[At-Large] Definition of registration abuse

[Derek Smythe]

Bill Silverstein wrote:

>> If someone registers a domain name to "John Smith" and is actually "Jack
>> Jones" that is hardly the registrar's responsibility.
> Not until the registrar is notified that the information is not valid. I
> have seen many occasions where the information is clearly not valid. The
> reigsrar permits the information to be corrected or gives 15 days to
> correct the information instead of terminating the domain name
> immediately.
> One example is 123 Yellow Brick Road.


And if the registrars ignores it trying to make it an issue for courts 
etc?  Here the registrar and ICANN knows the address is fake:
http://www.badwhois.info/wp/?m=200902

Some follow up domains have the same fake registration details via the 
same registrar.

>> Now if a registrar was knowingly and intentionally aiding fraudsters to
>> commit fraud then it's a different matter..
>>
>> Also, private individuals have a right to privacy, which is why
>> registration proxy services are so popular.

Agreed. But "criminals" also love privacy?
Also the same registrar mentioned previously, has privacy policies 
that even raised a comment in Mexico.

>>
>> If no crime is being committed, then a registrant should have the right to
>> privacy ..
> Illegal spam is not a crime. Copyright violation is not a crime.
> 
> Under the terms of the registration contract, these proxy registration
> services are liable for harm.
  Will it hold up in court? Maybe, maybe not, regardless of how 
deserving!

I have personally pointed out fraud being committed (bank spoofs) 
using private registrations to registrars. The registrars accepted 
this but allowed much more of the same. In fact this also appears to 
have become a method of hiding an identity theft problem in 
registrations where the registrar became aware of the problem.

What about the privacy provider? I recently came across a domain 
reseller, deliberately in Turkey, claiming privileged relationship 
with law enforcement that will cause them to turn a blind eye, using 
privacy providers in Sudan and Hong Kong who also happen to be 
attorneys. Part of the sell was that they tolerate anything on their 
services and not law, court orders or similar can get you removed from 
the net.

Some food for thought:
http://fakewebsitecash.org/

We cannot deny that there is a lot on "abuse" by whichever name on the 
net, abusing systems, law and whatever to enrich certain elements at 
the cost of "defrauding" others with fake offers, impersonation etc.

It is just a case of defining this "abuse" as not acceptable, so it 
cannot be "abused" in itself.

Derek