[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
New ICANN registrant change process
- Subject: New ICANN registrant change process
- From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:04:40 -1000
- In-reply-to: <CAL9jLabWuZY3rfs=kcOiK1N6-907H1Es2P_TQG7trrTGHAxmfQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAL9jLabTmTQM6z--F75=f4Xy7-AT5ane0SLznRMoMvHzQQNZyw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAL9jLabWuZY3rfs=kcOiK1N6-907H1Es2P_TQG7trrTGHAxmfQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with spam/malware distribution/botnet C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed at resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's namespace, is it not?
> it's not clear, to me, that any of those hammers have real effect.
Not sure the RPZ hammer has been brought out in force yet. I've seen a few recommendations on various mailing lists, but no concerted effort. Unfortunately, there is no easy/scalable way to determine who a registrar for a given name is, so the hammer has to be applied to the TLD as a whole, which has unfortunate side effects...
>> I love how people love to blame ICANN.
>
> but, they are the names and numbers authority, no? it says so in their name.
"Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" -- Don't see "authority" in that name. :)
Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160706/f312e04f/attachment.pgp>