Wow. I just noticed that the list of abuses contains “gripe/commentary” sites. In other words, this is an attempt to define free expression and commentary using trademarked names as an abuse – it is just an attempt to stifle criticism.
Edward, that has to go. First, it does not represent well-established positions of this constituency; second it is literally ILLEGAL under U.S. law – it is well settled case law now that the use of trademarked names in grip domains is legal and protected by the First Amendment.
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Nunes
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] GNSO working group
Hey all,
I just wanted to update you all on what's been happening with the Registration Abuse Policy Working Group.
Since I joined the GNSO Registration Abuse Policies Working Group the discussion within the group has focused on the definition of registration abuse. During the April 27th meeting we decided on a working definition of abuse:
Abuse is an action that:
1. Causes actual and substantial harm, or is a material predicate of such harm, and
2. Is illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise considered contrary to the intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such purpose is disclosed.
Notes:
* This is a working definition as per group consensus on April 27, 2009 and may be re-visited should the WG find it inadequate after examining some specific examples.
* The party or parties harmed, and the substance or severity of the abuse, should be identified and discussed in relation to a specific proposed abuse.
* The term "harm" is not intended to shield a party from fair market competition.
* The above definition of abuse is indebted to the definition of "misuse" in the document "Working Definitions for Key Terms that May be Used in Future WHOIS Studies" prepared by the GNSO Drafting Team [18 February 2009, at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18feb09.pdf].
While this is the definition we are sticking with for now, there has been numerous issued raised about this definition both in and outside the working group. Issues raised included:
· The use of “stated” and “disclosed in clause 2 is redundant.
· The use of “illegal” and “illegitimate” in clause 2 is redundant.
· There should be an intent requirement for violators, so as to limit abuse to malicious abusers.
· “Illegal” is too vague of a term, as the law varies among the jurisdictions of the world.
· “Harm” is too broad of a term.
· The section “material predicate of such harm” creates an overly broad definition of abuse.
· “Illegitimate” is too vague of a term.
· “Illegal” is a legal conclusion derived from a court proceeding.
o There has been some preliminary talk about the process to determine if whether something constitutes registration abuse, but no decisions have been made on this subject.
While we are sticking with this definition for now, we understand there are issues with it and expect to revisit it at a later time.
In the May 11th meeting we focused on defining “registration”, and how this definition will effect th