-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Kradorex Xeron <admin@digibase.ca> wrote:
On Thursday 24 May 2007 03:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Some of them do. Others dont know (several in asia) or are aware and dont care - theres some in russia, some stateside that mostly kite domains but dont mind registering a ton of blog and email spammer domains.
Very true - If this is going to work, it's goign to have to be on a global
scale, Not just one country of registrars can be made to correct the problem as people who maliciously register domains will just do what the spyware companies do, go to a country that doesn't care and do business there.
Well, registrars have to be accredited by ICANN, right? This is a policy enforcement issue, methinks. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.1 (Build 1012) wj8DBQFGVcnBq1pz9mNUZTMRAscKAKCo2depssyh0WYbLwsDa3f31ZaJVgCg6Cvn /jgr0q8uHu2cQFT6fsATr04= =oZYe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Fergie wrote:
Well, registrars have to be accredited by ICANN, right?> This is a policy enforcement issue, methinks.
which brings us back to my original comment: "we need a policy most likely from ICANN that requires some action based on proper documentation and evidence or wrong-doing/malfeasance. That policy needs to dictate some monetary penalties for non-compliance."
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
which brings us back to my original comment: "we need a policy most likely from ICANN that requires some action based on proper documentation and evidence or wrong-doing/malfeasance.
Agreed, and I'd love to help define the draft rfc/policy, but is there a contact at ICANN for this type of thing? We used to be able to email Carl Auerbach but that was a while back. -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/
which brings us back to my original comment: "we need a policy most likely from ICANN that requires some action based on proper documentation and evidence or wrong-doing/malfeasance. That policy needs to dictate some monetary penalties for non-compliance."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Anyone been following the Registerfly fiasco? Since 2000, the ICANN registrar agreement has required registrars to escrow their registrant data according to ICANN's specs. It's been seven years, ICANN is just now sending out an RFP to set up escrow providers, only because they've been shamed into it when people discovered that there were no backups of Registerfly's registrant data. Even if ICANN should try to do this, registrars will push back like crazy since most of them have a minimum price mininum service business model. In retrospect, it was a huge mistake to drop the price and let Verisign and their friends mass merchandise domains as a fashion accessory, but it's much too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 17:46 +0000, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
which brings us back to my original comment: "we need a policy most likely from ICANN that requires some action based on proper documentation and evidence or wrong-doing/malfeasance. That policy needs to dictate some monetary penalties for non-compliance."
It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way to change the policy before the contract term ends is to either move ICANN out of US jurisdiction (to brake contract terms) or to organise a grass-root uprising to replace ICANNs root with something else. //per
On Friday 25 May 2007 15:40, you wrote:
It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way to change the policy before the contract term ends is to either move ICANN out of US jurisdiction (to brake contract terms) or to organise a grass-root uprising to replace ICANNs root with something else.
Since ICANN doesn't contract to all TLD registries, nor do the root server operators control the CCTLD, there is no way to "fix" this from the top down. One can at best displace it from those top level domains ICANN does have contracts for to those that they don't. Packets and digs can slow my networks. but other people's names can't hurt me.
participants (6)
-
Chris L. Morrow -
Fergie -
John Levine -
Per Heldal -
Roger Marquis -
Simon Waters