<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Barry's draft language regarding use
- To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] Barry's draft language regarding use
- From: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:10:47 -0400
Greg,
Thank you for the revision. My apologies for my late response, as I
logged a 12 hour stint viewing what works and what doesn?t within the
healthcare industry today.
I did not get the feedback I was looking for, so we can go to print
with the version you created below. However, I do propose one
enhancement. I do not think the opposition, for lack of a better
title, seeks for ICANN to make policy for ANY & ALL uses of domain
names. Rather, we are seeking policy action on the use abuses
identified and agreed on by the community. For example the use abuses
identified within the Malicious Use recommendation. For those that
feel they belong to the opposition, please chime in if I misstated here.
Greg?s Revision:
?Some members of the RAPWG are of the opinion that a difference
between registration abuse and use abuse cannot be reasonably
expressed. Their opinion is that a domain name cannot be used unless
it is registered, and therefore any abuse of a registered name is
registration abuse. Stated another way, these members believe that
policies involving the use of a domain name unrelated to its
registration are inside the scope of policies that ICANN can enforce
on registries and/or registrars, and ICANN can make policy regarding
any or all uses of domain names. ?
Berry?s Revision to Greg?s Revision:
?Some members of the RAPWG are of the opinion that a difference
between registration abuse and use abuse cannot be reasonably
expressed. Their opinion is that a domain name cannot be used unless
it is registered, and therefore any abuse of a registered name is
registration abuse. Stated another way, these members believe that
policies involving the use of a domain name unrelated to its
registration are inside the scope of policies that ICANN can enforce
on registries and/or registrars, and ICANN can make policy regarding
community defined use abuses of domain names. ?
Also, I have one edit to the Conclusion section. I had missed that
section in my review over the weekend, as I thought it was a part of
the public comments. The revision is similar to above:
Current Version (Page115, Paragraph 3, Line 8):
Another set of community members feels strongly that ICANN can
regulate any thing that occurs on or through gTLD domain names.
Proposed Revision:
Another set of community members feels strongly that ICANN should only
regulate areas where identified abuse approved by the community occur
on or through gTLD domain names.
Thank you.
Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.infinityportals.com
866.921.8891
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:19 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] Barry's draft language regarding use
Dear Berry:
Thanks for your work. Here are some notes; I look forward to your thoughts.
BERRY?S DRAFT, circa page 25:
?To the contrary of aforementioned distinctions about Registration
abuse and Use abuse within the context of abuse as we have defined,
many members of the RAPWG are of the opinion there is NO distinction.
It is argued that a difference between Registration Abuse and Use
Abuse cannot be reasonably expressed. A domain name cannot be used
unless it is registered; therefore any abuse of a registered name is
registration abuse. UDRP is one of the most prevalent examples where
ICANN policy scope ventures in to the realm of domain use. Further
there are several examples within ICANN scope agreements where use of
domains are listed and especially with respect to contributory
liability is concerned. Finally, the concern about this debate within
the vacuum of dealing with "use abuse" is that if not addressed
adequately, not only will abuse expansion continue relative to growth,
but ICANN and its contracted parties will likely be in the position
where terms of addressing abuse will be dictated. It is our duty as
stakeholders of the community to become more proactive in mitigating
and preventing all forms of abuse where practical and feasible.
Note:
Given the consistent debate of Registration vs. Use throughout the
RAPWG, the group recognizes it extends beyond the purview of the WG
and touches many other aspects within the ICANN policy realm.
Therefore the RAPWG achieved unanimous consensus that the debate will
not be solved here and recommends that the GNSO determine a platform
through consultation with ICANN Legal, the ICANN board, and other
Stakeholder groups as necessary to resolve this debate.?
PROPOSED REVISION:
?Some members of the RAPWG are of the opinion that a difference
between registration abuse and use abuse cannot be reasonably
expressed. Their opinion is that a domain name cannot be used unless
it is registered, and therefore any abuse of a registered name is
registration abuse. Stated another way, these members believe that
policies involving the use of a domain name unrelated to its
registration are inside the scope of policies that ICANN can enforce
on registries and/or registrars, and ICANN can make policy regarding
any or all uses of domain names. ?
NOTES:
The sentence that begins ?Stated another way? is designed to make the
concept clear by contrasting it to the opposing view. It re-uses some
language in the report. Does it work for you?
Barry, I cut this sentence pending further discussion: ?Further there
are several examples within ICANN scope agreements where use of
domains are listed and especially with respect to contributory
liability is concerned.? In the past you have referred to ?ICANN
scope agreements? as including registrar-registrant agreements and
various terms of service -- but much of what?s in those has nothing to
do with ICANN requirements. If there are RAA or ICANN-registry
contract clauses where use of domains are listed, please point those
out specifically so we can figure out some language.
I cut this sentence pending further discussion: ?UDRP is one of the
most prevalent examples where ICANN policy scope ventures in to the
realm of domain use.? I suggest this could use further precision,
because it could be read to state that ICANN made UDRP policy about
use. But the rationale behind the UDRP is a registration problem,
and UDRP takes use into account as a demonstration of bad faith. The
registration issue is the assigned domain name string itself (a
problem of unique assignment). This is all consistent with what the
General Counsel?s office said in the Issues Report about Consensus
Policy: ?The use of domain names may be taken into account when
establishing or changing registration policies?.
The sentence ??ICANN and its contracted parties will likely be in the
position where terms of addressing abuse will be dictated? seems like
a controversial opinion. We do not know if everyone in the group who
holds the view about ICANN scope also holds that opinion. If left
in, perhaps it would be safer to attribute the statement.
I also cut the sentence: ?It is our duty as stakeholders of the
community to become more proactive in mitigating and preventing all
forms of abuse where practical and feasible.? I think all members of
the WG are very concerned about abuse and want to do something about
it. The group has honest disagreements about what?s practical and
feasible to do. People on one side or the other should not be
painted as being in favor of abuse.
The Conclusion of the Final Report discusses the debate of
Registration vs. Use and how the Council may need to keep it in mind
etc.
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|