Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Ce contenu est uniquement disponible en

  • English

Name: Lori Schulman
Date:20 Jul 2023
Affiliation: International Trademark Association (INTA)
Other Comments

In addition to our recommendations below and attached, we recommend that reporters be consulted on a regular basis to ensure that reporting and compliance systems are meeting the needs of end users notably, registrars, registries, reporters and consumers.

Summary of Attachment

Our attachment is addition to completing the Public Comment Proceeding form. It outlines INTA's position on the proposed Amendments including its support of the Amendments, recognition that the work in the fight against DNS Abuse is ongoing and that these Amendments are an important step in the right direction. Our attachment includes specific recommendations to support our high level summaries. We thank the Registrars and Registries for taking the initiative to clarify the DNS Abuse provisions in the RA and RAA. We look forward to working with them in the spirit of cooperation and continuous improvement on this critical issue. We note the helpful advice embodied in the Draft Advisory guidelines. We recommend that the Advisory will become a living document as best practices and common understandings evolve around the development of evidence based "actionable reports".

Summary of Submission

INTA supports the passage of the Amendments. We understand that they are an important step in clarifying the obligations of contracted parties to act upon credible reports of domain name abuse. We also understand that there is much more work to be done by the Community. We have concerns that some of the language in the Amendments is too vague and may cause serious problems of interpretation. To the extent that more precision could be added now, we support doing so even it means taking a little bit more time to perfect the final draft. Some areas where we have concern are the absence of specifications of webforms, confronting abuse at scale, absence of definitions for "actionable evidence" and "appropriate mitigation actions", Registry requirements to refer reports of DNS Abuse to the sponsoring Registrar with no corresponding obligation for the Registry to act to mitigate DNS Abuse in the event that the Registrar does not, and absence of enumerated remedies and points of escalation. Last, but certainly not least, the definition of DNS Abuse is too narrow. INTA has adopted a definition of DNS Abuse that encompasses the proposed definition in the Amendments and provides flexibility for developing technologies and the new threats that follow them. See We recognize that some of our concerns may also be appropriately addressed in the Draft Advisory guidelines too.