[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On interoperation and policy (was Re: Contactability)
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Wed Nov 29 19:46:31 UTC 2017
I feel we are barking up the wrong tree here.
The discussion seems to be about which is better or whether WHOIS is a
golden nail. Granted it is not perfect but it is useful and thus supports a
legitimacy position. Whether there may be something better is not really
the issue here IMHO.
Paul
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of theo
geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM
To: Dotzero <dotzero at gmail.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On interoperation and policy (was Re:
Contactability)
>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
>> 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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-w>>
g
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/da296e8b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list