On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams of complaints.
<devils advocate hat> On what metric? Pure volume? Percent of registrations? type of complaint by similar x/y? </devils advocate hat>
By the terms the Registry sets in the Registry/Registrar Agreement and to which the Registrar agrees in order to sell the Registry's names.
ok, neat!
there are 'lots of complaints' against some registrars, but if you have ~20% of the .TLD market you're prone to get more volume than a 1%er, right?
There's this concept called "normalization", e.g., complaints per 100 delegations or some such.
that's something I expected, yes... some rate that works out if I just registrar for 10 domains vs 10million. cool.
Also, this isn't REALLY the registrY's problem is it?
Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with spam/malware distribution/botnet C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed at resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's namespace, is it not?
it's not clear, to me, that any of those hammers have real effect.
i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy.
I love how people love to blame ICANN.
but, they are the names and numbers authority, no? it says so in their name.