On 17/09/2023 20:35, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Thanks for the concrete numbers. As you mentioned, ICANN is often reactive. My point is orthogonal - that the decision making in ICANN minimizes the public voice while elevating the voice of selected others and that as a result ICANN's policies tend to favor the latter and impose large costs upon the former.
But I have some disagreement with one thing you said:
On 9/17/23 11:34 AM, John McCormac via At-Large wrote:
... DNS Abuse (phishing, spam and malware) and Content Abuse (intellectual property and trademark infringement etc) ...
I consider these things (phishing, spam and malware) and Content Abuse (intellectual property and trademark infringement etc) to be ill practices that ought to be suppressed.
However, I do not believe these should be classified as "DNS Abuse".
Yes, DNS is involved. But it is involved in the same way that a Toyota car might be involved in a bank robbery. (I've often joked that the way to stop middle eastern terrorist groups is to stop the production of small Toyota pickups.)
The point is to focus on the ill act itself, not the instrumentality.
The problem with DNS Abuse in the ICANN community is that it often means different things to different people. Defining DNS Abuse and who should deal with it is a conversation that has being around for years. The CPH (registries and registrars) seem to want to stick with the phishing/spam/malware definition because it is easiest for them to address. The IPC may want to include Content Abuse. With Content Abuse, there are existing legal options to dealing with some of the problems. What seems to be happening is that all parties have to try to solve the problem with existing tools before creating new ones. That requires clear definitions and it causes a lot of disagreements.
So rather than focusing on "DNS Abuse (phishing, spam and malware) and Content Abuse (intellectual property and trademark infringement etc)" we ought to focus on the harmful aspects - fraud, misrepresentation, violation of copyright or trademark - rather than on a gear tooth (DNS) in one kind of machinery though which these harmful acts are committed.
That might put ICANN, the registries, and the registrars in the position of being content regulators. I don't think that any of them want that. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com