On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:09 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
> If you let people know the domain name, you might have more luck — e.g
> someone who works at the registrar may look into it, etc.
> Also, it seems surprising that this would be an **ICANN** verification
> message…
Domain pro
Because this is mandated by an ICANN policy, a number of registrars
send messages with such labels. Notably the wholesale registrars,
which have to send those messages but are not the point of sale of the
domain.
https://lookup.icann.org/ will probably have clues for the original
poster to figure
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:26 AM Marco Belmonte via NANOG
wrote:
> The company I work for owns a domain that was registered by an employee
> that no longer works for us and we have been unable to track them down.
> 48 hours ago the website at the domain was replaced by an ICANN
>
If you let people know the domain name, you might have more luck — e.g
someone who works at the registrar may look into it, etc.
Also, it seems surprising that this would be an **ICANN** verification
message…
W
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 8:48 AM, Marco Belmonte wrote:
> The company I work
The company I work for owns a domain that was registered by an employee
that no longer works for us and we have been unable to track them down.
48 hours ago the website at the domain was replaced by an ICANN
verification message.
It offers two solutions - neither is possible at the moment:
1
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN Policy
Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN80 Policy Forum
being held as a hybrid meeting from 10-13 June 2024
US is an option too.
Please take a look and share with whoever would be interested.
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3672913207
Cheers,
Samaneh Tajalizadeh
Director, Security Stability Resiliency Research
ICANN
Call for Participation – ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN79
Community Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN79 Community Forum
being held as a hybrid meeting from 02-07
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN7 Annual
General Meeting
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN78 Annual General
Meeting being held as a hybrid meeting
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN77 Policy
Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN77 Policy Forum
being held in Washington, DC and as a hybrid
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN76
Community Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN76 Community Forum
being held as a hybrid meeting from 11-16
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN75
Annual General Meeting
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN75 Annual General
Meeting being held as a hybrid meeting
ation (or address for service of legal
> documents) for ICANN? There web site does not appear to contain contact
> information.
>
> ICANN apparently promulgates a policy which requires clickage on spam
> links in e-mail. I intend to sue them for trillions of dollars for this
>
On Friday, 8 July, 2022 19:02, Karl Auerbach said:
>Spammers are a scourge and I hope you get that $trilliion. But ICANN
>will fairly easily deflect most legal efforts based on a claim that
>ICANN bears responsibility. Years ago I proposed a solution from King
>Croesus as
To the OP… I hear ICANN also has a no trolls policy. I’m sure you can find
that if you look hard enough.
Your best bet is to go find the nearest bridge.l and hang out under it. Don’t
worry - they’ll find you.
Ed
PS - normally I too have a no trolls policy but I couldn’t resist
You'd probably be 99.999% more successful in improving the state of
humanity by being more specific about what you are referring to.
Put another way you've probably reached "ICANN" by posting here, or as
well as you're likely to by any other means you're imagin
On 7/8/22 08:24, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you believe in everything an email says, I have an island to sell
that you might be interested in.
I have a bridge for sale. This will be beneficial in reaching your
newly-purchased island.
--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #788
It appears that Keith Medcalf said:
>
>Does anyone have contact information (or address for service of legal
>documents) for ICANN? There web site does not appear to contain contact
>information.
If you really wish to send such a letter, I would send it by paper mail,
attn Gen
On Jul 8, 2022, at 8:21 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> Does anyone have contact information (or address for service of legal
> documents) for ICANN?
https://www.icann.org/locations? <https://www.icann.org/locations?>
> There web site does not appear to contain contact
> informat
Dear NANOG-ers,
Hopefully, this email finds you in good health!
Please see my comments below, inline...
Le vendredi 8 juillet 2022, Rubens Kuhl a écrit :
> If you believe in everything an email says, I have an island to sell
> that you might be interested in.
>
> That said,
If you believe in everything an email says, I have an island to sell
that you might be interested in.
That said, ICANN has a compliance department:
https://www.icann.org/compliance/complaint
Rubens
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:22 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have contact in
Does anyone have contact information (or address for service of legal
documents) for ICANN? There web site does not appear to contain contact
information.
ICANN apparently promulgates a policy which requires clickage on spam
links in e-mail. I intend to sue them for trillions of dollars for
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN74
Policy Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planning a DNSSEC and Security Workshop for the ICANN74 Public Forum
being held as a hybrid meeting from 13-16 June
thanks,
Casey
Dear colleagues,
tl;dr: Please take our survey on DNS suffix usage here:
https://forms.gle/ntvsn6eqzYH9YcTN6
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is researching
the technical impact of delegating new generic top-level
Dear colleagues,
tl;dr: Please take our survey on DNS suffix usage here:
https://forms.gle/ntvsn6eqzYH9YcTN6
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is researching
the technical impact of delegating new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). This
research is part of the
As I wrote:
Nanog News wrote:
Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers are "Interesting"…
But Don't Lose your Head
Uselessness of quantum logic gate style quantum computers
will be discussed in a separate mail.
Quantum logic gate style quantum computers use qubits,
which have
Nanog News wrote:
Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers are "Interesting"…
But Don't Lose your Head
But, quantum computers are mocked up by theoretical
physicists, IT amateurs who don't know basics of
computational and/or information theory at all, and,
as such, just do
Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers are "Interesting"… But Don't Lose your
Head
*An Interview with ICANN, Paul Hoffman*
In a recent publication, written by ICANN (Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers), chief technology officer Paul Hoffman
discussed the hot t
https://www.icrc.org/en
Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and
Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
CHAPTER I : THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS - ART. 8.
Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use
o
John,
Thank you for these. I'm glad to hear the stance on both of these.
Brian
From: NANOG on behalf of
John Curran
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 5:04 AM
To: Nanog
Subject: ICANN Response (Re: Ukraine request yikes)
ICANN response request from the Uk
Yep, I completely agree. I also think if they had done anything else, it
would have been a reputation-ending.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> I believe it is a proper response, besides that it is not right for ICANN
> to get in the middle of this type of con
I believe it is a proper response, besides that it is not right for ICANN
to get in the middle of this type of conflict, in situations like this,
increasing the flow of real information counters the flow of misinformation.
-J
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 7:05 AM John Curran wrote:
> ICANN respo
ICANN response request from the Ukraine regarding various DNS interventions –
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-fedorov-02mar22-en.pdf
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 2 Mar 2022, at 1:01 AM, John Curran
Hi all,
Happy new year!
8 weeks left before the next virtual ICANN DNSSEC & Security workshop. Let us
know if you are interested to present.
Jacques
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN73
Community Forum
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stabi
s
>> incredible excess of funding
>> towards more useful pursuits than those ICANN has endowed so far.
>>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-and-first-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-dns-threats-mitigation-22-5-2020-en
>
>
> htt
s more useful pursuits than those ICANN has endowed so far.
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-and-first-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-dns-threats-mitigation-22-5-2020-en
>
> <https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-and-first-sign-memorandum
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:39 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG
wrote:
> I see this as a way to allow NANOG to help channel some of ICANN’s
> incredible excess of funding
> towards more useful pursuits than those ICANN has endowed so far.
>
https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/ica
I see this as a way to allow NANOG to help channel some of ICANN’s incredible
excess of funding
towards more useful pursuits than those ICANN has endowed so far.
Owen
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Edward McNair wrote:
>
> This partnership will have no ill effect on NANOG confere
. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> Icann meetings used to be great. They are horrible now with few exceptions of
> several technical sessions.
>
> I hope this don’t ruin nanog meetings
>
> On Mon
Icann meetings used to be great. They are horrible now with few exceptions
of several technical sessions.
I hope this don’t ruin nanog meetings
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:08 J. Hellenthal via NANOG
wrote:
> You mean they could not come together enough to share even the same page
> yet
y to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 09:33, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> NANOG’s version:
> https://www.nanog.org/stories/nanog-signs-a-memorandum-of-understanding-with-internet-society-icann/
>
> --
> TTFN,
&
NANOG’s version:
https://www.nanog.org/stories/nanog-signs-a-memorandum-of-understanding-with-internet-society-icann/
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 4:42 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-signs-a-memorandum-of-understanding-w
https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-signs-a-memorandum-of-understanding-with-nanog-27-9-2021-en
Regards,
Hank
Hi all 😊
Hope you all had a great summer!!! Let us know if you’re interested in
presenting something DNSSEC or security related.
Thanks,
Jacques
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN72
Virtual Annual General Meeting
In cooperation with the ICANN Security
Hello NANOG!
This is the CfP for our next DNSSEC & Security workshop @ ICANN72.
Jacques
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC and Security Workshop for ICANN72
Virtual Annual General Meeting
In cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
we are planni
In article
you write:
>Wasn't the price cap removal what started this mess in for first place?
Not really. Under the old price cap the maximum price this year would
be about $16 but in fact the actual price is $10. Competitive
pressures are the important factor in setting registry prices.
For
st in the past. Great (IMHO)
>>> to see this happen.
>>
>> Yeah, this is an excellent result in the first-half of the fight. Now that
>> we know who won’t be acting AGAINST non-profits, we need ICANN to run the
>> competitive process again to find who will act FOR
> On May 1, 2020, at 1:56 PM, james jones wrote:
>
> I don't know if this feasible, I would rather see the ORG TLD in the hands of
> a nonprofit. That is just a personal feeling. I don't how practical that
> would be though.
That was, right up until the very last moment, a hard requirement i
excellent result in the first-half of the fight. Now
> that
> > we know who won’t be acting AGAINST non-profits, we need ICANN to run the
> > competitive process again to find who will act FOR non-profits.
>
> Wasn't the price cap removal what started this mess in for firs
t; Yeah, this is an excellent result in the first-half of the fight. Now that
> we know who won’t be acting AGAINST non-profits, we need ICANN to run the
> competitive process again to find who will act FOR non-profits.
Wasn't the price cap removal what started this mess in for first pla
ht. Now that we
know who won’t be acting AGAINST non-profits, we need ICANN to run the
competitive process again to find who will act FOR non-profits.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/01/icann_stops_dot_org_sale/
I know this has been bantered about on the list in the past. Great (IMHO) to
see this happen.
Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 304-0083
a...@andyring.com
“Better even die free, than to live sla
I have no problem paying an extra $3/year for my .com IF every domain
speculator must also pay an extra $3 for each of their .coms. Is that
what's happening here?
Yes. The contract very clearly says that everyone pays the same renewal
price to the registry.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM John Levine wrote:
> The impact of this is that if you have a .com domain name, you may
> have to budget as much as an additional $3/yr. Wahoo.
Hi John,
I have no problem paying an extra $3/year for my .com IF every domain
speculator must also pay an extra $3 for
In article
you write:
>El Reg is more of a tabloid than industry media, but you can read almost
>the same views at domain industry blogs:
>http://domainincite.com/25129-breaking-verisign-pays-icann-20-million-and-gets-to-raise-com-prices-again
>https://domainnamewire.com/2020/01/0
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:58 PM Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
> On NANOG list , Dan Hollis
> wrote:
>
> >https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/
>
> Operator of the dot-com registry, Verisign, has decided to pay DNS
> overseer ICANN $4m a year for the
On NANOG list , Dan Hollis
wrote:
>https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/
Operator of the dot-com registry, Verisign, has decided to pay DNS
overseer ICANN $4m a year for the next five years in order to “educate
the wider ICANN community about security threats.”
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/07/icann_verisign_fees/
98% of the comments were opposed.
How many / which companies would have to get onboard in order to get
enough support for an icann alternative?
Is such a thing even feasible?
-Dan
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC Workshop at ICANN65, Marrakech, Morocco.
The DNSSEC Deployment Initiative and the Internet Society Deploy360 Programme,
in cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
are planning a DNSSEC Workshop during the ICANN65
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC Workshop at ICANN64 Kobe, Japan
The DNSSEC Deployment Initiative and the Internet Society Deploy360 Programme,
in cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
are planning a DNSSEC Workshop during the ICANN64 meeting held
Hi All!
Call for Participation -- ICANN DNSSEC Workshop at ICANN63 Barcelona, Spain
The DNSSEC Deployment Initiative and the Internet Society Deploy360 Programme,
in cooperation with the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC),
are planning a DNSSEC Workshop during the ICANN63
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 08:01:35 +0300, Hank Nussbacher
may have written:
> "The European Commission has insisted it is *not subject to the strict
> new data protection law* that it has imposed across Europe after it was
> revealed the personal information of hundreds of people had been leaked
> on its
o the strict
new data protection law* that it has imposed across Europe after it was
revealed the personal information of hundreds of people had been leaked
on its website. "
-Hank
> And here is the court decision,
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-icann-v-ep
peering DB has a sole purpose of disseminating names, phone
numbers and email addresses.
Mack
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rube...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 1:41 PM
To: McBride, Mack
Cc: Daniel Corbe ; Baldur Norddahl
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
On Tue, Jun 5
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:31 PM, McBride, Mack
wrote:
> PeeringDB is already 100% opt-in.
>
Domain registration is also opt-in, and still registrars, registries and
ICANN have to change things to comply with GDPR.
Rubens
PeeringDB is already 100% opt-in.
Mack
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Corbe
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 12:56 PM
To: Baldur Norddahl
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
at 2:40 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> man
at 2:40 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
man. 4. jun. 2018 17.31 skrev McBride, Mack :
GDPR doesn't play well with directory listing services.
BUT since providing contact information is exactly what a directory
listing service does,
It is safe to assume that this is 'essential' under GDPR.
No it
And here is the court decision,
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-icann-v-epag-request-court-order-prelim-injunction-redacted-30may18-en.pdf
gotta love the German wisdom:
The Application for preliminary injunction of May 25, 2018 is rejected at the
expense of the
On June 4, 2018 at 17:01 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
> once upon a time, when one received what had yet to be called spam, or
> logs showed an attack, one wrote to the owner of the source ip to tell
> them their system had been hacked. dunno about everyone else, but i
> stopped doing t
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Hank Nussbacher
>> wrote:
>> Usually, identifying attackers at other online services is a duty on RIR
>> directories, and even the RIPE one is not suffering that many c
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
Usually, identifying attackers at other online services is a duty on RIR
directories, and even the RIPE one is not suffering that many changes due
to GDPR.
Also, GDPR doesn't prevent law enforcement ac
once upon a time, when one received what had yet to be called spam, or
logs showed an attack, one wrote to the owner of the source ip to tell
them their system had been hacked. dunno about everyone else, but i
stopped doing that sometime in the '80s.
randy
_ //` `\
_,-"\% //
To: Baldur Norddahl
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
> On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:44 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what Niels is really leaving out here is the open question of
>> whether or not GDPR will eventually lead to
man. 4. jun. 2018 20.56 skrev Daniel Corbe :
>
> It occurs to me that operators might want to opt-in to have their data
> published through PeeringDB. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I won’t
> peer with anyone I can’t reach out to and if you don’t have a 24/7 NOC
> chances are good that you’r
man. 4. jun. 2018 20.58 skrev Owen DeLong :
>
>
> Much of the information in Peering DB is people. In fact, IIRC, peering DB
> doesn’t really have “role” accounts.
>
> Peering DB is unrelated to whois.
>
> Owen
>
No actually I just checked and peeringdb has none of my personal
information. It has
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
> On 31/05/2018 21:44, John Peach wrote:
> > On 05/31/2018 02:37 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> >>> FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
> >>> favor of Tucows/EPAG.
>
activity
> nor contradict any regulatory requirement (which covers cyber attacks).
>
> Mack
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Eriksson
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 12:24 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> S
> On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:44 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, what Niels is really leaving out here is the open question of
>> whether or not GDPR will eventually lead to the destruction of Peering DB.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>
>
> Of course it will not. We just need to accept that only
man. 4. jun. 2018 17.31 skrev McBride, Mack :
> GDPR doesn't play well with directory listing services.
> BUT since providing contact information is exactly what a directory
> listing service does,
> It is safe to assume that this is 'essential' under GDPR.
>
No it is very clear that publishing p
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Eriksson
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 12:24 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers
>
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
> www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key .eu sites. When the
> response they get will be "sorry, we can't determine who is attacking
> you since that contravenes GDPR", will the EU light bu
DeLong
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 10:00 PM
To: Rodney Joffe
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
> On Jun 3, 2018, at 14:17 , Rodney Joffe wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:21 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
>>
>> * l...@satchell.net (Stephen Sat
[mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rodney Joffe
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 3:17 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
> On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:21 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
>
> * l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 14:51 CEST]:
>> How
>
>
>
> Yeah, what Niels is really leaving out here is the open question of
> whether or not GDPR will eventually lead to the destruction of Peering DB.
>
> Owen
>
Of course it will not. We just need to accept that only roles not people
are published. Those people will change job anyway and nobod
> On Jun 3, 2018, at 14:17 , Rodney Joffe wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:21 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
>>
>> * l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 14:51 CEST]:
>>> How does your shop, Niels, go about making contact with an operator that is
>>> hijacking one
> On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:21 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
>
> * l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 14:51 CEST]:
>> How does your shop, Niels, go about making contact with an operator that is
>> hijacking one of your netblocks, or is doing something weird with routing
>>
ecify exactly these role accounts
for TECH and ABUSE, not a person. This gets around the GDPR
requirements while maintaining the usefulness of the WHOIS without
having to go through an intermediate party or web site.
ICANN may want to consider this idea when adjusting its contracts with
registrars to eliminate GDPR exposure.
01, 2018 9:24 AM
To: l...@satchell.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ICANN GDPR lawsuit
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> In other words, how do you do your job in light of the GDPR
> restrictions on accessing contact information for other network operators?
>
&
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> In other words, how do you do your job in light of the GDPR restrictions
> on accessing contact information for other network operators?
>
> Please be specific. A lot of NOC policies and procedures will need to
> be updated.
Publish role
* l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 14:51 CEST]:
How does your shop, Niels, go about making contact with an operator
that is hijacking one of your netblocks, or is doing something weird
with routing that is causing your customers problems, or has broken
BGP?
The same as w
On 06/01/2018 08:47 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
On 06/01/2018 05:24 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 06:56 CEST]:
The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key
On 06/01/2018 05:24 AM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
> * h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 06:56 CEST]:
>> The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
>> www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key .eu sites. When the
>> response they get wi
On 01/06/2018 15:24, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
> * h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 06:56 CEST]:
>> The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
>> www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key .eu sites. When the
>> response they get will
* h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Fri 01 Jun 2018, 06:56 CEST]:
The entire whois debacle will only get resolved when some hackers attack
www.eugdpr.org, ec.europa.eu and some other key .eu sites. When the
response they get will be "sorry, we can't determine who is attacking
you since tha
On 31/05/2018 21:44, John Peach wrote:
> On 05/31/2018 02:37 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>>> FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
>>> favor of Tucows/EPAG.
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
>>
>>
whoisnt
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>>
>> FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
>> favor of Tucows/EPAG.
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
>
>
> Welcome to contact-free
On 05/31/2018 02:37 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
favor of Tucows/EPAG.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
Welcome to contact-free whois?
-Dan
Already been bitt
On Thu, 31 May 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
favor of Tucows/EPAG.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
Welcome to contact-free whois?
-Dan
FWIW a German court has just ruled against ICANN's injunction and in
favor of Tucows/EPAG.
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2018-05-30-en
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617
In article you write:
>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180527_icann_files_legal_action_against_domain_registrar_whois_data/
Elliot said that if he had to choose between fighting ICANN and
fighting governments, he'd fight ICANN. I can't blame him.
http://www.tucows.com/tucows-state
1 - 100 of 659 matches
Mail list logo
