[95596] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Douglas Otis)
Sat Mar 31 19:23:32 2007
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Cc: Fergie <fergdawg@netzero.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0703311447250.5504@sokol.elan.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:54:24 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 15:02 -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Fergie wrote:
>
> > It is my understanding that the various domain registries answer
> > to ICANN policy -- if ICANN policy allows them to operate in a manner
> > which is conducive to allowing criminals to manipulate the system,
> > then the buck stops with ICANN, and ICANN needs to rectify the
> > problems in the policy framework.
>
> Yes, that's correct. Policies are only administered by registries
> and registrars, they are not made by them and registrars are supposed
> to be ultimately accountable to ICANN for adhering to them. If they
> are not doing something and there is nothing that says they should,
> we do have process to go through but its not an easy and fast and
> this process really does not go through nanog.
>
> But those are policy process issues and this is an operations mail
> list. Original question raised is who is ultimately better at acting
> on dns operational issues? Do you want all issues going through 100s
> of different registrars with some as "responsible" as RegisterFly?
Changing the registry process to enable a preview of the zone files was
suggested. Additional requirements imposed upon registrars could curb
the overall volume, but that also involves dealing with fraudulent
methods of payment, profit motives, privacy concerns, etcetera. A
process change at the registry can provide an immediate means of
enforcement. This approach should avoid upsetting registrars or
incurring even more extended debates.
-Doug
