Re: [ga] Re: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks,

Afilias just posted a revised request dated July 31, 2008:

http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007

It doesn't do anything for registrants, though, only changing a few
words for the benefit of registrars. Due process, and clear language
setting out precise expectations for registrants are still missing.
It's impossible for registrants to comply with a policy that is so
poorly written and ill-defined, which leaves everything to someone's
"discretion."

I've emailed ICANN's reconsideration committee, asking if one wants to
have both decisions reconsidered (the one that ICANN staff has already
approved, and the amended version), whether  one needs to make 2
separate requests, i.e. one by August 17, 2008 (30 days after July 18,
2008), and then another one sometime in September. Or, if one can make
a single reconsideration request by August 17, 2008 and then amend it
later to take into account the July 31st revisions. Or, if one can make
a "placeholder" request before August 17, 2008 which would be
incomplete, and then finalize it in September. I've not heard back from
them yet, though.

I've also been reading up on the topics of Privity and Duty of Care,
e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v._Stevenson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then,
in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be?persons who are so
closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind
to the acts or omissions that are called in question."

If anyone has thoughts on how this might apply to registry operators
who, under an abusive use policy, cancel a domain name of an innocent
registrant (i.e. a false positive), thereby causing damage, I'd
appreciate your insights. Conceivably this "duty of care" requirement
could act as a check against negligence by the registry operator. It
could also mean a new liability that they face, which could put at risk
the entire registry operator (if their insurance is not high enough and
they cause great damage to innocent registrants), thereby threatening
the stability of their TLD. Conceivably this same duty of care applies
to ICANN itself.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/