[At-Large] Guidance for Domain Name Orders
derek at aa419.org
Wed Mar 14 18:35:19 UTC 2012
On 3/14/2012 1:08 PM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> I think this ICANN paper oversteps the mark significantly.
> Encouraging extra judicial, extra jurisdictional executive actions
is highly destabilising as it interferes with local multi-stakeholder
> ICANN is not in existence to replace localism with global control
but to co-ordinate between local controls in regards the technical
management of some of the Internet's unique resources.
> Yes there is a problem with DNS being a significant vector for bad
actors as well as good ones. No the solution to deal with bad actors
is not this.
Or maybe not. Was the mark not overstepped long before that leads us
to these steps, nothing more than a chance at damage control? Is the
problem not junk in, junk out, devaluing the total system? Maybe we
should take a step back and examine the whole process from domain
registration, looking for potential abuse issues, right through to
domain usage including abuse, and then we can have this chat.
Expecting strict policies and procedures for take-downs is a bit too
late for anonymous (due to fake whois details) unaccountable $10
domains used for nefarious activities. Also while we are at it; free
unverified privacy protection to hide fake whois details in many
You cannot expect a quality finished product without the appropriate
feedback and corrective action to the start of the process.
Incidentally, quite a good piece of detective work:
More information about the At-Large