On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: >> Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for >> Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams >> of complaints. >> >> > <devils advocate hat> > On what metric? Pure volume? Percent of registrations? type of complaint by > similar x/y? > </devils advocate hat>
By the terms the Registry sets in the Registry/Registrar Agreement and to which the Registrar agrees in order to sell the Registry's names. > there are 'lots of complaints' against some registrars, but if you have > ~20% of the .TLD market you're prone to get more volume than a 1%er, right? There's this concept called "normalization", e.g., complaints per 100 delegations or some such. > Also, this isn't REALLY the registrY's problem is it? Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with spam/malware distribution/botnet C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed at resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's namespace, is it not? > i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy. I love how people love to blame ICANN. Regards, -drc (speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
