[At-Large] Guidance for Domain Name Orders
franck.martin at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 16:16:32 UTC 2012
Man, seems you have no guidance to offer... I'll disregard your emails from now on, they are not interesting.
----- Original Message -----
From: "cdel.firsthand.net" <cdel at firsthand.net>
To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 9:07:59 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Guidance for Domain Name Orders
I didn't true. It is a valid point. That would take a thorough brief and more time. No it really means *doing* something new about this and the way ICANN world is now that needs to happen outside that box. I'm nearly fed up enough though ...
However the iFBI initiative won't and can't solve the phish 24hour or 48 hour window either.
They are peddling locks for stable doors which they created and tacitly maintain.
Christian de Larrinaga
On 15 Mar 2012, at 14:26, Franck Martin <franck.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> You critic a lot, but what do you propose practically?
> Interestingly you are not providing any hint of solution to the problem I posed.
> Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question.
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
>> Saying the solution to the pathetic record of the DNS industry for innovation and integrity over the last twenty years is to support extra jurisdictional, extra judicial executive actions without due process and accountability for users or registrants is a very odd position to take.
>> This note by ICANN "security" people is in reality passing the buck on the failure for innovation in the namespace during ICANNs tenure in such a way as create an even bigger problem for the world.
>> There are solutions that could manage needs of both bona fide registrants and users. But goodness me it would take some market innovation. Now why would a supply chain that makes vast profit out of providing the lowest common denominator commodity service actually make any extra effort? Why would they open up their business cartel and limited monopolies to outside innovators?
>> How is it that the stability of the DNS has become directly proportional to the registration fee?
>> After all the DNS Industry is making very fat and luscious profits as things are. Why innovate? Who are you competing with ? What are the drivers to add the sorts of services that are useful to users and registrants
>> The answer is not to turn the FBI into the iFBI . It is to turn this lumbering mass of blubber into something really responsive to user needs.
>> It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that support for ICANN was established because those building network orientated services understood that the Internet space was not up to scratch. The most important thing for the Internet going forward is that it is itself a platform for innovation for users but also of the Internet itself.
>> This drive for innovation lies behind the support for a private sector ICANN rather than the fear of incumbent favouring, lumbering slothful cartel tainted ITU. (the widely held view of networking data people).
>> Now I am sorry but the record at ICANN for innovation since then is not encouraging. The policy debates are mercantilist not innovative. The entire gTLD process is orientated around carving up the cake. It is as if the multi-stakeholders gathering around ICANN really believe that innovation depends on the slice you get.
>> The point of ICANN is to defend and promote innovation at the edges. That is why it was started as a user focused organisation. What we see in reality is none of that. We see DNSSEC and IDNs. A start but both starts coming from the centre not really the edge.
>> Incidentally that you can read on this list people seriously unpicking the interests of "users" from "registrants" is I think very telling. What happened to the notion of a domain for every user domain?
>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 18:35, Derek Smythe wrote:
>>> 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:
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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