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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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