Blacknight Comment - RAP Initial Report

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Blacknight would like to commend the members of the RAP Working Group on their 
work in this area to date and appreciate how complex an area it can be.

In relation to specific topics that the group addressed in its deliberations to 
date we wish to submit the following comments:





 == Gripe Sites / Offensive Domain Names ==

We are strong believers in freedom of speech and expression. Any criteria that 
would prevent registrants from registering domain names on the basis of causing 
possible offence would be a danger to such freedom of expression. It is also 
far too subjective to be readily enforceable in a global context.

Language is constantly changing. Terms that may have been deemed "offensive" in 
some circles 5 years ago are now deemed acceptable for use in mainstream media 
today. The opposite is also true.

A domain name is a string of letters and numbers. It is wholly unreasonable to 
expect registries or registrars to vet domains based on such subjective 
criteria.

Also it is worth noting that terms have completely different meanings and 
connotations depending on the language and country in which they are used.

As a rather silly example to illustrate.

The term "fag" in Ireland is the colloquial word for "cigarette", while in the 
US it refers to a person's sexual orientation in a derogatory manner.

Or in Spanish, the verb "coger" is completely innocuous in mainland Spain, but 
is associated with the sexual act in some parts of South America.

Any domain name could be used for an "offensive" or "objectionable" site, as 
the site's classification, albeit subjective, is going to be defined by the 
content and usage. This has nothing to do with the actual domain registration 
and is therefore out of this group's scope.

If a brand owner has an issue with a domain name they have the UDRP and the 
courts to address such matters.





== Fake Renewal Notices ==

Several companies prey on non-technical registrants by sending out fake renewal 
notices both electronically and in hard copy. 


For example, Domain Renewal Group / Domain Registry of America was the subject 
of complaints to the UK Advertising Standards Authority in 2009:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2009/11/Domain-Registry-of-America/TF_ADJ_47583.aspx

The ruling cites specifically how the notifications were misleading to 
registrants.

As a registrar we have received numerous complaints from registrants who have 
received such notices. In some cases our registrants have risked losing control 
of their domain names due to the confusion that such notices caused.

We would welcome any actions or proposals to address this that ICANN might 
develop. We would also support the group's recommendations on this point.

The RAA requires that registrars provide open access to their WHOIS, however 
the modus operandi of these companies is obviously not something that ICANN (or 
anyone else) was thinking of when such clauses were inserted into the RAA.




==WHOIS Access == 

Please see note above.

It is our belief that "bad actors" are abusing WHOIS on a regular basis and 
that the current system and requirements for registrars to give everyone access 
needs to be revised to take into consideration such abuse and its negative 
impact on registrants.

Having said that, we also strongly believe that ICANN needs to enforce the 
terms of the RAA on ALL registrars.

Far too many registrars either do not have functioning WHOIS servers or have 
blocked access to port 43 in such a manner as to give the impression that the 
WHOIS server does not exist ie. using a firewall rule instead of sending an 
error based on the number of queries from an IP address or netblock over a 
given period of time.



== Reporting ==

We are strong supporters of standardisation and simplification abuse reports.

I am personally on the record at both the Sydney and the Seoul meeting on this 
topic. 

As a hosting provider, registrar, network operator and colo provider, we 
receive abuse reports for activity of all types across our network, as well as 
associated with domain names on our accreditations. 

While we wish at all times to be a "good neighbour" we would also expect that 
those entities reporting incidents do so in a clear and coherent manner. 

For example, if a report is addressed to abuse@ then it can be safely assumed 
that the person or persons reading such reports does not need a lesson in 
protocols.




== UDRP ==

A review of the UDRP process as a whole would not be unwelcome. Any process 
should be reviewed from time to time to assess whether or not it is effective 
and to address issues that may arise.

Having said that, however, any review of the UDRP needs to be balanced. It 
should not be merely driven by trademark lobbyists. UDRP proceedings should not 
be abused by trademark holders.
At present there is no disincentive that I am aware of for a complainant to 
submit multiple dubious and unfounded complaints which makes a mockery of the 
system.

Any studies or reviews of UDRP should be done based on actual data and not 
rumour, speculation or other subjective nonsense.



== Front Running ==

Without evidence any further discussion on this topic is a waste of time and 
resources.




== Malicious Use of Domain Names  / Abuse Provisions ==

We would support the concept of developing non-binding best practices, as this 
could provide guidance.

However, we would strongly oppose any attempts to make such practices mandatory 
for a number of reasons:

- uniform practices would work in the favour of criminals
- uniform practices would prevent innovation


Security is an area that is highly complex and constantly evolving. 





We commend the group on their work in this area to date and look forward to 
reviewing further documents that they may produce over time.

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon
Managing Director
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845