[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Rogue pharmacy sites -- outrageous

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Beau and all,

  Currently this is an ICANN responsibility that ICANN cannot
clearly manage properly, and is reluctant to take responsibility
for.  Yet it is ICANN that "Created" these registrars and the RAA
contracts for.  So we will continue to see these sorts of abuse
unless or until ICANN takes action in a reasonable amount of time,
or DOC/NTIA intervenes.  At this juncture, I prefer the latter.

"Brendler, Beau" wrote:

> http://www.knujon.com/news.html#08052008
>
> This was passed on to me by a friend at Berkman affiliated with the
> StopBadware.org project (http://www.stopbadware.org)
>
> >From the text: "This is an example of a practice we have seen all too
> frequently where Internet companies will remove sites temporarily for
> reported policy violations only to restore them shortly afterwards. In
> some cases the domains move from one Registrar to another (occasionally
> two Registrars with the same parent company, however), but this is a
> situation where the domains went right back where they were before.
> DIRECT INFO/PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY was rated the 9th Worst Registrar in
> terms of sponsoring spam sites previously."
>
> What provisions in the revised RAA address this sort of issue from a
> consumer perspective? Or is this considered "outside ICANN's scope"?
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
> SCANNED
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

All,

  Yet another too soon.knee jerk claim by Apple.

See:

(August 1, 2008)
Apple released a patch for the recently disclosed and exploited DNS
vulnerability, but while it fixes Mac OS X systems used as DNS servers,
it does not protect Macs being used as client systems.  Fully patched
versions of both Tiger (version 10.4.11) and Leopard (version 10.5.4)
do not adequately randomize DNS source ports.  Apple released Security
Update 2008-005 on Thursday, July 31 to address 17 flaws in its OS X
operating system.
- From Internet Storm Center:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4810
A quick packet dump of my fully patched Leopard machine (OS X 10.5.4)
shows it is - as a DNS client - still using incrementing ports.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/osx_still_vulnerable/print.html
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209901566

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9111363&source=rss_topic17

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827