On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

---snip---

> There, are, unfortunately, real instances of domains created to
> deliberately confuse potential donors (especially domains quickly created
> in the aftermath of disasters), often by in part appropriating the names of
> known charities such as the Red Cross. There are many in At-Large who
> believe that the domain system has some responsibility to prevent such
> clear instances of abuse, which has the potential to expand significantly
> upon expansion of the TLD namespace. What is less clear is how to do this,
> but simply doing nothing does not appear to be a reasonable option. What is
> hoped for is a reasonably easy process to stop sites designed to commandeer
> charitable donations, in such a way that does not draw substantial funds or
> focus from the real charities' core objectives.
>
> This is more of a 2LD issue than a TLD one, but very real nonetheless. We
> would prefer to generalize it, since charities besides the Red Cross suffer
> from this kind of fraud. And we prefer to approach this from the PoV of
> safeguarding the trust and needs of donors and supporters as opposed to
> trademark and trademark-like "rights". However, a complete response of "do
> nothing, everything's OK" may indicate an ICANN that is insensitive to the
> public consequences of its policies, and indeed a mis-functioning (or at
> least imbalanced) MSM.

Evan has raised the suggestion that the domain system has "some 
responsibility" to prevent clear instances of abuse.

i feel i must point out that the charaties themselves have abused the
generosity of donors after natural disasters, collecting funds reputedly
for the victims, yet i can read in the newspapers that the collected 
funds from Katrina were stashed in the charity's "general fund" and 
not distributed as the donors intended.

i'm not sure that ICANN should insert itself in matters of "trust" of
charities, yet this clearly falls under the realm of "safeguarding the
trust and needs of donors and supporters".

this appears to require the creation of a mechanism to exercise an "Internet
conscience" and would probably result in a  "trust" czar who would always
have all parties' best interests (and read their minds to determine their
intents), or worse, a staff committee in-lieu of a supreme power individual.

###

"What is hoped for is a reasonably easy process" leaves me all ears and
i would not oppose a "good" solution, yet i cannot enunciate the scope
and criteria for a working group to come up with a "good" solution...
may i simply state that if a "good solution" exists and someone proposes
it i'll "know it when i see it."

if no "good" proposal arises in discussion, then i'll just have to live 
with the reality that this is very, very hard, and it is unjust to
accuse ICANN as being insensitive to the issue.

i will fight to prevent a bad solution being adopted just to give the
illusion that ICANN is not insensitive.   and i will support a good
solution when it arises.  i am not fundamentally opposed, and if i can
come up with a good proposal i will share it on the list and then we
can all feel good about ICANN.

-ron