October 2011 - RegistryService

Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy proposal by verisign is a BAD idea
by Patrick Oct. 13, 2011

Oct. 13, 2011

Domains aren't limited anymore to a specific country. Domains like .com and .net are in use by individuals around the world. Fighting abuse is important and deserves our attention. But taking a website down without a ruling from a judge is a very bad idea. There is a reason why every country has judges, simply to look at a case with an objective view. No law-enforcement agency can be 100% objective. They will try to be but they can't. Simply because they are involved in the case they are working on. Freedom is our highest property. It should NEVER be given to a company. Fighting abuse must be done based on facts presented and reviewed by court. If not ruled by a court, who can garuantee objectivy? Today we take down a website that has illegal content like movies or mp3. And tomorrow? What is illegal tomorrow? Who determines what is illegal? This proposal is very bad and a serious threat to freedom. Regards, Patrick -- Yoda said: "Adventure, Heh! Excitement, Heh! A Jedi craves not these things. You are reckless!"

1 0

Proposal # 2011008
by Jeff Cook Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Please vote NO. It is just bad for he INTERNET and freedom of the INTERNET. Ask EFF if they think if it a good thing.

1 0

Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy proposal by verisign should be rejected
by Trae Watkins Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Hello, Please do not give Verisign alone the ability to suspend a domain. Verisign should should not be given the ability to destroy a website/company without due process of law. And while Verisign may say that this is not applicable they as a company do not have the right to effictively destroy another company without going through the legal system which this proposal would do. The after the fact dispute process is meaningless as any damage will have already been done by an improper take-down. The suspension of a domain would render what is likely the primary method of communication with said company unavailable. And in the worst case scenario a domain that was incorrectly suspended could cause a life threatening situation to become deadly. I know this sounds melodramatic but imagine that a doctor's messaging service that converts emergency emails to texts gets suspended and his patient tries to contact him but he cant because some completely unassociated person is using a sub domain site of the same registrant is doing something that flags the domain as abusive. In addition part c could be used by Verisign to suspend and domain of any company who files suit against them. I believe that this proposal gives Verisign more power than a single company should hold. Thank you Trae Watkins

1 0

Proposal #2011008 addendum
by Kevin Strong Oct. 12, 2011

Oct. 12, 2011

Reference: Proposal #2011008 - Verisign Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy ------ This proposal has the potential benefit of assisting TLD providers in shutting down domains of great concern (i.e. scam, phishing, malware, *logger). The unfortunate side-effect of it can be the inappropriate termination of domains based on a complaint process where the actual issue is not directly witnessed by a physical Human being at the TLD. For instance, a flood of emails can be sent by many people in a short period of time to report [domain.com] as a malware distribution site, whereby said domain is taken down before the issue is proven to exist. THIS HAS A POTENTIALLY DAMAGING SIDE EFFECT of taking down valid domains that are not engaging in any negative activity, simply because competitors of said domain are able to have many representatives (Human or automated) report distinct and differential problems about the domain that seem to be very valid points, in order to destroy their competitor's Internet presence. Incorporated into the proposal should be a requirement of physical Human inspection of the reported issue, whatever that issue may be, before action can be taken. - Kevin Strong - Human Resource ProFile, Inc.

1 0

easyDNS Comments on Anti-Abuse Domain Use Policy
by Mark Jeftovic Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

Please find our comments on Versign's proposed Anti-Abuse policy below: easyDNS Technologies Inc. thinks the goal of having a mechanism to takedown domains that destabilize the internet (via malware or some other technical issue) in the absence of a non-responsive registrar-of-record a laudable one, with the following caveats: - the Registrar-of-Record should be the first avenue of approach on all takedown matters. Verisign should step in with an unilateral takedown only in lieu of a response from the Registrar, or if the Registrar of record has opted-into the malware scanning program and explicitly enabled Verisign to execute takedowns. - the definition of "malware" is currently overly broad, deeming many harmless practices as malware (cookies with longer lifespans, web bugs set in accordance with a valid privacy policy) or else what constitutes malware is open to Verisign's interpretation. But the most alarming aspect of the proposed policy are the presence of additional provisions which make it possible for any domain to be taken down in the absence of due process. The provision (known as section b) in the proposal is worded as follows: " (b) to comply with any applicable court orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process; " A court order is the result of due process and has by definition been subject to some form of judicial review. A "requirement" or a "request" is entirely subjective opinion and devoid of due process under the law. Further, quasi-governmental agencies have no need to be imbued with additional powers of arbitrary domain takedowns. All takedown requests coming from governmental or law enforcement agencies should require due process under the law and obtain some form of court order. Of course, with the com and net being unsponsored generic TLDs, the issue of jurisdiction is important. Are we to assume then, that the requests and the requirements are those of the United States government only? What of domains registered to registrants via regsitrars in which one or both are outside the legal jurisdiction of the United States? Can other governments then request Verisign to takedown a domain? (Can the government of Canada then request that a domain registered to a US-based registrant be taken down? How about China? Or Iran?) This issue becomes so convoluted that maybe there should be a wider debate around if the registries themselves should even be allowed to be operated by a private entity subject to governing law of one country that could then unfairly force its own law upon all others. Perhaps maybe we need to think about having .com and .net be run by an international organization such as the ITU? Or some other UN agency? Does that sound reasonable? If that route is unpalatable, then perhaps the easiest path is to - strike section b from the proposal - more accurately define what "malware" means - remove section (c) (which is a backdoor mechanism to takedown a domain simply by threatening legal action against Verisign) - provide a realtime rollback and challenge mechanism that registrars can invoke to address improper takedowns Thank you. -mark -- Mark Jeftovic <markjr(a)easydns.com> / Jabber: markjr(a)easysip.com Founder / President, easyDNS Technologies Inc. Company Website: http://www.easyDNS.com Better Living Through Private World Domination: http://PrivateWorld.com

1 0

Opposed to VeriSign's proposed com/net Anti-Abuse Policy, due to lack of due process
by George Kirikos Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

Hello, VeriSign has submitted an application to ICANN for an Anti-Abuse policy for com/net domain names: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2011008 We oppose that application, as it does not provide any due process to domain name registrants. VeriSign would become the judge, jury and executioner, able to suspend or delete domain names that are allegedly "abusive". VeriSign even recognizes that legitimate domain names will be affected. To attempt to mitigate these "false positives", VeriSign proposes that legitimate registrants would only be able to protest *after* VeriSign has already taken action. Such action would have already damaged the innocent registrants and their users. This is counter to the domain name registrants' rights to due process. Instead, VeriSign should be compelled to prove the alleged abuse in an appropriate legal forum (e.g. a court), where the registrants can face their accuser, before being allowed to suspend or delete a domain name. If ICANN is going to permit this policy to go forward without due process changes, VeriSign should be required to carry liability insurance in the amount of $100 million for each act of suspension/deletion. This would allow registrants to recover financially in the event that VeriSign is found guilty of suspending/deleting a domain name that was not in fact "abusive." Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.leap.com/

1 2

Registrar authority
by Anup Jain Oct. 6, 2011

Oct. 6, 2011

Sir, provide me process of ragistrar authority. Thanks and Regards IT INFOSYSTEM Mobile : +91-9313602429 Phone: +91-11-25458231

1 0