address, as is made very
> clear in all of the relevant contracts (except Verisign¹s Registry Agreements
> for .com/.net) and otherwise by law and industry practice.  The problem is the
> inconsistency with which some contracting parties respond (or fail to respond)
> to complaints of abuse.  Minimum/mandatory standards for handling those
> complaints should be adopted.
>  
> I do not believe this is an ³Alternate View² but one that has been supported
> by most of the WG all along.
>  
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>  
> 
> From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 12:35 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] question for Mike Rodenbaugh regarding amendment
> language 
>  
> OK. Would you like to be listed as having an alternate view, that ³It is
> within ICANN¹s remit to regulate uses of domain names unrelated to
> registration abuses²?
>  
> All best,
> --Greg
>  
> 
> 
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:09 PM
> To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: FW: [gnso-rap-dt] question for Mike Rodenbaugh regarding amendment
> language 
>  
> Hi Greg,
>  
> Happy to try to clarify? nothing new here.
>  
> I continue to disagree that ³mandatory practices to deal with use of domain
> names (unrelated to registration process abuses) seem outside of ICANN¹s
> scope.²  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 Verisign¹s).
> 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: ³The effort should also consider mandatory
> minimum practices applicable to contracting parties, in addition to best
> practices.²  
>  
> 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 ICANN¹s 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.
>  
>  
>