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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  Well is anyone surprised?  I'm certainly not!  This is typical
of Afilias and has been their basic managment mantra sense
their conception.  Why on earth ICANN allow this is beyond
my understanding...

  This clearly demonstrates why serious revision of RAA contracts
is needed and soon.  I get/got far too much spam/phishing attacks,
and other miscrient Email from Afilias's customers.  Makes one
wonder what the criterion as to what Afilias "Descretion" is?

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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/

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827