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

[Marcus Gilmore <marcusgilmore@xxxxxxxxx>]

The word "pussy" does not mean just one thing and english is not the
only language in the world. Perhaps you just have a very dirty mind
Jeff.

Oh.. and by the way.. There is a picture of cute pussycat on
http://www.pussy.pro..

/Marcus

On Apr 1, 2005 2:24 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thomas and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
> 
> Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
> 
> >  Jeff,
> >
> > "sluts" is a surname. "pussy" is an animal. "1800" is a number.
> 
> Well one out of three isn't bad.  Yes, 1800 is a number.  "pussy" is
> not an animal, and "sluts" is certainly not a surname, by any stretch of
> anyone's wildest imagination.  Nice try Thomas, but no cigar... And
> oh BTW you left out "pussy"...
> 
> >  Until they
> > are used in another manner, you cannot make assumptions about how they will
> > be used.  So, you can not block their registration simply because they might
> > offend or because you deem it too ridiculous for professional use.
> 
> Offense is only one aspect of the use of "pussy.pro" or "Sluts.pro"
> in the context of the registration contract for .pro.  The fact that
> there are no professional "pussy" organizations or credentials for
> same, is the much more glaring and relevant pro-blem....
> 
> >
> >
> > The simple fact is if a medical doctor, lawyer, etc. wants to register
> > "sluts.pro", there is no language from ICANN to prevent them from doing so.
> 
> Agreed here.  However I was not saying that ICANN had any such language,
> but your registration agreement/contract with ICANN does discriminate
> that only professional organizations with proper credentials for such, are
> required.  If a doctor whom was a gynecologist was to register
> "pussy.pro", which did not BTW, and he/she can show that his/her organization
> is a professional "pussy" organization with legitimate credentials indicating
> that they/he/she are professionals in a credential organization whom have
> specific interest in literally "pussy" than perhaps one could accept such a
> registration legitimately.  As I cannot find any such organization regarding
> "pussy" professionals or any credentials of same, I would have to say
> your argument here is spacious at best, and ludicrous would be much
> more realistic.  It may be that a civil case needs to be filed on this
> question alone.  I am sure some atty. Generals offices in some US
> states would be more than interested is supporting such a civil filing...
> 
> >
> > You can argue that no legitimate professional organization would ever use
> > such a name, but you could not guarantee there could not possibly be
> > legitimate use.
> > Just ask Dr. John Sluts (http://home.earthlink.net/~genbooks/ohreport.html).
> 
> This is for a person whom happens to have the last name of "Sluts" and
> in no way relates to a professional organization or credentialed of same...
> 
> >
> >
> > To be clear: the .pro tld is about controlling WHO registers a domain, not
> > WHAT meaning the string represents, or HOW they plan to use the domain.
> 
> Than your registration agreement/contract needs to reflect that clearly
> or in some states you would be considered liable under misleading
> business practices act's as are appropriate. Texas is one of those
> states BTW.
> 
>  Further, I did not elude to WHAT the meaning of any domain name
> string was to mean, only that in accordance with your registration
> agreement/contract for .pro, "pussy.pro" and "sluts.pro" are not
> in keeping with your registration agreement nor in keeping with
> sTLD's as Richard has pointed out in several of his earlier posts
> remarks/comments on this subject area..
> 
> >
> >
> > There is nothing in the contracts that would prevent strings that might
> > offend, OR prevent use that might offend.  Since there is no violation,
> > there is nothing to enforce that will eliminate this issue.  Nor is
> > precedent for registrars to play the role of censor for domain name
> > registrations and website content.
> 
>  sTLD's by design of intent are a form of censor.  Hence your
> argument here is also not entirely valid either... If some potential
> stakeholder/user is not able to register a domain name in .pro
> as he/she is not a credentialed professional, than that is a form
> or means of censor...
> 
> >
> >
> > If you feel this should be addressed as part of the .pro tld, then it is a
> > topic for a task force and concensus policy.
> 
>  There is no consensus policy that is legitimate in the ICANN
> structure presently...
> 
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tom Barrett
> > EnCirca, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:56 AM
> > 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,
> >
> >   Thank you for your response, and you are welcome for my question.
> > However, again it seems you missed the intent and/or the context of my
> > question or you are simply attempting to explain it away.
> >
> >   I did not and was not only concerned about the objectionable nature about
> > the registrations of "pussy.pro" and "Sluts.pro".  I was concerned about the
> > fact that there are no professional credential that could justify a
> > registration as a "professional organization" such as "pussy.pro" or
> > "Sluts.pro" as there are no such professional credentials that could justify
> > such registrations in accordance with YOUR registries stuartship of .PRO.
> > In addition the reference you provided as passing off to the Registrar as
> > the culprit for such ridiculous domain name registrations in the .PRO sTLD.
> > As the registry has the responsibility of the registry and ICANN to ensure
> > that the registration agreement/contract is enforced by what ever means it
> > can or has available to do so...  As ICANN looks to the registry to oversee
> > it's contracted registrars, and ICANN has no real means by which to enforce
> > registry contracts, there is effectively no workable means by which
> > registries can be held accountable unless DOC/NTIA steps in.  It would seem
> > to me and I am very sure that given the gross misuse of .PRO, with
> > registrations for example of "pussy.pro" and "Sluts.pro" that perhaps
> > DOC/NTIA may needs to take direct action...
> >
> > Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
> >
> > >  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
> >
> > 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
> 
> 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
> 
>