Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Grogan hopeful of content policing clarity within “a few weeks”

Kevin Murphy, June 18, 2015, 10:06:04 (UTC), Domain Registrars

ICANN may be able to provide registrars, intellectual property interests and others with clarity about when domain names should be suspended as early as next month, according to compliance chief Allen Grogan.
With ICANN 53 kicking off in Buenos Aires this weekend, Grogan said he intends to meet with a diverse set of constituents in order to figure out what the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires registrars to do when they receive abuse complaints.
“I’m hopeful we can publish something in the next few weeks,” he told DI. “It depends to some extent on what direction the discussions take.”
The discussions center on whether registrars are doing enough to take down domains that are being used, for example, to host pirated content or to sell medicines across borders.
Specifically at issue is section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA.
It requires registrars to take “reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately” when they receive abuse reports.
The people who are noisiest about filing such reports — IP owners and pharmacy watchdogs such as LegitScript — reckon “appropriate action” means the domain in question should be suspended.
The US Congress heard these arguments in hearings last month, but there were no witnesses from the ICANN or registrar side to respond.
Registrars don’t think they should be put in the position of having to turn off what may be a perfectly legitimate web site due to a unilateral complaint that may be flawed or frivolous.
ICANN seems to be erring strongly towards the registrars’ view.
“Whatever the terms of the 2013 RAA mean, it can’t really be interpreted as a broad global commitment for ICANN to enforce all illegal activity or all laws on the internet,” Grogan told DI.
“I don’t think ICANN is capable of that, I don’t think we have the expertise or resources to do that, and I don’t think the ICANN multistakeholder community has ever had that discussion and delegated that authority to ICANN,” he said.
CEO Fadi Chehade recently told the Washington Post that it isn’t ICANN’s job to police web content, and Grogan has expanded on that view in a blog post last week.
Grogan notes that what kind of content violates the law varies wildly from country to country — some states will kill you for blasphemy, in some you can get jail time for denying the Holocaust, in others political dissent is a crime.
“Virtually everybody I’ve spoken with has said that is far outside the scope of ICANN’s remit,” he said.
However, he’s leaving some areas open for discussion,
“There are some constituents, including some participants in the [Congressional] hearing — from the intellectual property community and LegitScript — who think there’s a way to distinguish some kinds of illegal activities from others,” he said. “That’s a discussion I’m willing to have.”
The dividing line could be substantial risk to public health or activities that are broadly, globally deemed to be illegal. Child abuse material is the obvious one, but copyright infringement — where Grogan said treaties show “near unanimity” — could be too.
So is ICANN saying it’s not the content police except when it comes to pharmacies and intellectual property?
“No,” said Grogan. “I’m saying I’m willing to engage in that dialogue and have that conversation with the community to see if there’s consensus that some activities are different to others.”
“In a multistakeholder model I don’t think any one constituency should control,” he said.
In practical terms, this all boils down to 3.18 of the RAA, and what steps registrars must take to comply with it.
It’s a surprisingly tricky one even if, like Grogan, you’re talking about “minimum criteria” for compliance.
Should registrars, for example, be required to always check out the content of domains that are the subject of abuse reports? It seems like a no-brainer.
But Grogan points out that even though there could be broad consensus that child abuse material should be taken down immediately upon discovery, in many places it could be illegal for a registrar employee to even check the reported URL, lest they download unwanted child porn.
Similarly, it might seem obvious that abuse reports should be referred to the domain’s registrant for a response. But what of registrars owned by domain investors, where registrar and registrant are one and the same?
These and other topics will come up for discussion in various sessions next week, and Grogan said he’s hopeful that decisions can be made that do not need to involve formal policy development processes or ICANN board action.

Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

  1. Robin Gross says:
    June 18, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    ICANN staff will be deciding policy to take down websites based on “consultation” with the community? Sounds like another “TM+50” attempt by senior staff to circumvent proper community process and write policy rules themselves based on lobbying. Why not engage in a proper Policy Development Process (PDP) to “clarify” the wishes of the IP lobby? Will non-commercial users of domains be consulted? If so, will it be at the same level of consultation as the IPC has been afforded on the issue? For the TM+50 staff-organized “consultations”, Fadi would only allow 2 non-commercial users in the room compared to the 14 commercial users from before he issued his TM+50 edict. This looks like it will heading in a very similar illegitimate fashion.

    Reply
    • Kevin Murphy says:
      June 18, 2015 at 9:35 pm

      I’d be very surprised if ICANN intends to say something like “You must take down a domain under criteria X, Y and Z”.
      From Grogan’s posts and my interview, it seems to me more like it will come up with some minimum investigative or referral steps that registrars must take when they receive complaints.

      Reply
  2. John Berryhill says:
    June 19, 2015 at 2:17 am

    This is SOPA without the mess.

    Reply
  3. Chris LaHatte says:
    June 20, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    Needless to say any unfairness in such decisions will need to be examined carefully. While there are some categories no one will disagree should be suspended, I agree with Allen that care needs to be taken for political sites in particular. So the community at ICANN must establish very clear policies first. With human rights getting serious attention at ICANN, this debate gives us a chance to consider those rights in this context when developing policy

    Reply

Add Your Comment