Eberhard, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the ADC policy require a registrar to take this action against the entire account. I am certainly not suggesting that the registrar be required to do this. I was just pointing out that if the registrar chose to do this that it would not be disproportionate and the registrar has the option to do so, even now. 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<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: Eberhard W Lisse via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 1:35 AM To: gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org Cc: Dns-techs <dns-techs@na-nic.com.na> Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Another numbers request. That's helpful in a way. So we do not act against Associated Names, but against the Registrant? Is that covered by the charter? Are there judgements which could be persuasive or even binding, in the US at least, for similar situations? I forgot to mention that Registrars will probably use AI to do the ADC and (thus play a significant role in) termination. How that will fare in Court is anybody's guess. Which reminds me, how would we address that they can change their modus operandi and register smaller numbers per individual client, and circumvent email and sms checks by generating more email accounts (ie fictitious individuals) and phone banks and have AI answer the return (existence) checks? How do we catch if they spread the Registrations over different Registrars? I can easily foresee registering names in a chain, using the previous one for the email address of the next and similar strategies. In different TLDs with different Registrars making this much more complex. el -- Sent from my iPhone On Apr 13, 2026 at 09:00 +0200, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>, wrote: I understand that but the client paid subject to the terms. If the terms of service of the registrar state that customers who violate the terms, including specifically the acceptable use policy, are subject to suspension or termination of the registrar’s services, which include the domain names in their account, I do not see what the legal issue is. Are you aware of a specific jurisdiction where this would be problematic under the applicable law? I also don’t think a court will be too sympathetic where the registrant used 20 out of the 100 domain names in its account for phishing or malware. 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<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography<https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> <image001.png> <image002.png> From: Eberhard W Lisse via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 12:55 AM To: gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Another numbers request. I am coming at this from the ccTLD perspective, remember? Where we are used to having approximately 250 different jurisdictions (Civil and Common Law). We are talking about guilt by association here, not (so much) proven DNS abuse. And, when this Policy filters down into the Registrar Agreement, does this material change work retrospectively? The client paid (consideration) and the Registrar just removes additional 100 names. I am not sure how that would fly in Court. el -- Sent from my iPhone On Apr 13, 2026 at 01:54 +0200, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>, wrote: Eberhart, How would it be illegal for a registrar to suspend or terminate services when the registrar's terms have been violated if such remedy is described in the terms? This happens every day. 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<http://www.gtlaw.com> | View GT Biography -----Original Message----- From: Eberhard W Lisse via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 2:53 PM To: gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp] Re: Another numbers request. *EXTERNAL TO GT* It would probably be plain illegal, at least cuase significant legal exposure.œ el On 2026-04-12 21:11, trachtenbergm--- via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp wrote: In this example of the customer that has 20 out of 100 domains which are deemed to be abusive, then I disagree that suspending all of the domain names in the account would constitute a disproportionate or unjustified impacts on the registrant or end user. [...] Marc H. Trachtenberg [...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply _______________________________________________ Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp mailing list -- gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave@icann.org<mailto:gnso-dnsabuse-pdp-leave@icann.org> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
