[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
derek at aa419.org
Wed Dec 22 17:53:58 UTC 2010
On 2010/12/22 19:18, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2010, at 19:51, Derek Smythe wrote:
>> The reality of this issue is that the normal internet user, be it a
>> small business or an individual, has not real protection on the internet.
> The flipside to this is that registrants have a right to privacy and a degree of protection. The "normal" user wants to be able to register and use domain names without publishing their private details.
> Yes we all know there are criminals out there, but there are plenty of other ways to get to them other than WHOIS of a domain name.
And if the normal user registers "the largest online recruiting agency
in the world" (money mules) with private whois? Or a domain used for
a bank that looks remarkably like your favourite bank?
Yes, there are other ways, but this was "supposed" to be one of the
ways of knowing who you are dealing with.
So are we to reject anything from now on, ignoring rules set, because
we have a good excuse to do so? I think not.
>> The registrar is held blameless and the victim of internet abuse
>> cannot hold him liable.
> Which is correct in my view.
> If I sold kitchen knives and you happened to use one to commit murder it wouldn't be reasonable to hold me liable UNLESS I had sold you the knife to commit murder ..
If you keep on selling knives to the same guy that has stabbed 12
people on various occasions outside your knife shop while you are
aware of this?
>> ICANN is not interested in abuse issues, it is outside their gambit
>> despite creating an environment ideal for abuse.
> That is a wonderfully inflammatory statement
But sadly reality.
>> As for law enforcement, law enforcement only deals with the most
>> serious issues.
> Which is normal. It's not up to law enforcement to go around enforcing IP interests.
How did we get to IP interests? Read
again. What about cyber crime in all it's forms?
>> A simple reality is they are absolutely flooded with
>> ongoing issues.
>> That does leave the normal internet user vulnerable to exploitation.
> You could extend the same logic to the offline / tangible / real world ..
> Taken to its logical (though somewhat perverse) conclusion then we should all be hiding in bunkers.
Yes and no. The issue is we are dealing with virtual parties that do
not exist in many cases, using mechanisms that hides their location
etc. This is extremely different to a "real world" scenario.
Would you register a house/car/gun on your name for me, without having
verified in depth that I'm in good standing and I am really who I say
I am? What else is privacy protection in most cases?
The problem at hand is not the ratio of good/bad registrants, but the
environment created by current mechanisms that allow a handful of
registrants to abuse domains and in general internet facilities,
spoiling it for the rest of the non-malicious users.
Yet LE/governments have an obligation to protect their citizens in
most civilized countries and when they get involved, they tend to do
so with a sledgehammer approach. Yet we want to cry foul when it
happens, yet we fail to do so ourselves with self regulation?
> PS: The only time I've been a victim of crimes has been offline - wallets stolen, cars vandalised and debit cards skimmed ..
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting& Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> PS: Check out our latest offers on domains& hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large