Registries didn't support the proposal to reduce their fees to ICANN in exchange for an obligation to take proactive measures in preventing domain name abuse in generic top-level domains (gTLDs) they administer. Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT) put this proposal forward in November last year. CCT proposed to make prevention of unfair domain use registries’ obligation. Simply put, registries were asked not to wait until someone complains that some domains in their zones spread spam or sell counterfeit goods. Instead, they should take action to find out whether a registrant engaged in such activities in the past. This clause is proposed to be included in ICANN’s registration agreement. At the same time, the fee to the corporate budget would be reduced for the registries that accept these rules.
Public discussion of this initiative expired last week and ICANN published a review of the received comments. It was supported by representatives of Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), a group that represents interests of right holders, as well as registries that have already committed themselves to such measures (for example, domains .BANK, .INSURANCE and .PHARMACY, registries of which are required to conduct thorough verification of registrants to avoid abuse in their domain zones).
However, the majority of registries’ representatives didn't support the idea. In particular, it concerns the key working group Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). Its comment highlights that first of all there are no clear definitions for such terms like “abuse” and “proactive measures”. And even if they are defined there will still be loopholes. By adopting new rules, registries will put themselves at risk. Moreover, a decrease in ICANN contributions will allow registries to decreases the registration fees, which will make them more attractive for potential offenders. Therefore, the result will be the opposite to the anticipated one. Finally, critics of the initiative drew attention to the fact that by adding this clause to the registration agreement ICANN will assume the role of a “content policeman” of the global network.
Domain Incite, which published this story, draws attention to another interesting collision. The issue is that ICANN corporation faced a necessity to seriously adjust its budget and cut expenses because the financial gains from the new gTLDs were much lower than expected. Therefore, the ICANN itself may not be too interested in cutting registries’ fees.
