[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On interoperation and policy (was Re: Contactability)

[theo geurts]

Mike, Allison,

Perhaps more blunt tools are required? It looks to me we are not able to 
quantify the issue here, WHOIS vs. no WHOIS.

http://domainincite.com/22339-icann-urged-to-crack-down-on-new-gtld-abuse
Looks like a better path to get a solution as opposed to 
reputation-based systems who factor in WHOIS. From what I been reading 
on this list ccTLDs who keep their space clean do not have to fear much 
from the fact that there is no PII in a WHOIS.

Perhaps we are shaking the wrong tree here?

Thanks,

Theo


On 29-11-2017 18:47, Dotzero wrote:
> Comment at the bottom.
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear colleagues,
>
>     On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:21:16PM +0100, Volker Greimann wrote:
>     > suffice it to say that I do
>     > not consider their publications evidence. "Domains seen"
>     indeed... Ignoring
>     > them is the better options unless they develop better
>     methodologies _and_
>     > start sharing them for peer examination.
>
>     > Am 29.11.2017 um 18:03 schrieb allison nixon:
>
>     > > Love them or hate them, you can't ignore them. If Spamhaus
>     listed an IP
>     > > range, that range would suffer severe connectivity issues
>     across the
>     > > entire Internet. When it comes to interoperability, Spamhaus's
>     lists
>     > > effectively matter more than ICANN's accreditation.
>
>     I think that the above two snippets neatly describe the point I, at
>     least, have been trying to make about the Internet's operational
>     reality.
>
>     Volker's assertion appears to be that the right thing according to the
>     agreed-upon evaluation criteria is what ought to be guiding us.
>
>     Allison's claim, however, is that there are operational realities on
>     the Internet, and that operators are going to do whatever they do and
>     that the ICANN community policies had better take those interests into
>     account, or find that the policies are irrelevant.
>
>     I would go further even than Allison does, because in my opinion she
>     is describing the _design_ of the Internet: it's _inter_networking,
>     and the only basis upon which it happens is the voluntary
>     interoperation by operators.  On my network, I get to decide what I'm
>     willing to accept.  That might not include everything on the Internet.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     A
>
>
> To further make the point that Allison and Andrew have voiced, on 
> Monday we blocked traffic from 5 /17s and 1 /19 assigned to one 
> particular company (hosting/connectivity for downstream customers) due 
> to widespread and aggressive malicious traffic originating from their 
> ASNs. Even cursory checking indicated that this organization has a not 
> very good reputation and that reaching out to them would not be a good 
> use of my time. This was confirmed from various people I know and 
> trust.  While this is IP based rather than DNS based, it reinforces 
> that people will take steps to protect their customers and resources 
> when they encounter badness. We use lots of inputs for making these 
> sorts of decisions. Loss of visibility from whois/RDS means that we 
> may end up using blunter tools like blocking based on 
> registry/registrar reputation.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171129/fe3cf29c/attachment.html>