Re: [ga] Care needed over the .travel Registry Agreement

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marcus,

The point I'm making is a different one: I don't have a specific objection
about people's freedom to use words that may or may not offend other
people's sensibilities. Probably like you, I would rather we didn't start
imposing our own views on issues of sexuality, or the use of words with
sexual connotations. Wherever I've mentioned such words, it's been in the
context of a more serious issue, and I've only referred to pussy/sluts etc
because it is an emotive way of suggesting that these and many other
registrations may not have been registered with the professional intentions
for which the .pro registry was set up.

So I don't oppose the term 'pussy' (I've got a cat myself) or 'sluts' (I
haven't got one of those).

What I oppose is a Registry which was clearly commissioned to create and
uphold a "restricted" TLD exclusively for professionals who must first get
others to prove their professional credentials... that was RegistryPro's
clear commission... instead (and presumably for money) participating with a
registrar to 'allow in by a device' people who have had no such
verification, and so undermining the very commission they were asked to
carry out.

In short, I argued that this was not a responsible way for RegistryPro to
administer a "restricted" TLD.

You may argue that "restricted" domains are impossible to police. I don't
personally agree. Providing the Registry and ICANN are rigid about insisting
on thorough verification through tested and respected professional agencies,
and they block obvious cases of proxy registrations and the mass
registrations that are symptomatic of domain speculators, then they will be
well on the way to maintaining a genuinely restricted TLD.

I accept some people don't see the point of restricted TLDs - fair enough.

But I don't see the point of "restricted" TLDs if they are not properly
enforced... then they just become 'open' by default.

So I was not making any moral statement about sexual language - I was saying
that those particular domain registrations (along with thousands of others)
have been made possible because a registrar and a registry have been
prepared to allow those customers to by-pass the checks and verifications
that ICANN reasonably assumed would take place first.

The existing Registry Agreement already states the clear underlying purposes
of the "restricted" TLD, and these underlying purposes (already
contractually defined) have been ignored and subverted - hence the
justification for action, in terms of tightening the Agreement and also in
tems of insisting that all those domains already registered should be
properly verified with reference to the actual customers (rather than the
registrar proxy) either immediately or at the date of the annual
verification contractually required at the end of the first year.

It only seems reasonable to me, that the underlying purposes and intended
methods of the Agreement should be upheld and enforced. If RegistryPro do
not wish to uphold the main purpose of their own Agreement with ICANN, then
they should go and sell pancakes instead. In my opinion, they have failed to
do what ICANN commissioned them to do - exclude those who lacked certain
criteria - and have in fact done the exact opposit of what ICANN
commissioned them to do, by letting anyone and everyone in with zero
verification, through use of the registrar-as-proxy device. This device
could in theory let in all 6 billion members of the human race, because it
is based on self-verification and is therefore wholly unreliable as a means
of operating an exclusive "restricted" TLD.

Efforts should indeed be made to protect the TLD's integrity (and yes, I
have been going from A-Z through the .pro registrations, though a script is
actually quicker, and my interest is statistical and demonstrative, not
moralistic).

As I say, it only seems reasonable that the underlying purpose of the
Agreement should be upheld and enforced.

That was my point.

sincerely,

Richard H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marcus Gilmore" <marcusgilmore@xxxxxxxxx>


> pussy.us, sluts.us are both registered in the .US tld.. Should we go
> examine the content of each .US website and see if the integrity of
> the TLD has been undermined? Richard, you examine domains that start
> with the letter A-M and i'll take the ones that start with the letter
> N-Z. We'll then post our finding here so that ICANN can delete the
> domains.