This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. 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?

Bob Bruen korg at coldrain.net
Wed Dec 18 14:30:00 CET 2013



Hi Peter,

The reason I mentioned business specifically is because I see them as a 
different category from private citizens, with different standards. The 
size of the business does not matter to me. It is the exchange of money 
for some consideration that makes the difference.

The original .com was for commercial entities, which would have made a 
difference in today's discussions had it been maintained. The distinction 
was lost as web popularity increased.

And yes, I still believe in the origial design, where one had a way to 
contact the domain name owner. The spam result is simply the greedy 
criminal element, which needs to be dealt with as a separate problem. They 
qualify as a business in my view and should not be allowed privacy 
protection.

                      --bob

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:

> Bob,
>
> You wrote:

> "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."
>
> Since it is not only businesses but also private citizens (like myself) 
> who purchase domain name registrations, there is no automatic giving up 
> of privacy. In fact, when I registered my first domain in the year 1995, 
> I wanted to be listed in Whois, because it seemed cool to being able to 
> be found. However, 10 years later, the email address associated with 
> that domain registration was subject of a barrage of spam with a signal 
> to noise ratio of about 1:99.
>
> Certainly, not only private citizens but also small and medium 
> enterprises should have the option of privacy, don't you think?
>
> On the other hand, there should be a way to contact the domain owner for 
> a variety of reasons, so some distributed but harmonized system for 
> doing so would be a welcome solution.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter H. Hellmonds
> <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
> +49 (160) 360-2852
>
> On 17.12.2013, at 16:50, Bob Bruen <korg at coldrain.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> 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
> this data.
>
> 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
> significantly.
>
>                 --bob
>
>> 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
>> not.)
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> Andrew
>
>

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
KnujOn Org
http://www.knujon.org
+1.802.579.6288




More information about the I-coordination mailing list