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

[Paul Keating]

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>