ICANN Set To Review Accreditation Policy 31
tinkertim writes "ICANN is re-evaluating the scope and purpose of its accreditations, apparently sparked by the recent collapse of garage domain name registrar Registerfly. In a press release dated March 21, 2007, President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey is quoted as saying : 'What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA.' Dr. Twomey is blaming (in part) 'weaknesses in the RAA' for severe and undue hardships that many registrants encountered when trying to transfer names away from the failing registrar, Registerfly. Many new points to be discussed include allowing registrants to view the performance of registrars in an 'independent comparative way', as well as new language to allow ICANN to forcibly intercede in the face of wide spread, persistent and consistent complaints. 10 good points for discussion are listed by Dr. Twomey in the release, who invites all ICANN stakeholders to participate in re-evaluating the RAA. Registerfly, the catalyst for this re-write does not officially lose their accredited status until March 31, 2007, and continues to display the ICANN seal on their web site."
70Gs (Score:1)
Harumph. (Score:2)
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names. Just something to get us away from the current set of registrars and their ilk.
Re: (Score:1)
The more and more I hear about Registrars and ICANT, the more I hate them.
I hear that, although my reaction is more one of contempt: if you're going to claim responsibility the way ICANN has, then do the job you agreed to do.
I wonder what it'd take to develop a new registry for domain names.
Not too much, from the technical side: ISC's BIND is fully capable of operating as a root nameserver...the issue of being a registrar involves convincing people to use you, to accept the domains you provide NS records for as "legit", and to provide WHOIS services. Most people like to have some web-based tool to manage their domains.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out OpenNIC [unrated.net]. They've got a whole scheme of new TLD's and a system to register names within their TLD's.
They're not perfect. Instead of fighting when ICANN usurped their .biz TLD, the basically rolled over. However the fact that they're still around means there is support for a non-ICANN system. They just need to learn to stand up to ICANN and we'
Proxy registrations (Score:5, Interesting)
Proxy registrations are necessary because of what I consider a flaw with domain name registration as it exists today. You should NOT require personal domain owners to broadcast their street address, home phone number, and e-mail address to the world via WHOIS. It's an extreme privacy breach.
Instead, I would suggest that individuals (not businesses) be permitted to hide their registrations but remain the legal owners. This would be analogous to the way PO boxes are rented - businesses must consent to the release of their street address when renting, while individuals need not.
Re:Proxy registrations (Score:4, Insightful)
Strong need for confidentiality (Score:2, Interesting)
There are many reasons for privacy. Some of the more obvious ones are:
Privacy (Score:2)
If people think they're secure enough to be able to maintain a domain name then they should provide some reliable contact information.
Some of the more obvious ones are
While I agree, in principle, I still feel that people with such problems obviously have much larger concerns than registering a domain name. It's a matter of priorities.
confidentiality vs anonymity (Score:1)
Confidentiality can be broken with good cause, such as when legal action is required.
I'm also not advocating hiding behind a pseudonym to avoid answering technical queries. Anyone registering a domain name should register a valid administrative and technical contact email. In many cases, this will be a forwarding address provided by a registration-proxy service.
Re: (Score:2)
I still think that the internet medium is anonymous enough for legitimate use. The valid information for registration rules should be preserved.
"need for confidentiality" irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Where do police go to hunt down political dissidents?
Where do people who disagree with your political beliefs go to threaten you and your family?
Granted, there are alternatives such as free hosting and what not.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most obscure domain names get used for forged from addresses on spam. And, guess what, there's nothing the domain owner can do about that (well, SPF records may help a little - but I can tell you not much). So those abuse reports do nobody, nowhere, any good at all.
As for takedown notices, it's easy to see, if I can't see who the domain owner is, who the service provider is. So if you haven't been good enough to
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, and much like any other broadcast equipment, yours should not interfere with the functionality of anyone elses.
People usually just circumvent the middle man and send these types of things directly to the abuse desk of whoever owns your web site's IP address (typically the data center that hosts your host). From there
Re: (Score:2)
What precisely do you expect me to do about that? My domain name is in use in forged From: headers in spam, and has been for a year or two now. There is nothing that I can do about it. Believe me, I'd love to shut the low life scum down, I'm sick to death of the 2000+ spams, errors, bounces and abusive replies I get every single day because of it. Send me all the abuse complaints you want, but the emails aren't from me o
Re: (Score:2)
Almost half of all domains are registered privately. All but one of mine are; I don't want people to be able to look up my home address or phone number just because they know one of my domains.
Where do abuse reports get sent when someone starts sending spam using your domain name?
Uh, abuse@domain, just like before.
What about take-down notices when someone posts copyrighted material on a website with
Re:Proxy registrations (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The UK already do this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, my biggest concern about the proposed agenda is discussions about proxy registrations. I hold proxy registrations on three domains, and I feel it's important to me -- important enough that I would seriously consider dropping my domains if they were done away with.
You've got a point, but note that you can set up as many private domains for yourself and your company or clients as you like, without ever publicizing anything to anyone else. However, if you want your domains to be part of the world-wide consensus view of the DNS namespace, these domains have to be publicly available in order to function. If a domain is publically available, then there has to be some way to contact the domain's owner in order to deal with spam and other forms of network abuse.
Important issues to consider (Score:2, Insightful)
accredited registrars in unstable countries (Score:1)
Speaking of LA, remember the LA riots in the '80s or '90s? If my registrar's data center got burned down due to a street protest, I'd hope he had a contingency plan.
prohibiting registrar to... (Score:2)