Thanks, Rafik.  The work of the JAS WG is very important and of course related, in part, to the outreach work we are both involved with on the OSC Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team.

 

About the thin v. think comment below: In a thin registry (.COM is an example), the Whois records includes limited data - only enough to identify the registrar of the domain name (registrar name, registration status, creation/expiration dates).  So, for a problematic .COM domain, obtaining the contact details for the registrant is a two (or three or four or five…) step process for research. 

 

For example,

Step 1: Look up the domain name using a Whois service of choice. Find out registrar.

Step 2: Then, go to that particular registrar’s Whois service to obtain the publicly available Registrant’s contact information.

Step 3:  If the bad actor is using a privacy/proxy service, I have to keep my fingers crossed that the privacy/proxy service has a fair (and hopefully easy and inexpensive) system for me to request the concealed contact information for the Registrant. Hopefully they will follow their policy!

Step 4:  Proxy/privacy service does not have a system to request underlying contact information or ignores request, I have to decide whether it makes sense to spend donor dollars to get a subpoena, if applicable or escalate the request for contact information.

 

A record from a registry operating a thick Whois server (like .ORG) includes the registrant’s contact information, admin/tech and the registrar info.  It eliminates having to go two places to get the publicly available Registrant contact info, which is important for not for profit organization that are often asked to do more with less resources.  The other benefit of a thick registry is when a registrar goes out of business, the thick registry will retain the registrant info (except if the registrant used a privacy/proxy service).

 

About the URS, I think fairness is important – fairness to the registrant and a fair procedure for an organization that is being harmed by a bad actor from a "clear cut” instance” of trademark abuse.”  I think the suggestion of giving Registrants 14 days, rather than 20 days to file an Answer is fair, not abusive and consistent with the intent of “rapid” suspension.  Also, if ICANN provides a form complaint and reduces the word/page limit, it is possible a Registrant, who is inexperienced with such actions, might feel less intimidated.  Also, the suggestion of a form Answer can help inexperienced Registrants prepare responses.

 

Debbie

 

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel
American Red Cross

Office of the General Counsel 
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-5356
Fax: (202) 303-0143
[log in to unmask]


From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Comments filed today by American Red Cross

 

Hello Debbie,

 

Thanks for comments sent to the JAS WG, the document is shared within the WG members.

 

I was little bit puzzled by the mention of  supporting thick whois as suggested by IRT, even there are some people arguing for that , I think that a balanced solution for common ground of different interests is mandatory with safeguard for privacy. also about URS, maybe we can assume that there is need make it simple and short, how we can prevent abuse of using URS for this supposed mechanism to prevent abuse?

Regards

 

Rafik

2010/7/22 Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>

Deb:

Glad to see that Red Cross is endorsing the idea that nonprofits might use a new gTLD for "internal business purposes under a model that is different from a commercial, profit-driven new gTLD"

 


From: NCSG-NCUC [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra Hughes [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Comments filed today by American Red Cross

All,

Attached are comments filed by the American Red Cross on the Joint SO/AC Working Group Report and on DAG4.

<<American Red Cross Comments on Joint SO-AC WG Report - 07212010.pdf>> <<American Red Cross Comments on DAGv4 - 07212010.pdf>>

Thanks,

Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel

American Red Cross

Office of the General Counsel 

2025 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

Phone: (202) 303-5356

Fax: (202) 303-0143

[log in to unmask]