[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On interoperation and policy (was Re: Contactability)
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Wed Nov 29 18:35:09 UTC 2017
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>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list