This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] The self correcting nature of the American system? Judge rules against NSA tapping program. Snowden vindicated?
korg at coldrain.net
Tue Dec 17 16:50:12 CET 2013
Just a little tweaking on what you said. While ICANN does not maintain a
central respository of whois data, there is a central escrow of the data,
put in place after the RegisterFly incident. ICANN does not have access to
whois is distributed among the Registrars/Registries, but is supposed to
be controlled by the RAA, but the RAA is basically ignored by the
Registrars and ICANN.
The ccTLDs (eg .cn. uk. etc) are pretty much of ICANN's control (see for
example .su) because they were given to the nations to control.
The accuracy of whois is no longer questionable, a number of studies have
shown that it is not accurate to high (but variable) levels.
There is no reason for domain purchasers to get privacy if they are
making money through the domain name. They are a business, which has
already given that up. Spammers and other criminals make money and are the
biggest users of privacy protection.
IMHO, if whois data were largely accurate and criminals were severely
limited, then the income of Registrars/Registries and ICANN would fall off
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:24:51PM +0500, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> ICANN is just one actor of the Internet Ecosystem. What ICANN does
>> is that it maintains a record of the consumers/purchasers of the
>> Domain Names and mainly sold or allocated through its registries,
>> registrars, etc. the accuracy of that data remains questionable and
>> there are a number of activities directed at resolving the accuracy
>> of data issue as well as anonymity of the domain purchasers.
> Please let us be careful. ICANN does not itself maintain a record of
> any consumers or purchasers of any domain name. That's what the
> registries and registrars (or sometimes only the registrars) do. None
> of that information is communicated directly to ICANN, and it never
> has been. (This is why the proposals for ICANN to run a single
> unified whois are so seriously misguided: they make ICANN a central
> data repository subject to pervasive monitoring where it currently is
> This is a direct consequence of the design of the DNS. The DNS is
> distributed in two ways. One of those ways is the authoritative
> operation. ICANN delegates away parts of the root name space to other
> organizations -- registries. Verisign, for instance, has been
> delegated .com (among other things). The government of China (in the
> form of CNNIC) has been delegagted .cn. And so on. This is basically
> a book-keeping function. Once a name space has been delegated to
> someone else, it's that someone else's responsibility to operate the
> delegated name space. That includes a mechanism to peform additional
> delegations (and to keep track of those delegations). This is the
> registration data that shows up in whois. That's why whois ought
> properly to be distributed, too; otherwise, the contractual
> relationships between parties are much more complicated.
> It is true that there are minimal behaviours that are subject to
> uniform contractual conditions between ICANN and either registries or
> registrars. This is ICANN's function in its market-making and
> market-maintaining mode. But the idea that ICANN has some sort of
> choke point over global DNS registrations misunderstands ICANN's role
> in the registration system.
>> ICANN is like a contractor with the US govt that has allowed it to
>> manage the DNS and IP system and then ICANN has a further network of
>> contracted and non-contracted parties that to that effect help in
>> the formulation of policies that impact the DNS and IP system.
> That is true, but we need to be careful not to forget that these DNS and IP
> systems are not monolithic things, but distributed systems that are
> designed to have multiple operators of the different distributed parts.
> Best regards,
Dr. Robert Bruen
More information about the I-coordination