From: Joe Provo (no email)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:59:56 EST
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Black wrote:
[snip]
> This presupposes that corporations have a more significant claim
> to domain names than individuals.
Wrong; that kind of policy does -and did when enforced back in
the InterNIC days when the generic TLDs were meaningful- no such
thing.
> Does anybody recall the fiasco
> between ETOY.COM and ETOYS.COM? The former was created by an artist
> years before the now defunct toy retailer. ETOYS' corporate bullying
> took away the artist's longstanding domain claiming it might confuse
> consumers.
Wrong again; etoy won. I'm sure I'm not alone for having my copy
of the toywar soundtrack and share[s].
> That is the real problem.
Post-NSF, the failure of a distributed directory naturally lead
to the dns & whois being treated as one. In hindsight, any
managed list wasn't what was needed, but certainly seemed natual
to ma bell. A more dynamic, less-intermediated service *was*
needed and the collective we worked around the problem,
unfortunately pushing it down into the infrastructure. The
thing that rankles me most is that is where it frankly shouldn't
*matter*, but there was this great hammer so naturally 'we' could
pound the nail...
> Phishing problems will not be corrected without multinational
[snip]
...reputation clearinghouses, one of the many drums long beaten
by the anti-spam and general anti-abuse camp, is the answer. Like
the other such drums before it, folks will listen well after it
is too late and only after it directly affects them.
Cheers,
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
|
|
|