On 3/14/2012 1:08 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
I think this ICANN paper oversteps the mark significantly. Encouraging extra judicial, extra jurisdictional executive actions is highly destabilising as it interferes with local multi-stakeholder processes.
ICANN is not in existence to replace localism with global control but to co-ordinate between local controls in regards the technical management of some of the Internet's unique resources.
Yes there is a problem with DNS being a significant vector for bad actors as well as good ones. No the solution to deal with bad actors is not this.
Christian
Or maybe not. Was the mark not overstepped long before that leads us to these steps, nothing more than a chance at damage control? Is the problem not junk in, junk out, devaluing the total system? Maybe we should take a step back and examine the whole process from domain registration, looking for potential abuse issues, right through to domain usage including abuse, and then we can have this chat. Expecting strict policies and procedures for take-downs is a bit too late for anonymous (due to fake whois details) unaccountable $10 domains used for nefarious activities. Also while we are at it; free unverified privacy protection to hide fake whois details in many instances. You cannot expect a quality finished product without the appropriate feedback and corrective action to the start of the process. Incidentally, quite a good piece of detective work: http://www.legitscript.com/download/LegitScript_Report_on_Internet-bs_%28Lar... Derek