On 3 Apr 2007, at 03:02, Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather
than just fake contact details.
I don't like this because its impossible to define abuse clearly
enough in this context.
Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather than
just fake contact details.
Are you crazy or what? Ever heard of due process? What is abuse? Who
decides that? Office of pre-crime?
In the end the
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007, at 03:02, Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather
than just fake contact details.
I don't like this because its impossible to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather than
just fake contact details.
Are you crazy or what? Ever heard of due process? What is abuse? Who
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather than
just fake contact details.
I don't like this because its impossible to define abuse clearly enough in
this context.
If a fictitious web-shop 'nice-but-dim.com' get
The one concrete suggestion I've seen is to induce a delay in zone
creation and publish a list of newly created names within the zone.
The problem with this is that is sort of assumes:
What are your thoughts on basic suggestions such as:
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
Is there a difference between a decade-old domain with contact information
where a web server got hacked, and a 1-day old domain with garbage for
contact information that was set up explicitly for Bad Stuff? How do you
tell?
Yup! One was registered a
I think the shutdown of seclists.org by GoDaddy is a perfect example of
exactly why the registrars should NOT be making these decisions.
I know the head abuse guy at Godaddy. He is a reasonable person. He
turns off large numbers of domains but he is human and makes the
occasional mistake.
I know the head abuse guy at Godaddy. He is a reasonable person. He
turns off large numbers of domains but he is human and makes the
occasional mistake. The fact that everyone cites the same mistake
tells me that he doesn't make very many of them.
We cite this one because it was such an
We cite this one because it was such an unbelievable cock-up it wasn't
funny. Fyodor a blackhat? Seclists.org a malicious site? Honest to god did
the guy do even the teensiest little bit of due diligence before shutting
the site down?
He screwed up, we all know that. My point is that human
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
Is there a difference between a decade-old domain with contact information
where a web server got hacked, and a 1-day old domain with garbage for
contact information that was set up explicitly for Bad Stuff? How do you
tell?
Yup! One was
Seriously though- why do we keep blaming the infrastructure for the
mind boggling stupidity of users?
There will always be users that don't understand technology. You
call them stupid, I call them mom dad, brother sister. If you
maintain the attitude that it is the 'stupid' users
I know the head abuse guy at Godaddy. He is a reasonable person. He
turns off large numbers of domains but he is human and makes the
occasional mistake. The fact that everyone cites the same mistake
tells me that he doesn't make very many of them.
Hm, okay, which one was that.
Was it:
This is the costly bit that a domain registrar isn't going to be
likely to do.
Well, you're not likely to get it for the $8.95 that Godaddy charges.
Their abuse department does a remarkably good job, considering their
volume and margins.
Perhaps the message here is that you get what you pay
This is the costly bit that a domain registrar isn't going to be
likely to do.
Well, you're not likely to get it for the $8.95 that Godaddy charges.
Their abuse department does a remarkably good job, considering their
volume and margins.
Most places are selling domains for around that
Perhaps the message here is that you get what you pay for. For a rock
bottom price, You get rock bottom service. There are registrars that
charge considerably more and provide considerably more service.
There just isn't enough hierarchy in the DNS. Back when I was running my
own ISP, I gave
Well, you're not likely to get it for the $8.95 that Godaddy charges.
Their abuse department does a remarkably good job, considering their
volume and margins.
Perhaps the message here is that you get what you pay for. For a rock
bottom price, You get rock bottom service. There are
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 18:35, Donald Stahl wrote:
The problem here is that the community gets screwed not the guy paying
$8.95. If he was getting what he paid for- well who cares. The problem is
everyone else.
At the risk of prolonging a thread that should die
Gadi forwarded a post
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
The one concrete suggestion I've seen is to induce a delay in zone
creation and publish a list of newly created names within the zone.
The problem with this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[top-posting to maintain the entire context below]
I think Doug makes some good points here (with the exception of
number 6)...
- - ferg
- -- Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:02 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr
Gadi,
So you are the guys asleep at the guard post? :)
Something ICANN is frequently accused of.
1. Allowing registrars to terminate domains based on abuse, rather
than
just fake contact details.
Seems like a reasonable idea to me, but wouldn't that be a
contractual term between the
[Top-Posting]
Thanks David, of course, as you know, this was not an attack on you. I
appreciate you clarifying to me a bitmore on what ICANN does, does not
and is not supposed to do.
I will contact you off-list for further consultation. Many thanks again
for all your help!
So, who *is* able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks David, of course, as you know, this was not an attack on you. I
appreciate you clarifying to me a bitmore on what ICANN does, does not
and is not supposed to do.
I will contact you off-list for
23 matches
Mail list logo
