Hi folks, Afilias just posted a revised request dated July 31, 2008:
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 It doesn't do anything for registrants, though, only changing a few words for the benefit of registrars. Due process, and clear language setting out precise expectations for registrants are still missing. It's impossible for registrants to comply with a policy that is so poorly written and ill-defined, which leaves everything to someone's "discretion." I've emailed ICANN's reconsideration committee, asking if one wants to have both decisions reconsidered (the one that ICANN staff has already approved, and the amended version), whether one needs to make 2 separate requests, i.e. one by August 17, 2008 (30 days after July 18, 2008), and then another one sometime in September. Or, if one can make a single reconsideration request by August 17, 2008 and then amend it later to take into account the July 31st revisions. Or, if one can make a "placeholder" request before August 17, 2008 which would be incomplete, and then finalize it in September. I've not heard back from them yet, though. I've also been reading up on the topics of Privity and Duty of Care, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v._Stevenson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to beĀpersons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question." If anyone has thoughts on how this might apply to registry operators who, under an abusive use policy, cancel a domain name of an innocent registrant (i.e. a false positive), thereby causing damage, I'd appreciate your insights. Conceivably this "duty of care" requirement could act as a check against negligence by the registry operator. It could also mean a new liability that they face, which could put at risk the entire registry operator (if their insurance is not high enough and they cause great damage to innocent registrants), thereby threatening the stability of their TLD. Conceivably this same duty of care applies to ICANN itself. Any comments would be appreciated. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
