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

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message 
<11342867.151371238421244379.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, at 
09:54:04 on Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Jeremy Hitchcock <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
writes
> 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
[... list of some topics which might be deemed at the end of this study 
to be either included or excluded from the definition of registration 
abuse ...]
> can be subjective and therefore unfair to ask a registrar to constantly 
> judge for abuse.
Surely a prime objective of this WG is to determine which activities are 
regarded as abusive, together with sufficiently good definitions that it 
becomes much clearer what qualifies and what doesn't.
That's what has happened in the past when various other online abuses 
have been discussed (wider than the ICANN context).
DMCA was one famous example, and it's only "clear cut" as a result of 
the processes which it defines. Processes which took a very long time to 
negotiate.
> We have a judicial system that is capable of those conclusions.
"We" are the Internet community, and while we are comfortable operating 
in an international environment, classic law enforcement and courts are 
not. And as you say, there is often significant harm arising from things 
which are not specifically illegal.
Surely we want to discourage seriously anti-social behaviour too?

> 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.
Businesses which have a high tolerance of abusive customers can 
experience negative outcomes as result. It's simply an act of self 
defence to investigate, in many cases.
The main "win" for the intermediaries is if the warring parties can take 
their dispute into the real world as cleanly as possible, without it 
unduly affecting the business of the intermediary.
> 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.
Again, using an analogy with DMCA, if someone steals my identity and 
uses it to populate the WHOIS of a dubious website (so that complainants 
turn up on my doorstep [I have real examples of this]) it should be 
possible for me to instruct the registry to mark the data as disputed, 
and if the perpetrator subsequently has the cheek to issue a "put back" 
it shouldn't be too difficult to ensure he uses a different identity to 
mine (hopefully his real identity, but maybe that's being optimistic).
--
Roland Perry