[At-Large] DomainIncite : Is this why WhatsApp hates some TLDs but not others?

[Karl Auerbach]

If a registry/registrar combination wants to make refunds after a few 
days, that's their business.  It's a stupid thing for them to allow 
without a "restocking charge", but that's their choice.

Sure, ICANN can be the policeman of the world.  But should it be?  And 
should it be when it effectively captured by those it would police and 
keeps those who are affected at arms length and powerless.

I have a rather long personal list of things I don't like:  I don't like 
churches that spew hate, I don't like those who would ban books, I don't 
like those who throw out science and spread disease to everyone else.  
Sure, let's have ICANN regulate domain names that back those things.  
And, let's be fair: let's add your list of ill-favored practices.

Pretty soon we will have an Internet that makes Singapore and its 
restrictions (like chewing gum) look like a Libertarian paradise.

I was mistaken when I said that ICANN would be a mere policeman - it 
would be far more, it would be complainant, policeman, judge, jury, and 
executioner all in one convenient place.

On that model our power utilities could cut one off if we watched the 
wrong  shows or ate the wrong foods.

There's no limit.

That's why we have governments that are (in theory) bound by strict 
Constitutions and subject to in depth due process procedures.

ICANN is not a government, it has none of those protections.

Yet there are many among us who seem to want that and to want that in a 
way in which we - the community of internet users - end up paying vastly 
inflated prices.

     --karl--

On 9/16/23 5:37 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
> ICANN is if nothing else a network of contracts with various provisions.
>
> The general term of art used within the ICANN context for registries,
> registrars etc is the "contracted parties".
>
> ICANN has acted previously to curtail the mass use of throw-away
> domains by putting restrictions on refunds.
>
> In the past spammers et al were able to buy thousands of domains, use
> them for spamming, phishing, etc for several days, and then request a
> refund.
>
> So in that past case the cost was zero other than the effort
> involved. And certainly nothing to ICANN as the fees were refunded and
> the miscreant could lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> ICANN's mission statement includes the "stability and integrity" of
> the net.
>
> So for example they believe they can put requirements on identity of
> the purchaser. Imperfectly implemented but no one questions ICANN's
> ability to contractually require the registrar to attempt to gather
> accurate information at registration.
>
> And the notion of disallowing the use of their product (domains) for
> likely illegal or fraudulent purposes is hardly unique to ICANN.
>
> The automobile analogy falls flat with me since there are many
> restrictions on sales of automobiles such as proper identification of
> seller and buyer, etc. Try to buy a car without a VIN tag.
>
> There was even a time in the 1990s when you could buy ready to use
> cell phones in bubble packs for about $50 each, cash. They had some
> number of minutes included which one could refill, or just toss in a
> public trash can after harassing or threatening someone.
>
> Anyhow the point is that registrars can be contractually bound to not
> engage in behaviors known to be of advantage to micreants.
>
> On September 16, 2023 at 12:25 karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
>   > On 9/15/23 9:53 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
>   > > How about selling tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of
>   > > machine-generated domains to spammers/phishers for a steeply discounted
>   > > price?
>   > >
>   > I would not jump to agree that dealing with this is withing ICANN's
>   > scope - which is the matter of keeping the top two layers of the primary
>   > DNS system reliably, promptly, and accurately turning domain name
>   > queries into domain name responses.  (A nod may be made in the direction
>   > of also including oversight of the addition and removal of TLDs.)
>   >
>   > If generating domain names and selling them for what they actually cost
>   > (mere pennies rather than the ICANN system's dollars) is, in itself,
>   > something ill that ICANN should regulate against?
>   >
>   > There are laws, passed by real legislatures, against fraud,
>   > misrepresentation, and conspiracies to do ill.  Those things are the
>   > acts to be complained of, not the registration of lots of names that
>   > someone conjectures might be used in ill ways.  It is no more ICANN's
>   > role to enforce laws about fraud than it is for ICANN to enforce laws
>   > about murder.
>   >
>   > There is a vast distance between ICANN punishing a registrar or registry
>   > for, one one hand, merely selling lots of names for cheap and, on the
>   > other hand, a conspiracy, an agreement, between spammers and that
>   > registrar and registry.  ICANN ought to leave the determination of such
>   > conspiracies to the legal systems of the world.  Yes, there is a
>   > problem, not just ICANN's problem, of different jurisdictions arriving
>   > at contradictory results.  But that is a problem much broader than ICANN.
>   >
>   > Automobiles are used in many crimes.  Would that justify the US Society
>   > of Automotive Engineers (a standards body) regulate Ford, GM, Honda,
>   > Toyota (etc) for producing and selling low cost cars?
>   >
>   > Is ICANN to be the policeman - and perhaps the Puritan minister - of the
>   > Internet?
>   >
>   > ICANN is a textbook case of mission creep (actually in ICANN's case it
>   > is mission gallop) and regulatory capture.  Do we want to encourage and
>   > applaud this?
>   >
>   > To me, the most interesting aspect of the practice of which you complain
>   > is that it demonstrates the utter fallacy of the ICANN imposed business
>   > model, a model that multiples un-audited costs by tens of thousands of
>   > percent so that internet users pay prices for domain names that are
>   > thousands of times higher than the actual cost of providing that
>   > service.   ICANN is a money pump that sucks $$billions out of the
>   > pockets of internet users - and yet it gives those users no real voice
>   > or vote.  That is the real scandal of which we ought to be complaining.
>   >
>   >           --karl--
>