[CCWG-Accountability] Related work on ICANN's Public Interest

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Eric,

I agree with "redirecting users to fraudulent websites" not being relevant in these proceedings, as phishing is not a DNS issue per se. 


However "providing false information ..." on WHOIS I do have an issue with.

False WHOIS information is not acceptable to me at all, but ICANN/IANA will have no longer any relationship with any ccTLD unless a contract exists between the two, and then it'll be 250-odd bilateral relationships at best. There is no ccNSO policy on WHOIS accuracy, so not even the members have any ICANN/IANA-bound (?) obligation.

 So I am not sure how we can put that in either.


I agree we are fairly safe in that California and Federal Law apply. But herein lies also a crux, Congress can legislate...


As an aside, I am putting money where my mouth is, we (NA-NiC) are looking at every single domain name registered with us (.NA) so that the Registrant/Admin Contact of each is correct. Our policy does not allow for false or obfuscated data, but we find regular issues.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 05:36, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/16/14 2:54 PM, Carl Schonander wrote:
>>  ...Integrity is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting users to fraudulent websites or providing false information ...
>> 
> 
> Dear Carl,
> 
> As a definitional statement this could apply to ISPs monitizing DNS resolution failure, to registries wildcarding (Verisign's historic Sitefinder and the now historic .museum wildcard), privacy and proxy registration services, etc.
> 
> As a definitional statement it is inobvious how privileged reference to resolution data ("redirecting users", supra) or registrant data ("false information", supra) could be extended to exploits of the temporal consistency of the DNS such as Fast Flux Hosting or exploits of the public routing system such as BGP hijacking.
> 
> Do you think you could extend your definitional attempt to include the issues of central concern to the larger community?
> 
> --
> 
> Turning to your suggestion to Steve DelBianco and the clarification sought by Dr. Eberhard Lisse, you wrote:
> 
>> relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law. 
> 
> Could you suggest which principles of international law are relevant and which international conventions and local laws are applicable? If you'll refer to the 2002 exchanges between Joe Simms et al and Michael Froomkin [1], one of Mr. Simms central points was that ICANN was sui generis and American Administrative Law did not apply, offered in refutation of Professor Froomkin's claim that American Administrative Law did apply.
> 
> I suggest we're fairly safe in reasoning what California law, and what IRS regulation, applies to the California domiciled 501(c)(3) corporation. Where we may not yet know what law applies to the contractor for the IANA Functions -- the core of the Simms vs Froomkin exchange of 2002 -- let alone the nine words before "and local law", quoted above -- is what, if any, domestic administrative law applies, before we attempt to harmonize the IANA Functions as implemented by a contractor with international law and conventions.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
> 
> [1] http://law.lclark.edu/law_reviews/lewis_and_clark_law_review/past_issues/volume_06/number_1_introduction.php
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141217/f583be6a/attachment.html>