"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
I know you mean well here but as a CA whose company also runs a
registrar, please do not conflate these with good citizenship promises.
I understand.
I would suggest you separate the question into two, identity and a
guarantor of conduct. It is very likely that you can make reasonable
decisions on the existence of the identity alone but you cannot expect an
identity provider to revoke an identity unless there are very very explicit
grounds.
I agree. As was noted by others, some registrars have an
"opportunity" to upgrade their procedures, to verify registrants
identities, and to prevent bogus data from being recorded.
As for revoking a domain registration, we have to be clear that the
domain registration is in many aspects independent of the use or abuse
of the network by the registrants of that domain.
The problem we face here is that we are very big, so we have to
behave in a certain way that is very legalistic and closer to how a
government would act. This is because we are large enough that if we act in
ways that appear arbitrary there can be the appearence of censorship and
even the appearance of censorship is very bad.
A system like RMX allows traceability of the domain to a registrant,
with fewer opportunities for repudiation. Since in many cases, the
content of spam is illegal, or promotes illegal activities, there is a
strong legal case for re-examining the domain registration, due to
illegal activities by the registrants.
It's already possible for a registrar to be served with a court
order, forcing it to remove a domain, so as to not participate in or
promote illegal activities. My comments in no way changed those
possibilities, and did not propose adding any new methods for making
registrars liable for actions of the registrants.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg