On 11.11.2010 09:01, Daniel Kamm wrote:
Dear Serge
On 11/11/2010 08:22 AM, Serge Droz wrote:
From different third parties we receive a fairly large number of URLs in
.ch/.li ccTLDs which distribute malware. We're talking a few hundred URLs per
week. In a first step SWITCH verifies that this claim is true.
On the first glance, this seems to be a neat thing. But then again, who
decides if 'something' is considered to be malware or not? This actually
could be mistreated to a cencorship on DNS level.
Seconded. The information part is certainly very useful. But disconnecting
the delegation is excessive and may have huge liability consequences as well.
What are the reaction times required from the delegation contacts? Not everyone
has a 24x7 NOC.
What are the criteria and definition for "malware"? How can Switch "verify"
that malware is indeed distributed?
If it can be done for malware, it can also be done for anything else "illegal".
For example a site distributes a picture, sound file or movie file without
"authorization" from the claimed copyright holder. Will Switch turn off the
delegation as well? Where is the threshold? How do you prevent opening the
can of worms? How about libel cases? Will those also cause a delegation
suspension?
How is due process handled? Is Switch the accuser, judge and executioner in
union? Is it turned off first and have the accused prove that he doesn't
distribute malware anymore? What if the accused claims that the "malware"
in fact isn't?
What happens if some subdomain of, lets say "bluewin.ch", is distributing
"malware"
Will Switch suspend the delegation of "bluewin.ch" until is cleaned up? If not,
because bluewin.ch is too popular, then why is there unequal treatment compared
to less popular domains which will be suspended without regard for any
collateral
damage?
I think with this Switch is going far beyond their mandate, purpose and official
role as registry for .ch domains. Due process, which is an integral part of our
constitution and the European Human Rights Charter, is violated with this plan.
If this is done it's only a matter of days until all other "rights holders"
want to use this method as well to enforce their claimed rights.
How is this whole delegation suspension plan even possible with the law as
codified in AEFV SR784.104 and SR 784.101.113/2.13?
IMHO this delegation suspension plan is entirely broken by design and should be
immediately stopped.
--
Andre
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
