George and all, Your correct on your analysis and conclusion IMHO. FWIW though, it is clear that ICANN cannot or will not do the oversight of it's registrars, or for that matter registries and indeed may prefer to defer those duties and responsibilities back to the Registrar and/or Registry. Ergo a circular round-robbin endless dysfunctional self regulation methodology. LEA's at various levels are not wanted by ICANN nor Registrars and Registires for obvious and some nefarious reasons which many of us are all too well aware of or have personally experienced. Just as frankly however, LEA's don't seem to be able to properly, securely or reasonably manage their own Domain Names either as recent GAO reports and breaches that have been reported clearly demonstrate. ( I can easily provide many examples if requested ) Given Afilias's history, IMO it's long past time to dis-accredit Affilias as a registry. They can't even "Police" their own domain name's DNS or web site, let alone serve as defacto police of their registrants. They also seem to have serious problems in their DNS services for other domain names despite their BS marketing jargon. I consider Afilias a significant infrastructure security risk of significant proportion. George Kirikos wrote:

Hi again,

I forgot to add, that paragraph 3.1.(b)(iv)(F) of the agreement dealing with Consensus Policies specifically mentions:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm

"(F)resolution of disputes regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain registration of particular domain names."

An allegation of abuse, affecting whether a particular party may maintain a registration of a domain name, clearly falls under that description above.

Furthermore the last section of 3.6.5 of the appendix (i.e. registry-registrar agreement) says:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm

"Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute."

I would suggest that again an allegation of "abuse" is equivalent to a "dispute" in the above language, and that does not permit cancellation, but only registry lock, hold or similar status. 3.6.5 puts law enforcement and government (and courts) above the registry operator. This new proposal makes the registry operator become the policeman, the prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/

--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

According to paragraph 3.1.(d)(iii) of the .info agreement:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm

"(c) any other products or services that only a registry operator is capable of providing, by reason of its designation as the registry operator;

Obviously the registrar is currently *equally* capable of cancelling or removing a domain name from the zone file, and handling abuse issues. So *by definition* this can't be a product or service that only the registry operator is capable of providing.

Furthermore, 3.1.(d)(iv)(G) provides specific definitions of "Security" and "Stability" that I do not believe are met by this proposal.

I believe the proper course forward is for Afilias to cancel its proposal as a "new service", and instead propose a Consensus Policy for review by the GNSO Council. I would invite them to do so, as I'm against abuse. Through a Consensus Policy we can ensure that the rights of registrants to due process will be protected through input from all constituencies, and ensure that a policy that has proportionality and predictability is created.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827