Opinions? Fwd: [] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 23 July 2012 13:54, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>         As far as the issue of charitable names being exploited for
> fraudulent purposes, as discussed by Evan and Milton - it seems to me, from
> discussions with the charities, that the *real* solution that the charities
> need (and not just the ICRC, with its unique legal protections, but ANY
> charity) is basically a takedown solution like those provided by the APWG
> etc. Fraud is fraud, we need good solutions to stop fraud - but not only
> will special rules for the ICRC not have a large effect on fraud targeted
> against charities in general, it won't even eliminate fraud against the
> ICRC - much fraud against the ICRC appears to use domain names that don't
> include the specific protected designations redcross etc, but just
> variations such as just somethingrc.org. If the specific redcross term
> and other protected designations were protected at the second level, we'd
> see fraudsters simply switch to less preferred names, such as variations on
> namerc type 2LD names, and 3LDs and such.


Agreed 100%.

The kind of issue people in ALAC were responding to were the short-term
scam sites such as "redcrosshaitirelief.com", ones that specifically used
the charity's name (specifically its conventional Internet 2LD names)
inside bogus 2LD strings. As I mentioned in the earlier email, there's also
agreement that nothing is special about the Red Cross in this regard, I
would consider "unicefhaitifelief.org" or "oxfamhaitirelief.net" to be just
as bad.

As such, I would remind that ALAC has never been in favour of any Red Cross
or IOC or IGO restrictions on TLDs -- ever. Some of you may recall that I
was in the room near the end of the g-council debate on the issue in San
Jose, ready if necessary to detail ALAC's just-passed statement supporting
the NCSG position. There is similarly no belief in special treatment for
IGOs, *especially* considering that most of them possess the rare
qualifications for the exclusive .int TLD already. So our position on gTLDs
is still one of no change to existing policy.

Furthermore... I never, in my original comment, suggested that prior
restriction -- at any level -- was our direction, only that a legitimate
larger issue, buried within the RC/IOC/IGO mess, did bare consideration. We
don't claim the answer yet, just ask the question (that indeed does not yet
appear to have been asked -- in all these years -- from the PoV of the end
user rather than the registrants.) There are many possible approaches, not
all of which have had a proper hearing to date. We're totally aware of the
limitations of ICANN and domain names, and that removing obviously
fraudulent strings won't eliminate phishing or fraud. But it is also wrong
to refuse to do anything because no solution can be complete. And denying
of scammers the ability to use (clearly) fraudulent domain names impairs
their ability to do SEO to increase traffic to their sites.

ICANN's denial of responsibility for cleaning up a problem that its policy
enabled (ie, creation of fraudulent domains) simply offers useful
ammunition to those who would dispense with the multi-stakeholder model
completely, through demonstrating that one significant stakeholder -- the
end user being scammed -- is going unheard by the MSM.



> Their is a fundamental difference between the ICRC arguments based on its
> special legal status, and arguments based on the ICRCs mission and specific
> operation concerns. The arguments based on the ICRCs special legal status
> are one thing. But the arguments based on the humanitarian mission and
> operational concerns of the iCRC could just as easily apply to
> organisations such as the MSF or UNHCR. I wish a lot more of the effort
> that has gone into the ICRCs arguments had gone into practical fraud
> takedown measures that would be applicable to all charitable organisations.
>


Agreed. IMO, ALAC is seeking to drive this forward in a useful manner, by
steering and focusing (rather than outright rejecting) the claims in a
manner that benefits the public interest.
It would be nice if we could do this together with the NCSG, which is why
I'm writing this.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120723/dc91b360/attachment-0001.html>