On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
> 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. > > ok, neat! > > 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. > > that's something I expected, yes... some rate that works out if I just registrar for 10 domains vs 10million. cool. > > 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? > > it's not clear, to me, that any of those hammers have real effect. > > i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy. > > I love how people love to blame ICANN. > but, they are the names and numbers authority, no? it says so in their name.
