Hello, ICANN has recently posted Afilias' revised proposal regarding "abusive use" of dot-info domain names:
http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 Of course most folks care little about dot-info, but if this proposal is accepted it would create a dangerous precedent for other gTLDs, in particular dot-com. I posted about the original proposal at: http://www.circleid.com/posts/86215_potential_danger_ahead_dot_info_policy/ as have others at: http://www.domainnamenews.com/featured/domain-name-registry-as-judge-jury-and-executioner/1674 http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=91572 and the revised proposal changes very little. Essentially, it would permit the registry operator to cancel a domain name "in its discretion" without due process. This would severely impact domain name registrants, in particular those whose sites have been hacked, etc. and are otherwise upstanding and legitimate registrants. Indeed two of ICANN's own domain names had been hacked recently, as has been widely reported -- this policy (if it was in force for .com) would conceivably have given VeriSign the right to cancel those domains, had the hackers placed abusive content or otherwise misused the domains. Indeed, almost any website that has user-generated content would be impacted by this proposed policy. A mere allegation, without any due process, might be enough for a competitor to shut down and cancel another company's domain name. Indeed, if you threaten Afilias itself, instead of the offending company, you can get results, given: http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-abuse-funnel-request-rev-03jul08.pdf "Afilias reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion;..........(3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Afilias, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees;" Afilias can't even write a proper contract, and wrote that "Afilias has revised its proposed policy to remove from its definition of abusive uses the section titled 'Other abusive behaviors' " when the actual wording of their policy uses the word "includes, without limitation" which means that as a practical matter they can add in anything they want later on "without limitation." This is a dangerous policy, and would turn the registry operators into judge, jury and executioner. It imposes new obligations on domain owners, ones that might affect their USA DMCA immunity and "safe harbor" provisions http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/ for example, without any corresponding rights. Any illegal user generated content can get a domain name cancelled by the registry "in its discretion." Furthermore, who is to say what is "illegal" and what is not illegal? Someone's pro-democracy blog might be perfectly legal in the USA, but might be a crime in Iran, Cuba or China. Instead of due process, the registry operator has the option to intervene in things that are frankly none of its business. Telephone companies don't cancel telephone numbers or regulate content -- due process would go through the police and courts. While the policy might have been motivated by good intentions, I would hope that Tucows and other registrars/resellers will vocally oppose this poorly thought out proposed policy. The registry operators would be able to trump any decisions by registrars, or if registrars are taking too long to make a decision. A domain name should never be cancelled without due process, but should at most be removed from the zone file. Furthermore, there's already a policy in place that can be used to combat all the items in the proposed policy, namely the requirement for accurate WHOIS. Nearly all illegal websites provide fake WHOIS -- if an illegal website/domain had accurate WHOIS, then clearly it'd be simple to tell the police to show up at their door and arrest them! Why on earth would the registry operator cancel the domain, as a "solution" to the problem, instead of getting the police involved? If fake WHOIS was given, the existing policies could be used to terminate the domain. If folks would like to add their comments to the public debate, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (you will receive an email from ICANN to validate the comment, by clicking a link, to demonstrate that your initial comment was not spam) Comments would appear in the public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/ Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
