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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think I am a free man to think. I think I do not need corporations to restrict MY free speech.
I speek that which I think. I mourn death and celebrate birth. I like all meanings of pussy. And I like "otherpeoples" funny definitions of slut. But You know what I really like? Sealing a deal with a person by handshake, meaning his word is his bond. And I love a contract that means what it says and has integrity. And I sleep well knowing men whos' eyes I look into will live up to agreements.
"Shit happens" and that is no joke. But absent exisgent circumstances a man ought to do what he agrees to. EnCirca seems to be welching on a done deal. That too I can deal with, Arabic and Chinese cultures are full of such concepts. But it does disservice to WTO and other transactional conceptual realities.
"Can I count on it?" There in lies Mr. Barrets dilema, did you defraud us with representations you had no intention to live up to? Well keep up with your backing out, and looking for public support and you might get us prime media coverage. We may sleep but that is only because the pain is less than the gain. Mess with that equation and you may have congressional oversight.
 
e


Thomas Barrett - EnCirca <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff,

"sluts" is a surname. "pussy" is an animal. "1800" is a number. 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.

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.
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).

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.

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.

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.

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






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com