Brian,
Thanks for your work on this and reasoned approach. I agree that section 3.18.2 is the relevant section but think that the obligation to conduct the associated domain name check should actually be triggered
when the Registrar has actionable evidence that a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar is being used for DNS Abuse, not when mitigation starts as what is appropriate mitigation may depend on what is found in the associated domain check. My proposed adjustments
to your language below
REDLINE
When a
rRegistrar
takes mitigation action(s) on a Registered Name under Section 3.18.2 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement,
has actionable evidence that a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar is being used for DNS Abuse,
the registrar shall
promptly review
take reasonable steps to identify other
reasonably
associated Registered Name(s)
sponsored by Registrar (“Associated Registered Names”). If the Registrar identifies Associated Registered Names, it will promptly take reasonable steps
to determine
investigate whether any of the Associated Registered Names are being used for
such Registered Name(s) may be involved in
DNS Abuse using information reasonably available to the
rRegistrar at the time of review.
If the Registrar’s investigation results in actionable evidence that any of the Associated Registered Names are being used for DNS Abuse, then Registrar shall promptly take the appropriate mitigation action(s) that are reasonably
necessary to stop, or otherwise disrupt, such Associated Registered Names from being used for DNS Abuse pursuant to Section 3.18.2.
CLEAN
When a Registrar has actionable evidence that a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar is being used for DNS Abuse, the registrar shall promptly take reasonable steps
to identify other associated Registered Name(s) sponsored by Registrar (“Associated Registered Names”). If the Registrar identifies Associated Registered Names, it will promptly take reasonable steps to investigate whether any of the Associated Registered
Names are being used for DNS Abuse using information reasonably available to the Registrar at the time of review. If the Registrar’s investigation results in actionable evidence that any of the Associated Registered Names are being used for DNS Abuse, then
Registrar shall promptly take the appropriate mitigation action(s) that are reasonably necessary to stop, or otherwise disrupt, such Associated Registered Names from being used for DNS Abuse pursuant to Section 3.18.2.
Best regards,
Marc H. Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Aspen Chicago
411 E. Main Street 360 North Green Street
Suite 207 | Aspen, CO 81611 Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL 60607
T +1.970.300.5313 T +1.312.456.1020
M +1.773.677.3305 M +1.773.677.3305
trac@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
| View GT Biography
From: Brian F. Cimbolic via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 4:14 PM
To: Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>; anil Jain via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Straw Proposal
*EXTERNAL TO GT*
Hi all - First, thank you all for some great sessions to kick this work off in Mumbai. I thought we already made a lot of progress in our first working session.
In advance of Monday’s call, I wanted to float a slightly modified version of the Strawman that Reg (very helpfully!) provided below. I provide a clean version, as well as a screenshot of Redlines so we can all
see exactly what I’m proposing we change.
Summary of proposed tweaks:
-
The actual obligation to mitigate DNS Abuse in the RAA is found in 3.18.2, rather than the broader 3.18, which includes other unrelated provisions. Tightening that subsection reference should make it clearer where an Associated Domain Check comes
into play.
-
I tried to harmonize the language from Reg’s version with the terms and definitions set forth in the RAA already. So rather than “domains,” it’s “Registered Name” (again, simply to match the RAA defined terms). 3.18.2 also references “mitigation action(s)”
so I incorporated that verbiage rather than the more generic “action."
-
3.18.2 already requires that Registrars take mitigation action(s) when they have actionable evidence of DNS Abuse. If the Associated Domain Check is fruitful and the Registrar finds such actionable evidence of abuse, it is similarly obligated to take mitigation
action(s). So, I suggest striking the “and take action against those domains where appropriate” as redundant.
REDLINE:
CLEAN:
When a registrar takes mitigation action(s) on a Registered Name under Section 3.18.2 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the registrar shall promptly review other reasonably
associated Registered Name(s) to determine whether such Registered Name(s) may be involved in DNS Abuse using information reasonably available to the registrar at the time of review.
Looking forward to the call on Monday. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian
|
|
|
||
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest
Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.