[ALAC-Announce] Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse

[At-Large Staff]

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm
Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration
Abuse
Comment/Reply Periods (*)Important Information Links
Comment Open:25 July 2012
Comment Close:15 August 2012
Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCPublic Comment Announcement
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm>
Reply Open:16 August 2012To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
<mailto:uoc-prelim-issue-report at icann.org>
Reply Close:5 September 2012View Comments Submitted
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/uoc-prelim-issue-report/>
Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCReport of Public Comments
Brief Overview
Originating Organization:GNSO
Categories/Tags:
* Policy Processes
* Contracted Party Agreements
Purpose (Brief):At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested
an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse
provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if
created, how such language would be structured to address the most common
forms of registration abuse. The Preliminary Issue Report has now been
published for public comment.
Current Status:This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for
community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue
Report.
Next Steps:The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community
feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be
presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
Staff Contact:Rob HoggarthEmail:policy-staff at icann.org
<mailto:policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preli
minary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Uniformity%20of%20Contracts%20to%20Address%20
Registration%20Abuse%20public%20comment%20period>
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the
GNSO Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Contracts, as
a required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be
initiated. The objective of a possible PDP would be 'to evaluate whether a
minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all
in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be
structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse'.Earlier
reports on this topic (see October 2008 Issues Report
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registra
tion-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf>  [PDF, 297 KB] and the RAPWG Final Report
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf>  [PDF,
1.73 MB]), describe the lack of uniformity of abuse provisions among the
currently delegated gTLD registry agreements, as well as the absence of
specific abuse provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
Across the spectrum of existing registry agreements, there are elements of
similarity but each contract (currently) is customized to the uniqueness of
the respective registry's business model and operating conditions.In an
attempt to develop a complete picture of the existing abuse provisions for
this Issue Report, ICANN Staff reviewed 17 different gTLD registry and
registry-registrar agreements, and several other publicly available
documents on registry websites that relate to contractual rights and
obligations associated with abuse (e.g., Acceptable Use Policies and Terms
of Agreement). In general, Staff discovered:
1. Existing Registry Agreements generally do not include specific provisions
to address abuse
2. To the extent existing agreements address activities that might be
defined as abuse, there is little in the way of common language across
agreements to identify those activities
3. Where registries include specific provisions for dealing with various
types of abuse, there is evidence that the provisions can be effective
4. Regardless of whether the agreements contain registration abuse
provisions, registration abuse still exists in the domain name industry
Staff has confirmed that a PDP regarding the potential development of
uniform baseline Registration Abuse policies for use in ICANN contracts is
within the scope of the ICANN Policy Process and the GNSO. Consequently,
Staff recommends that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on
this topic. Should the PDP proceed, Staff suggests that the working group
conduct further research, as follows:
* Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed
more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established;
* Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those
registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific
provisions or policies to address abuse; and
* Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are
implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing
registration abuse.
If the results of this research reveals that there is value in having
uniform provisions to address registration abuse, the PDP WG should also
consider a set of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or
framework of provisions to battle registration abuse, and define potential
reporting requirements to track progress toward those goals. ICANN Staff is
of the view that there may be benefits to establishing a consistent
framework of registration abuse prevention that is applicable across gTLD
registries and ICANN-accredited Registrars.ICANN Staff would welcome
community input on the findings as well as conclusions of this Preliminary
Issue Report.
Section II: Background
The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the
Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by
the GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between
registration abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of
abuse, and understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within
agreements in order to identify and recommend specific policy issues and
processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG
identified a total of 14 recommended actions that could address various
forms of registration abuse. Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access
issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP Review, malicious use of domain names and
several others. The specific recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue
Report stated: "Evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse
provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements and if
created, how such language would be structured to address the most common
forms of registration abuse."
Section III: Document and Resource Links
Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contacts to Address Registration
Abuse 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/prelim-issue-report-uoc-
25jul12-en.pdf>  [PDF, 683 KB]
Section IV: Additional Information
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed
to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or
decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

 
 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org