On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brun...@nic-naa.net> wrote: > On 1/2/10 11:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> ... it would be interesting if some process were developed to >> deaccredit or otherwise kill off the shell registrars > > Suresh, Why?
My comment was more in the context of this thread's original topic - killing off bogus spam / botnet operations that become registrars (and/or registrar resellers) who buy an outsourced instance of one of the "registrar in a box" services, and are immediately in business. Though, you might want to prevent shell registrars for the same reasons that auctions try to weed out shill bidders. And while it is a rational economic idea for a bidder to game an auction by setting up shills, the auctioneer and the other bidders lose out in the end. > Now, shell registrars are a pain in the ass, not for operational reasons, > but because every time someone wants to say something stupid and get away > with it they say "<some large number> of registrars". That too of course. Reminds you of Tammanny Hall sometimes? :) > Shell registrars are not, generally, the source of primary registrations of > arbitrarily abusive intent. That problem lies elsewhere and is adequately > documented. Wasn't talking about shell entities setup by various registrars for drop catching and such. Though as I pointed out, those could be weeded out for fairly sensible economic reasons, for the same reasons such practices are discouraged in elections, auctions, rationing systems (like the depression era / WW-II food stamps system) etc. Was talking about totally bogus registrars that are "spammer sets up an LLC, said LLC submits all the paperwork to become a registrar, rents an instance of a DIY registrar service .. and starts doing roaring business with just one customer - the spammer) --srs
