RE: [ga] Introducing changes based on a consensus process

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your question.  You've brought up a very important issue.

The incidence of these types of "objectionable" strings is actually very
low.  We actually reviewed the .pro zone file earlier this month and found
less than 1% of the registrations were strings one might as objectionable in
english-language culture.  But let's continue assuming that even a few dozen
is unacceptable.

First, under .pro, professional credentials are not reviewed by the ICANN
registrar.  This is the responsibility of the registry.  Depending on
registrar implementation, these credentials do not even enter the
registrar's servers: the data is entered directly into web forms hosted by
the registry.  And even then, this review is limited to verifying that the
individual's professional credentials submitted are valid.

At no time, does the nature of the professional organization get considered.
There are no requirements that an "organization" even exist at the time of
the .pro registration.  As we all know, domain names are often registered
when a business is just an idea in someone's mind.  So in most cases, there
is no way to determine what the intended use will be.

Secondly, while I share your dismay at these registrations, the lack of an
ICANN policy regarding objectionable strings or objectionable use gives us
pause about taking any action at this time.

Whose responsibility is it to police objectionable strings in .pro?  Note
there are no requirements in .pro that the registered string represent a
recognized professional use, so we would be on shaky ground.  Once we start
down this path of labeling something "objectionable", where do we stop?  And
who decides such things?

Up to now, neither ICANN nor any of the gtld Registries have agreed to
provide this role.  Ideally, we would prefer ICANN to simply provide us with
a list of objectionable strings that should be blocked from registration.
As far as we know, ICANN have not tried to identify and censor adult-related
strings in any of its gtld's.  Maybe it should.  The string you refer to is
not one of the "seven dirty words" banned by the United States Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), so there is little precedent for us to
decide if it should be banned.  

In general, ICANN has taken the position that it is not the registrar's
responsibility to act as censor when it comes to strings in domain names.
As a registrar, we certainly retain the right to delete a domain for any
reason we deem fit.  This clause might presumably shield us from liability
from our customer or registrant, although I would need to confirm this with
our lawyers.  Keep in mind that this would not prevent the string from
simply being registered again at some other registrar unless the block list
was universally adopted by all registrars or made mandatory by ICANN or the
registry via some concensus process.

Since the objection primarily centers around "use", we might not take any
steps anyway unless and until the string was actually placed into use,
especially if the string has multiple meanings, as it does here.  Since such
names are subject to community standards, we would need to decide which
community standards to use.  For example, while we are located in the US,
the customer for the domain you mention is located in Sweden.  Are we to
assume the same definition and objection would exist in all other countries
and languages?  This string happens to have multiple meanings in the english
dictionary, so the customer could claim it was intended for some other use
than you might assume.  

As you can see, the issue is not so clear cut.  I'm sure there are others
who can articulate even more thoughts on these issues.

Regards,

Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:13 PM
To: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address; Kathy Smith; james tierney
Subject: Re: [ga] Introducing changes based on a consensus process

Thomas and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Mr. Barrett, to start with it would seem reasonable to adhere to your own
registration agreement/contract.  It would also seem appropriate that you
police expediently all those already documented violators of said
agreement/contract without delay and not allow for registrations

such as "pussy.pro" to be considered "professional organizations" and than
further claim you have reviewed the relevant documentation for such a
registration and allowed for "pussy.pro" as a legitimate "professional

organization."

  I am positive that amongst our members and surely other professional
women's organizations, such a registration of a domain name [ pussy.pro ] is
particularly offensive in the extreme.  I personally find it very offensive
to have a discriptaive/vanacular part of a woman anatomy as a domain name as
if it was a "professional organization" considered even remotely

legitimate.  "Sluts.pro" also would have the same consideration..

Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:

>    Richard said:
> "The entire DNS industry should ensure that the public has the highest
>
> confidence that changes are being introduced to the DNS according to a
>
> well-defined process based on consensus... The Internet Community, as 
> well as the various ICANN constituencies deserves clarity in the 
> process ICANN uses."
>
> I wonder if you can guess which registrar said that?
>
> =============
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> I'll own up to this!
> And I'll be looking for your full support in insisting that a 
> consensus process be followed for any contractual admendments that 
> you, ICANN or
>
> anyone else wants to propose for .pro.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom Barrett
> EnCirca, Inc.
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be
precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827