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

[bzs at theworld.com]

On September 16, 2023 at 18:14 karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
 > 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.

This is a settled matter from several years ago, you're lacking
context.

They were refunded the ICANN fee also which was one issue.

The presumption was that the registrar was being slipped some amount
of $$ (presumably less than the legitimate reg fees) to help the
miscreant orchestrate this.

So, register 100,000 domains which would be $18,000 in ICANN fees
(18c/reg), slip the registrar $5,000 to help you refund them all a few
days later when you're done with them, get your $18,000 back, lather,
rinse, repeat every few days.

I have no idea if $5K was a going rate, probably some registrars would
do that for $5K/mo or less, not per turnaround. For the registrar it's
fairly easily automated. And I'm not including speculation on what the
registries' involvement might have been, perhaps none.

 > 
 > 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.

How many times were social media top execs pulled in front of Congress
et al to answer about issues like privacy (e.g., sharing FB's data
with Cambridge Analytics during the 2016 US elections), ad content
whose source they couldn't seem to identify, and even content (the
latter I'm less comfortable with but that doesn't negate the facts.)

So we got the EU's GDPR, laws regarding onshoring of individuals'
data, and so forth.

Fundamentally ICANN performs a quasi-governmental service, unlike
social media who at least can claim their servers, their rules (i.e.,
private, for-profit, etc.) That's the basis under which they are tax
exempt (501c3), they claim to perform a service the govt (or govts but
the US IRS doesn't care about that much) might otherwise have to
figure out how to perform.

See for example:

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-irs-990-fy22-10may23-en.pdf

in particular Schedule O beginning on page 67.

 > 
 > 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.

I never suggested anything of the sort nor would I.

ICANN, like many other regulators, can focus on ways they (via their
contracted parties) may be abetting criminal behavior directly, such
as enabling criminals to hide their identities and/or thwart normal
and ordinary security measures such as switching between tens of
thousands of domains.

Not the criminal behavior itself, but to extend your analogy about
automobiles, in effect selling getaway cars without regard to
obtaining the identity of the purchasers.

Or many other common commercial situations where one might be aiding
and abetting criminality even if by negligence.

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

You're just making wild assumptions and running with them.

If something seems to abet a pattern of criminality it might be worth
investigating whether some regulation might curtail that.

 > 
 > 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.

Ok, now you're shadow boxing, I don't know with whom.

 > 
 > 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.

There's little reason to believe that cost of goods sold (COGS) in
general sets prices, other than it suggests a minimum price below
which you would lose money.

But the sale price tends to be set by what the market will bear.

At any rate, for your statement to be true we would already have to be
in your scenario.

 > 
 >      --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--
 > >

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*