September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

<<a) the status quo is dangerous>> Have plenty of data to support this <<b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution>> Have already writen a memo to David Giza explaining this, will share with the group <<c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist.>> Yup, if we all work together I think we can make a compelling case > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:37 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They > > are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed > > and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just > > for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended > > fixes, I don't think the new studies will help. > > > That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position. > We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that > a) the status quo is dangerous > b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the > solution > c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist. > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

I think that is a good idea for bulk buyers. If you are buying only 1 or a handful, that would be a process delay. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:18 am > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > What about requesting to have a certification key in order to register > domains? > -ed > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > Not wanting to splash cold water on this effort, but I need to point out > > that at the direction of the Board and with significant input from the GAC > > and parts of the GNSO, we have started the (slow?) process of doing a number > > of studies regarding whois. > > > > We are not likely to see formal action on any of the traditional > > whois-related issues until at least some of those studies are done. > > > > Please note that I am not advocating doing nothing, just telling you how I > > am reading the tea-leaves. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 15/09/2009 10:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > >> Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > >> > Great. So how do we get support for this? > >> > > >> We discuss it and endorse it (or some modified version of it) as a > >> NARALO position (together of a detailed account of how the status quo > >> damages the public good). > >> > >> At that point we submit it to ALAC, which will then do one of three > >> things: > >> > >> 1) Endorse it as-is > >> 2) Endorse it after ALAC modifications > >> 3) Choose not to endorse it, or to not deal with it. > >> > >> If ALAC chooses (2) or (3) we can choose to submit this request > >> ourselves as a NARALO statement. > >> We may also find that we may be able to attract support for this within > >> the business and non commercial constituencies of GNSO. > >> > >> I have indicated to the ALAC Chair our interest in this issue, an she > >> has responded that ALAC and other regions share our concerns. It is > >> possible that our initiative may achieve global support, which will make > >> ICANN rejection of it more difficult. > >> > >> - Evan > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >> > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > >> > > > > > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > -- > NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately > by e-mail, and delete the original message. > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Great. So how do we get support for this? > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:33 am > To: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn > <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Hi Garth, > I have also proposed an almost identical solution in a submission to an earlier WHOIS Task Force entitled "the Natural Persons Proposal" -- you can find a synopsis of it here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06282.html > -- danny -- > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > > To: "Dharma Dailey" <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:24 AM > > Dharma, > > > > There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one > > that is > > currently in use in Canada and other countries among some > > ccTLDs. This > > fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for > > freedom of > > expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address > > issues that > > pain brand holders. > > > > Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for > > commercial > > purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict > > privacy rules > > concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for > > individuals. Domains > > engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions > > cannot have > > private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging > > commercial > > traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, > > commercial domains > > with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. > > > > This system would instantly preclude all software piracy > > sites, fake > > pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, > > fake health care > > companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not > > address all > > domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute > > 90% of the > > problem. > > > > We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that > > America", this > > is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In > > Germany or > > France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret > > ownership. > > Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and > > location in lots > > of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, > > etc... > > > > The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry > > insiders often > > with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the > > non-product spam > > we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. > > The spam > > pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the > > Registrar > > holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want > > Whois reform. > > And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut > > up. > > > > Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar > > company buy? > > 1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still > > less than > > 300. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand > > domains. Because a > > domain name can be anything and the processing is really > > minimal, > > they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to > > make money > > either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, > > email, > > advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of > > domain names > > and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the > > process. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > > > Tentative Presentations: > > Global Cyber Security Expo > > http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse > > proliferates > > > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > > > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > > > To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > > > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > It seems that two important interests for internet > > users are at odds > > > in domain registration- freedom of expression and > > protection from > > > criminals. Is this really the case? > > If so, how could you ever > > > value one more than the other? Is there > > some sort of matrix that > > > lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on > > both of these > > > fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, > > how each might > > > impact freedom of expression alongside how they might > > impact cyber > > > criminals? For example, if we could > > weigh the likelihood that > > > criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a > > 24 hour delay in > > > getting a domain registration completed versus the > > harm to a concerned > > > public having to wait a day to get their > > > ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have > > a substantive > > > debate on whether that reform is worth the > > effort. A few cyber- > > > criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as > > people with a > > > burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of > > the > > > consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the > > trade offs in the > > > abstract. > > > -dharma > > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > > > I would not support any proposal that imposes > > delay on the ability > > > > of an individual to register a domain name. One > > of the strengths of > > > > the Internet is the speed with which users can > > publish and speak. > > > > You see this especially around newsworthy events, > > where minutes > > > > after something important or interesting has > > happened, people are > > > > registering domain names and using the traffic > > that flows in to say > > > > something. > > > > > > > > A postal verification process would add an > > incremental accuracy gain > > > > while burdening the ability to speak and react in > > real time to world > > > > events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it > > anyway. > > > > > > > > -- Bret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > > ------ > > > ------ > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > ------ > > > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > >

5 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

In the interest of not hurting a good argument with bad data, I would suggest that this statement not be made. I do not have a real clue how many domains a typical multi-million dollar company owns, but my understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve tends to have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations. And there is no point if irritating constituencies who might otherwise be strong supporters of the type of effort we are discussing. Alan At 15/09/2009 10:24 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar company buy? >1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still less than >300.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

I don't think paper verification is a bad thing, but I agree with Bret and Alan that we should avoid process changes that slow the system down or add costs. A paper mailing verification could come after registration, say a week? There could be different levels of verification that may still work even if mail gets lost. This would help Eduardo while he's running his website from El Yunque. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:48 am > To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > So if I live in the middle of nothing (where I can not receive paper mail) I > will not be able to register any domains? That effectively will exclude some > people of doing legitimate business through the Internet. > -ed > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > I'm simply saying that if you are worried about preventing criminals from > >> registering tons of domains as the article describes, then the policy > >> discussion will have to be broader than what Danny's prescription allows. > >> > > > > Personally, I think that the registrar should send a verification code to > > the paper mailing address provided by the registrant, and not activate the > > domain until the registrant receives the code and shows (probably by web or > > email response) that he or she has received it. > > > > I realize this would make the registration process considerably slower and > > somewhat more expensive, but I see no public interest reason why that's a > > bad thing. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > -- > NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately > by e-mail, and delete the original message. > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

More like accountability than enforcement. I always like to say that if the police are handling something every other layer of policy has failed. If we can set up a policy structure that initially lets good people in and keeps bad people out, that is much better than cleaning up after. I don't really see a need to slow the process down. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:49 am > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Thanks Garth and Danny for filling in some blanks. Both of these > proposals would not prevent people for registering domain names, but > set up the door for an enforcement action to be carried out by > registrars? Is that right? > -dharma > On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Hi Garth, > > > > I have also proposed an almost identical solution in a submission to > > an earlier WHOIS Task Force entitled "the Natural Persons Proposal" > > -- you can find a synopsis of it here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06282.html > > > > -- danny -- > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > >> To: "Dharma Dailey" <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > >> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:24 AM > >> Dharma, > >> > >> There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one > >> that is > >> currently in use in Canada and other countries among some > >> ccTLDs. This > >> fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for > >> freedom of > >> expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address > >> issues that > >> pain brand holders. > >> > >> Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for > >> commercial > >> purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict > >> privacy rules > >> concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for > >> individuals. Domains > >> engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions > >> cannot have > >> private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging > >> commercial > >> traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, > >> commercial domains > >> with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. > >> > >> This system would instantly preclude all software piracy > >> sites, fake > >> pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, > >> fake health care > >> companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not > >> address all > >> domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute > >> 90% of the > >> problem. > >> > >> We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that > >> America", this > >> is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In > >> Germany or > >> France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret > >> ownership. > >> Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and > >> location in lots > >> of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, > >> etc... > >> > >> The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry > >> insiders often > >> with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the > >> non-product spam > >> we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. > >> The spam > >> pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the > >> Registrar > >> holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want > >> Whois reform. > >> And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut > >> up. > >> > >> Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar > >> company buy? > >> 1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still > >> less than > >> 300. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand > >> domains. Because a > >> domain name can be anything and the processing is really > >> minimal, > >> they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to > >> make money > >> either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, > >> email, > >> advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of > >> domain names > >> and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the > >> process. > >> > >> -Garth > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------- > >> Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > >> > >> Garth Bruen > >> gbruen(a)knujon.com > >> http://www.knujon.com > >> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > >> > >> Tentative Presentations: > >> Global Cyber Security Expo > >> http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > >> > >> > >>> -------- Original Message -------- > >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse > >> proliferates > >>> From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > >>> Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > >>> To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >>> It seems that two important interests for internet > >> users are at odds > >>> in domain registration- freedom of expression and > >> protection from > >>> criminals. Is this really the case? > >> If so, how could you ever > >>> value one more than the other? Is there > >> some sort of matrix that > >>> lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on > >> both of these > >>> fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, > >> how each might > >>> impact freedom of expression alongside how they might > >> impact cyber > >>> criminals? For example, if we could > >> weigh the likelihood that > >>> criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a > >> 24 hour delay in > >>> getting a domain registration completed versus the > >> harm to a concerned > >>> public having to wait a day to get their > >>> ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have > >> a substantive > >>> debate on whether that reform is worth the > >> effort. A few cyber- > >>> criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as > >> people with a > >>> burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of > >> the > >>> consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the > >> trade offs in the > >>> abstract. > >>> -dharma > >>> On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > >>>> I would not support any proposal that imposes > >> delay on the ability > >>>> of an individual to register a domain name. One > >> of the strengths of > >>>> the Internet is the speed with which users can > >> publish and speak. > >>>> You see this especially around newsworthy events, > >> where minutes > >>>> after something important or interesting has > >> happened, people are > >>>> registering domain names and using the traffic > >> that flows in to say > >>>> something. > >>>> > >>>> A postal verification process would add an > >> incremental accuracy gain > >>>> while burdening the ability to speak and react in > >> real time to world > >>>> events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it > >> anyway. > >>>> > >>>> -- Bret > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> NA-Discuss mailing list > >>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >>>> > >>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >>>> ------ > >>> ------ > >>> NA-Discuss mailing list > >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >>> ------ > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >> > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > >> > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Dharma, There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one that is currently in use in Canada and other countries among some ccTLDs. This fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for freedom of expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address issues that pain brand holders. Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for commercial purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict privacy rules concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for individuals. Domains engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions cannot have private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging commercial traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, commercial domains with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. This system would instantly preclude all software piracy sites, fake pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, fake health care companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not address all domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute 90% of the problem. We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that America", this is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In Germany or France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret ownership. Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and location in lots of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, etc... The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry insiders often with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the non-product spam we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. The spam pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the Registrar holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want Whois reform. And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut up. Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar company buy? 1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still less than 300. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand domains. Because a domain name can be anything and the processing is really minimal, they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to make money either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, email, advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of domain names and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the process. -Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > It seems that two important interests for internet users are at odds > in domain registration- freedom of expression and protection from > criminals. Is this really the case? If so, how could you ever > value one more than the other? Is there some sort of matrix that > lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on both of these > fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, how each might > impact freedom of expression alongside how they might impact cyber > criminals? For example, if we could weigh the likelihood that > criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a 24 hour delay in > getting a domain registration completed versus the harm to a concerned > public having to wait a day to get their > ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have a substantive > debate on whether that reform is worth the effort. A few cyber- > criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as people with a > burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of the > consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the trade offs in the > abstract. > -dharma > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > I would not support any proposal that imposes delay on the ability > > of an individual to register a domain name. One of the strengths of > > the Internet is the speed with which users can publish and speak. > > You see this especially around newsworthy events, where minutes > > after something important or interesting has happened, people are > > registering domain names and using the traffic that flows in to say > > something. > > > > A postal verification process would add an incremental accuracy gain > > while burdening the ability to speak and react in real time to world > > events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it anyway. > > > > -- Bret > > > > > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Thanks Evan. Obviously we need to make it clear from the get-go that this is not an "American plan" but rather a comprehensive one that is actually in-line with various international standards. ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:43 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > Great. So how do we get support for this? > > > We discuss it and endorse it (or some modified version of it) as a > NARALO position (together of a detailed account of how the status quo > damages the public good). > At that point we submit it to ALAC, which will then do one of three things: > 1) Endorse it as-is > 2) Endorse it after ALAC modifications > 3) Choose not to endorse it, or to not deal with it. > If ALAC chooses (2) or (3) we can choose to submit this request > ourselves as a NARALO statement. > We may also find that we may be able to attract support for this within > the business and non commercial constituencies of GNSO. > I have indicated to the ALAC Chair our interest in this issue, an she > has responded that ALAC and other regions share our concerns. It is > possible that our initiative may achieve global support, which will make > ICANN rejection of it more difficult. > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye
by Bret Fausett Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

ALan, I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I served on the Deletes Task Force once upon a time, and I can share some of our experiences. > As I get deeper into the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery issue, > it is becoming apparent that earlier attempts to address the problem > not only did not fix the problem, but may have in fact worsened it. I > attribute this to some degree because they were trying to fix a > symptom and not address the long-term needs. > > Alan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

Yes, it's a great tool used by pimps, human traffickers, software pirates, drug-dealers, counterfieters and terrorists the world over. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue > registrars turn a blind eye > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Date: Mon, September 14, 2009 2:42 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Alan Greenberg wrote: > > I support this. No one (among us in any case) is likely to advocate > > WHOIS inaccuracy, > You didn't really think I'd let that pass? I do not advocate WHOIS > accuracy, as I believe it focuses on the wrong points in the chain of > accountability. I support "inaccuracy" as one way among many of > maintaining privacy or anonymity in domain registration. > --Wendy > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0