nanog mailing list archives
RE: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:43:44 -0500
One of the reasons that registrars are slow to take down sites that are paid with a credit card is because there is little financial incentive to do so....they've lost money it already, why have a department whose priority is speed if you can hire a person to do it at their own pace and minimize the loss? For almost all things prudent and effective there needs to be a financial incentive. For those registrars who take stolen credit cards, it's the rates and fees they are charged to process credit card transactions. It appears the rates that are charged and the penalties assessed aren't enough to dissuade them from these fraudulent transactions, which means that the monetary externalities of DNS registration abuse (spam, phishing sites, etc) are not fully assessed by financial institutions. We have a similar parallel in the cost of gasoline and the impact on the environment. Frank -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:36 PM To: David Conrad Cc: Joseph S D Yao; nanog Subject: Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, David Conrad wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:33:08PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:I think this might be a bit in conflict with efforts registries have to reduce the turnaround in zone modification to the order of tens of minutes.Why is this necessary? Other than the cool factor.I think the question is "why should the Internet be constrained to engineering decisions made in 1992?"
or victims of policy of that same 'vintage'... doing things faster isn't bad, doing it with less checks and balances and more people willing to abuse the lack of checks/balances seems like a bad idea. If you can get a domain added to the system fresh in 5min or less, why does it take +90 days to get it removed when all data about the domain is patently false and the CC used to purchase the domain was reported stolen 2+years ago? I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but wow, to me this seems like just a policy update requirement.
Current thread:
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names, (continued)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Roland Dobbins (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Douglas Otis (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Roland Dobbins (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names David Conrad (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Joseph S D Yao (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names David Conrad (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Chris L. Morrow (Apr 02)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Gadi Evron (Apr 02)
- New domain name registry rules (was: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names) michael.dillon (Apr 03)
- Re: New domain name registry rules (was: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names) Jim Popovitch (Apr 03)
- Message not available
- RE: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Frank Bulk (Apr 07)
- RE: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Jim Popovitch (Apr 07)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Simon Lyall (Apr 01)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Douglas Otis (Apr 01)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Petri Helenius (Apr 01)
- Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names Gadi Evron (Apr 01)