[council] Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm
Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration 
Abuse
Comment/Reply Periods (*)

Important Information Links

Comment Open:

25 July 2012

Comment Close:

15 August 2012

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Public Comment 
Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm>

Reply Open:

16 August 2012

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:uoc-prelim-issue-report@xxxxxxxxx>

Reply Close:

5 September 2012

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/uoc-prelim-issue-report/>

Close Time (UTC):

23:59 UTC

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

GNSO

Categories/Tags:


 *   Policy Processes
 *   Contracted Party Agreements

Purpose (Brief):

At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to 
evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be 
created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language 
would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. The 
Preliminary Issue Report has now been published for public comment.

Current Status:

This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and 
dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report.

Next Steps:

The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback 
submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to 
the GNSO Council for its consideration.

Staff Contact:

Rob Hoggarth

Email:

policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Uniformity%20of%20Contracts%20to%20Address%20Registration%20Abuse%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose


This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the GNSO 
Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Contracts, as a 
required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be 
initiated. The objective of a possible PDP would be 'to evaluate whether a 
minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all 
in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be 
structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse'.

Earlier reports on this topic (see October 2008 Issues 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf>
 [PDF, 297 KB] and the RAPWG Final 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> 
[PDF, 1.73 MB]), describe the lack of uniformity of abuse provisions among the 
currently delegated gTLD registry agreements, as well as the absence of 
specific abuse provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). 
Across the spectrum of existing registry agreements, there are elements of 
similarity but each contract (currently) is customized to the uniqueness of the 
respective registry's business model and operating conditions.

In an attempt to develop a complete picture of the existing abuse provisions 
for this Issue Report, ICANN Staff reviewed 17 different gTLD registry and 
registry-registrar agreements, and several other publicly available documents 
on registry websites that relate to contractual rights and obligations 
associated with abuse (e.g., Acceptable Use Policies and Terms of Agreement). 
In general, Staff discovered:

 1.  Existing Registry Agreements generally do not include specific provisions 
to address abuse
 2.  To the extent existing agreements address activities that might be defined 
as abuse, there is little in the way of common language across agreements to 
identify those activities
 3.  Where registries include specific provisions for dealing with various 
types of abuse, there is evidence that the provisions can be effective
 4.  Regardless of whether the agreements contain registration abuse 
provisions, registration abuse still exists in the domain name industry

Staff has confirmed that a PDP regarding the potential development of uniform 
baseline Registration Abuse policies for use in ICANN contracts is within the 
scope of the ICANN Policy Process and the GNSO. Consequently, Staff recommends 
that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic. Should 
the PDP proceed, Staff suggests that the working group conduct further 
research, as follows:

 *   Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed 
more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established;
 *   Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those 
registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific provisions 
or policies to address abuse; and
 *   Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are 
implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing 
registration abuse.

If the results of this research reveals that there is value in having uniform 
provisions to address registration abuse, the PDP WG should also consider a set 
of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or framework of 
provisions to battle registration abuse, and define potential reporting 
requirements to track progress toward those goals. ICANN Staff is of the view 
that there may be benefits to establishing a consistent framework of 
registration abuse prevention that is applicable across gTLD registries and 
ICANN-accredited Registrars.

ICANN Staff would welcome community input on the findings as well as 
conclusions of this Preliminary Issue Report.

Section II: Background

The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the 
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by the 
GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between registration 
abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of abuse, and 
understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within agreements in order 
to identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further 
consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG identified a total of 14 
recommended actions that could address various forms of registration abuse. 
Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP 
Review, malicious use of domain names and several others. The specific 
recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue Report stated: "Evaluate whether 
a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all 
in scope ICANN agreements and if created, how such language would be structured 
to address the most common forms of registration abuse."

Section III: Document and Resource Links

Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contacts to Address Registration 
Abuse<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/prelim-issue-report-uoc-25jul12-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 683 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information




(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to 
be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making 
that takes place once this period lapses.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org