ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Domain Consortium Initiative to mitigate some of the harms - a possible counter-affiliate program ?

  • To: "<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Domain Consortium Initiative to mitigate some of the harms - a possible counter-affiliate program ?
  • From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:54:31 +0530


In follow up of my first mail on this thread:

The Rationale: *At least half the harms of the Domain Name System are harms
that the Registries or Registrars do not profit from*.* Registries and
Registrars can identify those harms such as the problem of domain name abuse
by the fake pharma industry, spammers, phising sites, sites hosting
malicious scripts,  and sites engaged in other forms of criminal activity.
The type of domain abuses in this category listed here is not exhaustive,
but indicative. The Domain Industry together with ICANN and user groups
could jointly identify Domain Name abuses that the Registrars and Registries
do not profit from, and those practices that most Registries and Registrars
do not approve of  (that are done by a very few 'rogue' opportunists within
the Industry)*

1. All Registries and All Accredited Registrars to be invited to form a
Consortium "Cost Center" as a non-profit corporation with ICANN in its Board
and Representatives of the top contributors as Directors. If a few
Registries and half the Registrars agree to take part, it would do, for a
start. An industry wide consensus is NOT required.

2. The easiest way to determine contributions would be on a contribution per
domain basis - 2 c to 5 c per domain, registered by a Registrar and 2 - 3
cents per domain by the Registries, ccTLDs to be invited to take part. Not
all Registrars are to be expected to contribute the same rate, a minimum can
be agreed upon, say 2c for Registrars and 2c for Registries, but the more
benevolent of the Registrars and Registries may commit 5c or more.

3. A certain degree of far sightedness of purpose is required by the
participants - A verisign or a GoDaddy may contribute ten times as much
amount as an average Registrar, but there may not ten Board seats as many
for them as for the average Registrar in the Board. A geographic region from
where substantial contribution comes from ought not to insist on its
priorities over a region from where the contribution is minimal. In this
non-profit consortium endeavour, the inclination to contribute may have to
be ample with a willingness to see the benefits spread around, rather than
return as direct rewards, in direct proportion.

4. An altogether new class of "Service Provider" would provide the necessary
innovative support services to identify individual domain names for take
down. This Service Provider Company would have its own methods ranging from
visiting from fake pharmacy sites from a list of suspects using available
secondary research data such as negative page ranking, spam database, fbi
database, International Cyber Security databases, and would provide the
specific service of providing a verified list of domains to take down as
also work on broad solutions to clean up the domain name system of harms
generally unintended by the Domain Industry.

I will elaborate more on Point 4 as we go, depending on how the first three
points get redefined and refined by discussion.

P.S.  There may be some other harms that the Domain Name Industry derives
some profit from, and those harms are deliberately left out of purview of
the task in focus. My views on those harms are reserved for spicy
exchanges, under a different thread, with Michele Neylon and other friends.

Sivasubramanian M

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hello
> Enom has engaged the services of LegitScript to identify rogue Internet
> pharmacists. Legalscript says that "it illustrates the *evolving response
> of the Domain Name Registrar community* to the problem of rogue Internet
> pharmacies. We encourage other Registrars to consider adopting similar Terms
> and Conditions and enforcement policies to identify websites engaged in the
> online sale of prescription drugs in a way that violates one or more of the
> categories above. (Typically, rogue Internet pharmacies violate at least
> three of the categories above simultaneously.)"
> It would be far more effective if there is a consortium effort by the
> Registrars and Registries, to identify not *only rogue pharmacies*, but
> more importantly various kinds of criminal use of domain names.
> This can be implemented in several ways, one of which is by what I may call
> a *counter-affiliate program. *Is there a possibility of private companies
> in the Registry and Registrar constituencies forming a well-funded
> consortium non-profit front for this purpose?
> Sivasubramanian M
> http://www.isocmadras.com
> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy