[UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

Thu May 3 13:59:36 UTC 2018

My thoughts on this issue includes:-

There may well be events which do warrant blocking TLD(s):

① a declaration of (cyber) war
② an exceptionally severe cyber attack that threatens to break the internet infrastructure

I am ok with the blocking being done automatically by some monitoring software but the monitoring software should have limited authority and should only be able to block TLD(s) for a limited time, say 10 minutes. Any decision to continue the blocking should be made by people.

Spam is not a good enough reason to block a TLD.

André Schappo

On 2 May 2018, at 20:24, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss <ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>> wrote:

UASG-007 says: " The following are considered to be poor practice.....Setting spam blockers to automatically block entire TLDs."

This may be the only explicit statement of UASG position on this issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of paul at donuts.email<mailto:paul at donuts.email>
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 09:59
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] UA and phishiness

+1 Roberto
My opinion is that we should proactively endorse not blocking entire TLDs, and not be silent about it.

Blocking an entire TLD does not get the TLD operator to change behavior (which is having extremely low pricing for new registrations) and harms the good registrants in that TLD.  Blocking specific names works because it effects the bad guys no matter what the TLD pricing is.
Abuse is extremely correlated in TLDs with very low (near zero) prices who therefore have to spend more on abuse/enforcement that their icann contracts require, but that tradeoff makes economic sense for them.  Those (low price and hence high % bad zone file TLDs) are then highlighted in the press as bad actors.  When a large zone file TLD has low new registration pricing the bad registrations are less of a percent of the zone so they are not highlighted in the press.  This is their (typically not new tld operators) competitive advantage which they totally utilize.  It lets them sometimes go to very low prices (such as what .com did in china a year+ ago) without the backlash in the press.  And they have another use for that advantage...
What happens is competitive/economic forces (among TLD operators) kicks in and some TLD operators create and amplify FUD and negative perception which spills over to get IDN and other new TLDs indiscriminately blocked.  That harms the internet and is why i agree with Roberto - our policy should not be to endorse blocking entire tlds. Nor should we remain silent about it either because it effects UA.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 2, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:38:43PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Andrew,
I think that there is a major difference between the individual decision of an operator to block a whole TLD (as you rightfully point out, this is the internet so it is their choice) and the endorsement of this approach by bodies as the UASG.

Yep.

If I remember correctly, your initial question was: “Does UASG have a view about this?”. The fact that some operators do block whole TLDs is what it is, a fact. That we endorse is as a policy, is a completely different matter.
Or am I missing something?

No, and it sounds like UASG does in fact have a view about it, from a
meeting where I was not :)  But I haven't found it written down
anywhere so I can point people at it.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

🌏 🌍 🌎
André Schappo
小山@电邮.在线?Subject=你好小山😜<mailto:%E5%B0%8F%E5%B1%B1@%E7%94%B5%E9%82%AE.%E5%9C%A8%E7%BA%BF?Subject=%E4%BD%A0%E5%A5%BD%E5%B0%8F%E5%B1%B1%F0%9F%98%9C>
schappo.blogspot.co.uk<https://schappo.blogspot.co.uk>
twitter.com/andreschappo<https://twitter.com/andreschappo>
weibo.com/andreschappo?is_all=1<https://weibo.com/andreschappo?is_all=1>
groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/computer-science-curriculum-internationalization<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/computer-science-curriculum-internationalization>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20180503/efa812d9/attachment.html>