From: Douglas Otis (no email)
Date: Mon Apr 02 2007 - 13:03:46 EDT
On Apr 1, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> Reacting to new domains after the fact is often too late.
>
> What happens when they're wrong?
Most assessments are fairly straight forward. As with any form of
protection, there may be false positives. More attractive and
successful services would reduce the level of false positives while
still retaining a reasonable level of protection.
> And who's 'they', btw? What qualifications must 'they' have? And
> what happens if a registrar disagrees with 'them'? Or when 'they'
> are instructed by their governments to objection to a domain
> because of its perceived lack of redeeming social value, or somesuch?
Market forces would determine these questions. The service must be
independent of registrars. One might expect law enforcement to
become involved in look-alike domains when notified by affected third-
parties. As a result of legal actions, there should be some agency
(or geographic specific courts for ccTLDs) to resolve conflicts.
This seems like a worthwhile investment, as reducing Internet crime
in this manner should save much more than it costs.
> It seems to me as if we've just talked through the
> institutionalization of the Department of Domain Pre-Crime, with
> all that entails. It could be argued that the proposed solution
> might be worse than the problem it's purporting to solve.
This is about recognizing the weapon being used. In the case of a
zone file preview, that the same weapon is about to be used again.
Zone previews enable another defensive layer to be provided by the
market place. It requires little from the registries and nothing
from the registrars. Although the registrar may have their deposit
held when a law enforcement agency requests a domain be held pending
resolution.
-Doug
|
|
|