New hijacking - Done via via good old-fashioned Identity Theft

Wed Oct 6 19:28:57 UTC 2010

On 10/6/10 10:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/10 12:08 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>> so ... should domains associated with asn(s) and addr block allocations
>>> be subject to some expiry policy other than "it goes into the drop pool
>>> and one of {enom,pool,...} acquire it (and the associated non-traffic
>>> assets) for any interested party at $50 per /24"?
>>
>> Interesting idea, but how do you apply it to ccTLD domains with widely
>> varying policies.  All it takes is whois records being legitimately
>> updated to use domain contacts using a ccTLD domain to circumvent.
>> Sounds like more of a stop-gap measure.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ben
>>
>>
>
> Number resources are not and should not be associated with domain
> resources at the policy level. This would make absolutely no sense
> whatsoever.

hmm. ... "are not" ... so the event complained of ... didn't happen?