Re: [gnso-rap-dt] How AT&T handles copyright abuse complaints

[Jeremy Hitchcock <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe, although that's a responsibility that I'd rather not have as a 
registrar.  DMCA complaints are pretty cut and dry but other topics like child 
pornography (clearly abuse and illegal but sometimes subjective), spamming 
(mostly clear but not always), invalid whois (ranging from the obvious to false 
but appearing valid), and "good" fast flux can be subjective and therefore 
unfair to ask a registrar to constantly judge for abuse.  We have a judicial 
system that is capable of those conclusions.

A key point with abuse contacts and abuse complaints is that unless they come 
through a subpoena or through an already established channel (like whois or 
DMCA), the complaint is informational only.  The receiving organization is 
formally performing an internal investigation with no allegiance to the sending 
organization.

Another liability topic is that many registration TOS or AUP have provisions 
for limitations of liability in the event of termination for abuse.  This isn't 
uniform nor is it a perfect defense against a registrant claiming interference 
of commerce, especially considering that not all of these abuses are illegal.

Jeremy

-- 
Jeremy Hitchcock
jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dynamicnetworkservices.com/
Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
P: +1.603.296.1554    C: +1.603.391.4494

----- "Roland Perry" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: "Roland Perry" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:04:04 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] How AT&T handles copyright abuse complaints
>
> In message 
> <BA9B882C2A9D214AAA45D340957A69EF104FB0F1D7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> , at 13:32:11 on Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Phil Corwin 
> <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >As one of the registrars pointed out in Mexico City, court and 
> >administrative orders and legislative safe harbors such as the DMCA's
> 
> >in the US provide a level of legal protection to common carriers and
> 
> >ISPs that is not necessarily available to protect registrars against
> 
> >litigation under ICANN contracts.
> 
> Is the answer to this for registrars to lobby to be immune from the 
> misdeeds of their customers in the same way that "common carrier" ISPs
> 
> are?
> 
> Immune until put on notice (and fail to act), obviously.
> -- 
> Roland Perry