[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's closing chat question
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Mon Jan 20 17:20:37 UTC 2014
Hi Bob,
>
> Not sure, what to say here, because I know you know better. Spam email
> makes up about 75% to 85% of all email traffic. That is a lot more
> than a few bad apples.
I am sure you agree with me, that while the volume of spam may be high,
this is usually sent by a small percentage of registrants. Actually,
spammers do not even need a domain, they need a botnet.
So when looking at all registrants, the number of "bad registrants" is
more likely to be in the thousands of a percent.
> It is also true that abuse reports can be delivered at a 40,000 to
> 50,000 per day level, if ICANN and the Registrars would take them.
If you want to clog up abuse channels with duplicate reports and
therefore extend reaction times to nearly infinite, then do that. I am
sure the real criminals will love that.
That said, we take and review _all_ complaints we get.
> Verification would make a huge difference and this has been shown on
> several occasions by KnujOn and others. Currently, many registrations
> have total nonsense in the fields and do not even meet format
> requirements (such as email format). These are almost always done by
> criminals (spammers, etc). The same guys who want p/p.
Convince me then (but off-list, since verification is not currently what
we are looking at).
However, please also explain then how verification will not simply lead
to an increase of identity theft and harassment of innocents who just
happen to have their private details abused by a criminal in order to
have verifyable data.
>
> They register domains in bulk, so looking each one up to get a real
> set of public data would put a burden on them.
>
Not if they automate it. There are enough online databases and if they
are sophisticated enough to create bbotnets and online storefronts, they
will most likely also be able to parse a database in their bulk
registration engines...
Verification to me is a red herring.
Volker
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
>> I do not believe in making all our customers pay more just to exclude
>> a few bad apples that can also be weeded out by making
>> an abuse report.
>>
>> Verification will also not help against crime, at least not as long
>> as there are public data register like phone books or
>> public whois as any criminal can simply duplicate verifyable data.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> Hi James,
>> =====================================================================
>> As Don has just said that this discussion is premature, I will
>> stop answering these emails, unless something
>> happens to change that. If you wish to continue the discussion
>> with me, please contact me off list.
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> Please don't be silly. Criminal whatever. And of course they lie.
>>
>> If Registrars actually verified registrations, this would not
>> be an issue.
>>
>> --bob
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, James M. Bladel wrote:
>>
>> Criminal individuals, or criminal commercial organizations?
>>
>> And is it your contention that criminals provide valid
>> identification/contact details to the P/P service?
>>
>> Thanks‹
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>> On 1/20/14, 10:20 , "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> The harm is protecting the identities of
>> criminnals. And I consider
>> undermining whois a harm, as well
>>
>> --bob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>> What are the problems commercial entities
>> that use p/p have caused?
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Bob
>> Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> I was merely responding to Stephanie's
>> comments about the
>> difficulties, not advocating a position.
>>
>> However, as you are aware, I do
>> advocate barring commercial
>> entities
>> from using p/p, because the use has
>> already caused harm and we
>> should
>> fix that. The providers created the
>> problem in the first place,
>> so
>> allowing them to continue to control it
>> simply continues the
>> problem.
>>
>> The discussion of all this is the point
>> of this group (and other
>> groups).
>>
>> --bob
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker
>> Greimann wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it would be possible
>> to bar commercial
>> entities from
>> using p/p services, however I am
>> not sure it is the
>> sensible thing to do. Certainly,
>> there is abuse, but
>> by creating a
>> blanket prohibition, i fear more
>> damage will be done
>> to
>> legitimate interests than good is
>> done to
>> illegitimate ones.
>> In the end it should be up to the
>> provider which
>> categories of
>> clients it accepts.
>> Volker
>> Am 20.01.2014 02:08, schrieb Bob
>> Bruen:
>>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> It is entirely possible to
>> decide to bar
>> commercial entities,
>> create a definition of "comercial
>> entities" and
>> then deal with those which
>> appear to
>> problematical.
>>
>> The fraudsters probably will
>> not be a set up as
>> a legitimate
>> bussiness, but their sites can be
>> identified as
>> spam, malware, etc types and
>> thus taking money,
>> therefore a
>> business. I am sure there are
>> other methods to deal
>> with problem domain names.
>>
>> In general, exceptions or
>> problems should not
>> derail a process.
>>
>> --bob
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014,
>> Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I dont want to keep
>> beating a dead horse
>> here....but if
>> there is a resounding
>> response of "yes
>> indeed, bar commercial
>> entities from
>> using P/P services", then
>> how are you going to
>> propose that p/p
>> proxy service
>> providers determine who is a
>> commercial entity,
>> particularly in
>> jurisdictions which
>> have declined to regulate
>> the provision of goods
>> and services over
>> the Internet? I
>> don't like asking
>> questions that walk us
>> into corners we
>> cannot get out of.
>> Do the fraudsters we
>> are worried about
>> actually apply for
>> business numbers and
>> articles of
>> incorporation in the
>> jurisdictions in
>> which they operate?
>> I operate in a
>> jurisdiction where
>> this distinction is
>> often extremely
>> difficult to make. THe
>> determination would
>> depend on the precise
>> use being made
>> of the domain
>> name....which gets
>> ICANN squarely into
>> content analysis,
>> and which can hardly be
>> done for new
>> registrations, even if t
>> were within ICANN's
>> remit. I am honestly
>> not trying to be
>> difficult, but I just
>> have not heard a
>> good answer to this
>> problem.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-01-19, at 4:38
>> PM, Holly Raiche
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jin and all
>> I agree with Jim here
>> (and Don earlier).
>> The important
>> task here is
>> agreeing on the
>> questions to be asked of
>> the SO/ACs. So
>> we need to get
>> back to framing the
>> questions - not
>> answering them,
>> however tempting that
>> may be.
>>
>> So the question of
>> whether 'commercial
>> entities' should be
>> barred is still
>> a useful question to
>> ask. The next
>> question would be
>> whether there are
>> possible distinctions
>> that should be
>> drawn between an
>> entity that can use
>> the service and one
>> that can't and, if
>> so, where is the
>> line drawn. I agree
>> with the discussion on
>> how difficult that
>> will be because
>> many entities
>> that have corporate
>> status also have
>> reasonable grounds
>> for wanting the
>> protection of such a
>> service (human
>> rights organisations
>> or women's refuges
>> come to mind). But
>> that is the sort of
>> response we are
>> seeking from
>> others outside of this
>> group - so let's
>> not prejudge
>> answers. Let's only
>> frame the questions
>> that will help us
>> come to some
>> sensible answers.
>> Otherwise, we'll
>> never get to the next
>> steps.
>>
>> And my apologies for
>> the next meeting. I
>> have a long day
>> ahead on
>> Wednesday (Sydney
>> time) and taking calls
>> at 2.00am won't
>> help. So Ill read
>> the transcript and be
>> back in a fortnight
>> (2 weeks for
>> those who do not use
>> the term)
>>
>> Holly
>>
>> On 16/01/2014, at 5:39
>> AM, Jim Bikoff
>> wrote:
>>
>> Don and all,
>>
>> As we suggested
>> earlier, and discussed in
>> the last Group
>> teleconference, it
>> might be helpful, as a
>> next step, if we
>> reached a
>> consensus on the
>> groups of questions
>> before sending them
>> out to
>> SO/ACs and SG/Cs.
>>
>> This would involve two
>> steps: First,
>> agreeing on the name
>> of each
>> group; and second,
>> streamlining the
>> questions in each
>> group.
>>
>> In the first step, we
>> could consider
>> alternative headings
>> (perhaps
>> REGISTRATION instead
>> of MAINTENANCE).
>>
>> And in the second
>> step, we could remove
>> duplicative or
>> vague
>> questions.
>>
>> This crystallization
>> would make the
>> questions more
>> approachable, and
>> encourage better
>> responses.
>>
>> I hope these ideas are
>> helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James L. Bikoff
>> Silverberg, Goldman &
>> Bikoff, LLP
>> 1101 30th Street, NW
>> Suite 120
>> Washington, DC 20007
>> Tel: 202-944-3303
>> Fax: 202-944-3306
>> jbikoff at sgbdc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Don Blumenthal
>> <dblumenthal at pir.org>
>> Date: January 14, 2014
>> 11:09:23 AM EST
>> To: PPSAI
>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject:
>> [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Carlton's
>> closing chat
>> question
>> Carlton posted
>> an issue that
>> shouldn¹t wait a week:
>>
>> ³John came up with 4
>> groups. Do we have a
>> notion that
>> others
>> might be extracted?
>> And where do we
>> include/modify
>> questions
>> to address Stephanie's
>> issue?"
>>
>> Jim had four groups
>> and an umbrella Main
>> category, which
>> may be
>> instructive in itself
>> in guiding how we
>> proceed
>> organizationally.
>> Regardless, the
>> consensus of commenters
>> has
>> been that his document
>> is a significant
>> improvement over
>> where
>> we were before, and I
>> suggest that we use
>> it as a baseline.
>> However, we still have
>> work to do on it.
>> Feel free to
>> suggest
>> modifications.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Robert Bruen
>> Cold Rain Labs
>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
>> +1.802.579.6288
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Robert Bruen
>> Cold Rain Labs
>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
>> +1.802.579.6288
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list