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,

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