<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body style="font-family: tt; font-size: 11pt;" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000000"><div style="font-size: 11pt;font-family: tt;"><br><br>Mark
E. Jeftovic wrote:<blockquote cite="mid:52E92AEA.6030107@easydns.com"
type="cite"><pre wrap="">Paul Vixie wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">but it's not just registrants i worry about. we've seen a handful of
borderline-to-really bad registrars over the years, who are able to
pollute the "internet commons" with malevolent and criminal waste for
years at a time until icann or the courts finally have enough evidence
to put them out of business. if every domain's registrar were reliably
determinable at scale, then after blackholing the 10,000th or so domain
from a single registrar, many of us might decide that our best interests
lay in blackholing all future domains from that registrar.
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""><!---->
I have long pondered an idea for implementing this sort of mechanism via
RBLs - and today there is certainly the processing power to do it.
* An RBL per-registrar where you could simply drop a given registrar's
domains traffic on the floor
* RBL per nameserver sets (gets a lot of spammer, malware, botnet, etc)
* even an RBL for domains with whois privacy enabled, in fact I started
building this already (now that I think about it, my prototype list
builder has been turned on for about a year and I haven't looked at it
in nearly that time)</pre></blockquote><br>as the co-creator of both the
RBL concept (with eric ziegast) and the RPZ concept (with vernon
schryver), i think you mean RPZ not RBL.<span style="font-family:
monospace;"><br><br></span><blockquote
cite="mid:52E92AEA.6030107@easydns.com" type="cite"><blockquote
type="cite"><pre wrap="">"your business model requires externalizing your costs onto the larger
economy/environment, thus i refuse to do business with you" is much
closer to where we're all living and working at this moment.
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, I agree and this *can* be implemented and it can still co-exist
with the model of insisting on due process, etc.
When private entities decide that "Registrar X" is externalizing their
costs and they decide not to do business with Registrar X, it isn't
censorship and it isn't repression, it's a market force. (And anybody
who knows me knows I love me my market forces)</pre></blockquote><br>on
the topic of due process, we may disagree. if someone is breaking the
law "over there" by doing something that's not illegal "over here" then
there may be no due process which can result in takedown, yet the
internet social contract ("if you want the uniqueness of your internet
identifiers to be respected by others, then you should behave
responsibly") may call for takedown in spite of there being no
applicable law.<br><br>we appear to agree that market forces exerted
against registrars is a good application of the Invisible Hand with
regard to local takedown policy. a registrar might decide that on
complaint, suspension should occur, on verification, takedown should
occur, and on repeat offense then blacklisting should occur -- all
because the registrar have hard and real reasons to cherish and protect
their own reputation.<br><br>vixie
</div></body></html>