Re: .info Abuse Policy as a "New Service" might be barred by ICANN's agreement with Afilias

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again,

I forgot to add, that paragraph 3.1.(b)(iv)(F) of the agreement dealing
with Consensus Policies specifically mentions:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm

"(F)resolution of disputes regarding whether particular parties may
register or maintain registration of particular domain names."

An allegation of abuse, affecting whether a particular party may
maintain a registration of a domain name, clearly falls under that
description above.

Furthermore the last section of 3.6.5 of the appendix (i.e.
registry-registrar agreement) says:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm

"Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or
similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute."

I would suggest that again an allegation of "abuse" is equivalent to a
"dispute" in the above language, and that does not permit cancellation,
but only registry lock, hold or similar status. 3.6.5 puts law
enforcement and government (and courts) above the registry operator.
This new proposal makes the registry operator become the policeman, the
prosecution, judge, jury and executioner. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> According to paragraph 3.1.(d)(iii) of the .info agreement:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm
> 
> "(c) any other products or services that only a registry operator is
> capable of providing, by reason of its designation as the registry
> operator;
> 
> Obviously the registrar is currently *equally* capable of cancelling
> or
> removing a domain name from the zone file, and handling abuse issues.
> So *by definition* this can't be a product or service that only the
> registry operator is capable of providing.
> 
> Furthermore, 3.1.(d)(iv)(G) provides specific definitions of
> "Security"
> and "Stability" that I do not believe are met by this proposal.
> 
> I believe the proper course forward is for Afilias to cancel its
> proposal as a "new service", and instead propose a Consensus Policy
> for
> review by the GNSO Council. I would invite them to do so, as I'm
> against abuse. Through a Consensus Policy we can ensure that the
> rights
> of registrants to due process will be protected through input from
> all
> constituencies, and ensure that a policy that has proportionality and
> predictability is created.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>