Re: [wg-review] A Reply to Miles B. Whitener... Re: The owners of "the Internet" must manage it for their own benefit

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Robin Miller wrote:
> 
> Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> >
> > You can easily make a case that ICANN should do likewise. I find it ludicrous
> > that URDP attempts to deal with trademark issues, basically irrelevant to the
> > functioning of the net and already protected by the legal system, while not
> > containing any requirement to disconnect spammers.
> 
> with this I wholeheartedly agree... spammers have a long history of causing Net
> arterial congestion and ICANN doesn't so much as consider this an important
> issue. But of course I agree with you that they will probably screw up a SPAM
> UDRP too...
> 
> I think some people might be confused about how ICANN could disconnect a
> spammer, but it would be possible to pull IP numbers from spammers and
> accomplices to spam for net abuse. (of course spammers know how to fake the
> headers though)
> 
> Not really so much a domain name issue as I would think a IP number issue...
> you might know more than me though.

No, it's a domain name issue to a large extent.

Consider bodacioustatas.com. I'm told the name is southern US slang for
magnificent breasts. It was a porn site. Under the URDP, they lost the domain
name because a large East Indian company protested the alleged misuse of
their "Tata" trademark. This strikes me as ludicrous.

When they lost that URDP adjudication, their domain was removed from DNS.
They may still have connectivity at whatever IP address it used, but there
is no longer a record that lets you look up "bodacioustatas.com" and find
that address. For all practical purposes, the name has ceased to exist.

There's no technical obstacle to removing spammers in just the same way.
Advertise your domain via spam and it ceases to exist.

There would, however, be a lot of procedural questions and it would be at
least fairly difficult (perhaps impossible) to build a method of doing
this that was not subject to abuse, either by the authorities involved
or through attacks that frame innocent victims as spammers.

I'm not advocating a Uniform Spam Killing Policy, only pointing out
that such a policy would make more sense than the UDRP we have.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html