[130601] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New hijacking - Done via via good old-fashioned Identity Theft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Brunner-Williams)
Wed Oct 6 15:29:30 2010
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:28:57 -0400
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F2132FFA-025C-4D5F-9EEA-1C9A439F230F@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/6/10 10:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/10 12:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>> so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block allocations
>>> be subject to some expiry policy other than "it goes into the drop pool
>>> and one of {enom,pool,...} acquire it (and the associated non-traffic
>>> assets) for any interested party at $50 per /24"?
>>
>> Interesting idea, but how do you apply it to ccTLD domains with widely
>> varying policies. All it takes is whois records being legitimately
>> updated to use domain contacts using a ccTLD domain to circumvent.
>> Sounds like more of a stop-gap measure.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ben
>>
>>
>
> Number resources are not and should not be associated with domain
> resources at the policy level. This would make absolutely no sense
> whatsoever.
hmm. ... "are not" ... so the event complained of ... didn't happen?
