RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Meta: Strawman - Process vs. Policy

[Joe St Sauver <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rodney mentioned:

#Registries and registrars provide metrics (to be defined, but  
#including elements like frequency of flux, date/times, ttls, etc).

I think this would make Marc (and a lot of other people) happy. :-)

#Anyone can have access to this data, and can make their own decisions  
#based on the metrics, including obviously using additional metrics  
#provided by any other entity they trust (like apwg, phishtank, etc.).

Key thing here: the access to data needs to be scalable to automated 
volumes, not delivered only at casual/non-automated levels. 

#Anyone can submit a request for takedown.
#
#Registries and registrars are governed by a combination of contractual  
#agreements (with ICANN and/or registries in the case of registrars) as  
#well as local/national laws.
#
#Based on these laws/agreements/policies registries/registrars act or  
#do not act on requests that include evidence
#
#Metrics relating to actions taken are published by registries/ 
#registrars and third parties (like apwg, phishtank, etc)

I really like that sort of accountability and process transparancy.

#Users can make decisions about which registries/registrars and or  
#third parties to trust in whatever context they operate (anti-spam  
#ops, web surfers, domain registrants).
#
#Ultimately the market will influence behavior.

... *IF* the market can get the data it needs to make these decisions.

For example, if registries/registrars are to be held accountable
for their actions (or lack thereof), the market will need to be able
to easily/scalably determine the mapping of registrar to domain
(and domain to registrar).

If *that* can be done, then reputation will accumulate on a per
registry and per registrar basis, just as it does for domains,
netblocks, and ASNs. 

Regards,

Joe

Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own.