Hi Simon, --- Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 07 July 2008 19:35:45 George Kirikos wrote: > > ICANN has recently posted Afilias' revised proposal regarding > "abusive > > use" of dot-info domain names: > > > > http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 > > George, > > can you summarise if/how this policy defers from other registry > operators?
As far as I'm aware, no gTLD registry has any abuse policy like this, or actively monitors the uses of domains, except perhaps for some of the sponsored gTLDs (e.g. I imagine a .museum site would get yanked if it was somehow used for non-museum use). VeriSign certainly doesn't monitor .com/net sites, nor does PIR for .org -- it's up to registrars, ISPs, law enforcement, UDRP and courts to handle abuse. > We maintain the name servers for all our hosted zones in two distinct > registries (.NET and .CO.UK), in order to try and mitigate possible > problems with a registry. I note this isn't widely done by others providing > Domain name hosting, and there are good arguments that it makes it > theoretically easier to compromise our DNS service. We do the same for some of our more important domain names (see the WHOIS for Leap.com, for example, to see that the nameservers for it are spread across .com, .net and .org). However, if the registry yanked the domain name itself from its zone, the website and any services associated with it would go into a black hole. Indeed, someone else could register your domain, if they cancelled the domain name, and put you out of business. Suppose someone hacked zynet.net to put up malware or phishing content. If this same proposed policy was in force for .com/net, then VeriSign would have the discretion to cancel your domain. VeriSign would be Judge, jury and executioner. <sarcasm on> Obviously, VeriSign is a wonderful company who would always exercise its discretion with care: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/tlds/sitefinder/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder http://www.icann.cl/correspondence/parsons-to-halloran-08may03.htm http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6173825.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/03/24/daily57.html <sarcasm off> Due process is important for handling cases of purported "domain abuse." I'm sure one can easily find "illegal content" on sites like YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo or Google, if you go through the user-generated content portions of their websites. Website owners should not have their domains put at risk at the registry operator's whims and discretion when these kinds of abuses occur -- there should be a clear and predictable process, as there is for other abuses (like the UDRP, or WHOIS accuracy, etc.), one that ensures that damages from false positives are minimized, with clear appeals processes and with punishment proportional to any "crime." Vigilante justice by registry operators should not be tolerated. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
