From: Frank Bulk (no email)
Date: Sat Apr 07 2007 - 15:43:44 EDT
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.
|
|
|