[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Purpose in accordance with Registry Agreement section 2.18

[benny at nordreg.se]

Anti Abuse are important no one disagree on that, what I just don’t get are why you and others can’t come up with an idea of how we can make a better solution than today which benefits all sides, instead of fighting for Status Quo.

Feel like a broken record

--
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Benny Samuelsen
Registry Manager - Domainexpert

Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.42197080
Direct: +47.32260201
Mobile: +47.40410200

> On 6 Jun 2017, at 16:31, allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Fully agreed! Anti-abuse is critical to the basic functionality of the Internet. If "basic functionality" is something we should avoid breaking, then anti-abuse is part of that. 
> 
> We have seen numerous cases where a single attack has global effects far beyond the victim. 
> 
> The more often this happens, the more likely that laws will be passed that invade privacy. Whois is not a real invasion of privacy because no one is forced to disclose info, and future laws are extremely unlikely to provide people with "options" like whois does now. I would rather avoid entering into a scenario that increases the motivation to pass these laws. We can do a lot with the very minimal amount that is out there right now. 
> 
> I very much want to encourage the privacy minded people here to think about the long term ramifications rather than just the short term potential victory. Remember my story about Tor.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 6, 2017 9:59 AM, "Natale Maria Bianchi" <nmb at spamhaus.org> wrote:
> Besides private and business domains, there is also the large category of
> abusive domains - domains registered (or acquired from a previous owner)
> for the only purpose of abusing the Internet.  One may perhaps categorize
> them as "business", but it does not make much sense to put them together
> with domains used legitimately, or worry much about privacy issues -
> those are typically registered giving fake credentials, or the
> credentials are hidden from the public through an anonymous registration,
> and no one will every file a privacy complaint about those.
> 
> There are operations out there that do this on a massive, industrial scale,
> registering hundreds or thousands of domains per day that are going to be
> used for a very short time, even a few minutes in the most extreme cases
> (hailstorm spammers).  In these cases, literally every second after
> registration matters, and whois is therefore a very critical resource for
> abuse researchers.  This is why I and others are here.
> 
> Due to the automated methods used for these registrations and the
> consequent correlations between them, it is quite common to be able to
> indeed distinguish this category of domains with "sufficient accuracy"
> once whois data have been retrieved.
> 
> So please think in terms of three de facto categories rather than two:
> 
>         *  legitimate, private
>         *  legitimate, business
>         *  abusive
> 
> I am not suggesting that one puts the third category in ICANN
> agreements :)  I am merely reminding that looking for abusive domains
> is a very important operational aspect of thin and thick whois, and
> care should be taken not to throw this other baby away with
> the baby water.
> 
> Natale Maria Bianchi
> Spamhaus Project
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
> > If you can differentiate the use that a domain isgoing to be put to
> > at the time of registration with sufficient accuracy, you are due
> > for an an award ;-)
> >
> >
> > Am 02.06.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Dotzero:
> > >The overwhelming majority of domains registered would be
> > >considered for commercial purposes. The fact that a small
> > >percentage of domains are registered by individuals for personal
> > >use should not be the determining factor as to what is appropriate
> > >for ICANN to do. In fact, many of what people assert are personal
> > >domains have advertising on them and would therefor be considered
> > >by almost any jurisdiction to be engaged in a commercial activity.
> > >This includes many (most?) parked domains.
> > [...]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg