Registrar Stakeholder Group Position on Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report
March 28, 2010
Registrar Stakeholder Group Position on Registration Abuse Policies Initial
Report
BACKGROUND
In March 2010, the Registrar Stakeholder Group ("RSG") was asked to provide
feedback regarding the Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report ("RAP Initial
Report"). This Position Paper captures the overall sentiment expressed by the
RSG Members who provided feedback about this matter. Due to time constraints,
however, no formal vote regarding this Position Paper was taken.
RSG POSITION
There are a variety of issues contained in the RAP Initial Report and these
issues are of great interest to RSG Members. RSG Members look forward to
gathering more information, discussing the issues, and sharing additional
comments with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group ("RAP WG") in the
future.
1. The RAP WG Should Determine Where ICANN's Policy-Making Boundaries Extend
with Respect to Registration Abuse Issues and Use Issues.
The RSG is troubled by the wide ranging scope of issues that the RAP Initial
Report encompasses. The RSG believes that, in some instances, the RAP WG has
considered issues that are more appropriately categorized as "use abuses"
rather than "registration abuses."
It is clear from the Initial Report that the RAP WG attempted to establish a
registration abuse definition that considered the material differences between
abusive domain name registration as opposed to abusive domain name use. The
RSG believes, however, that the RAP WG considered a variety of domain name "use
issues" that are outside ICANN's mission and policy-making boundaries. In
particular, issues such as "gripe sites" and "malicious use of domain names"
stray into the area of content control and, clearly, reside well outside the
scope of ICANN's policy-making boundaries.
While registrars are committed to minimizing abuse in the DNS, there are limits
to the responsibilities, or even capabilities, of registries and registrars
when a domain name is abused. The RAP WG has concentrated much of its effort
on consideration of domain name Use Issues that far exceed these limitations.
The RAP WG must be mindful that neither ICANN nor its Supporting Organizations
can be considered responsible for regulating or policing Internet content, in
any fashion. Accordingly, the RSG urges the RAP WG to orient its activity to
registration abuse that is within the scope ICANN's policy-making boundaries.
1. It Is Premature to Initiate a Policy Development Process to Consider How
Rights Protection Mechanisms Developed in the New gTLD Program Can Be Applied
to Cybersquatting in the Existing gTLD Space.
The RAP WG was almost evenly split regarding whether a PDP should be initiated
to consider how Rights Protection Mechanisms ("RPMs") developed in the new gTLD
program can be applied to cybersquatting in the existing gTLD space. The RSG
agrees with the view that a PDP regarding this issue is premature.
The community has engaged in a tremendous volume of discussion and debate
regarding RPMs for new gTLDs and many of the proposed RPMs have been met with
controversy among community stakeholders. Because the effectiveness and
consequences of the proposed RPMs in the new gTLD program are unknown,
discussion of new RPMs should continue within the limits of the new gTLD
program. In the RSG's view, real world experience with new RPMs is strongly
recommended before considering their incorporation or relation (if any) to the
existing gTLD space.
1. The RSG Opposes Creation of an Issues Report to Evaluate Whether a Minimum
Baseline of Registration Abuse Provisions is Necessary.
Several members of the RAP WG supported the recommendation that an Issues
Report be created to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse
provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created,
how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of
registration abuse. The RSG opposes this recommendation.
A minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions is not necessary because
all registries, registrars, and registrants are already contractually obligated
to abide by ICANN policies, notably existing or new Consensus Policies. The
Consensus Policy process is a mechanism specifically designed to create
uniformity where it is needed. If there is a registration abuse that needs to
be addressed, it should be specifically identified, and a specific Consensus
Policy crafted to deal with it.
Establishing a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions for all
in-scope ICANN agreements may also have unintended consequences. For example,
many registrars already have well-developed internal registration abuse
processes. If a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions was
established there is a risk that some registrars may abandon their processes in
favor of the mandated minimum baseline. These registrars may prefer to adopt
the minimum baseline rather than assume any additional liability associated
with their existing internal abuse processes.
Furthermore, if a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions is mandated
then ICANN is likely exposed to additional risk. Registrars will seek
indemnification from ICANN for any resulting harm if an impacted registrar
demonstrates that it followed ICANN's mandated abuse provisions.
Rather than establishing a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions,
the RSG supports consideration of possible abuse contact best practices. For
example, a recommendation was published by the ICANN Security and Stability
Advisory Committee ("SSAC") in SAC 038 regarding registrar abuse contact
practices. In this report the SSAC recommended that registrars assist in the
investigation and mitigation of abuses and illegal activities by providing an
abuse contact that is published prominently on registrar web pages. The report
further recommended that the abuse point of contact be responsive by answering
telephone and email inquiries responsibly. In the RSG's view, alternative
recommendations such as this serve the community more effectively than a
minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions.
CONCLUSION
The opinions expressed by the RSG in this Position Paper should not be
interpreted to reflect the individual opinion of any particular RSG Member.
Attachment:
RSG Position - Registration Abuse Policies FINAL.pdf |