ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?

todd glassey todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jun 19 13:47:40 UTC 2002


Amar-
----- Original Message -----
From: "amar" <amar at telia.net>
To: "Richard Forno" <rforno at infowarrior.org>
Cc: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at fugawi.net>; "Jake Baillie"
<jake at priva.com>; "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb at gettcomm.com>;
<nanog at merit.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?


>
>
>
> Richard Forno wrote:
> >
> > Is funny that both ICANN and law enforcement are trying to clean up
whois
> > information to facilitate investigative capabilities.

Well yes and no. It actually has administrative value in the prosecuting of
the real bad guys... So its not such a bad idea.

> What a crock.

No what you mean is "damn, this is real work and we as a carrier or ISP have
never had to deal with this before. Wah Wah Wah" - but you guys are the
smoking gun... Personally I suggest that its time to acknowledge that we
need to change this global concept of a single Internet into a collection of
National or Jurisdictionally-defined Internets. We of course would need to
build a bridging system between the networks and that would potentially be
the UN's problem per se.

Personally I refer to this new structure as Internet-II.

> >
> > On paper, and in theory, having 'clean' whois data is nice, and helpful
for
> > tech problems,

yes it would be but what it is missing is the "need to do anything about the
bad information and adding the ability to react to Domain Evilness in
moments rather than hours, days, or months" - which BTW, is why ATLAS - the
new DNS Service Infrastructure from Verisign is so freakin' cool. It can
unpublish an Address in six seconds supposedly...

> > which is the reason I think why it's there in the first
> > place.

Sort of. But that was before the public transition of the Internet from the
previous Government Sponsored networking models.

> >
> > As if nobody thought about having a 'front man' doing a registration, or
> > even that the Registrars will be able to truly implement such
data-integrity
> > protocols, among any other ways to muck with this info.

Agreed - Front men are expendible but at some point there will be a link
back to the bad-guys and they will get caught.

> >
> > I mean, garbage in, garbage out.

yes and no - this is one of the strongest arguments for compartmentalizing
the Internet there is, that the ISP's and Registrars have refused any
responsibiliy with what is done with their offereings (BW in the ISP's case
and Name Service in the Registrars Case.)

> > Are they going to go door-to-door like
> > censustakers to verify this info?

No just Department of Justice investigators in the US...

> >
> > The reality is it will never work, and besides - any smart criminal will
> > simply use another domain name, or not even USE a domain name...

So how many smart criminals are there???

> >..a
> > power-user computer criminal shouldn't have problems remembering a few
IP
> > addys.

Most of that is becuase Sendmail is the Industry Standard and it has no
pre-authentication process for what it accepts of delivers.

> > If they can't, they're stupid and deserve to be caught.

Yes, well what was that line "Pris" utters in Blade Runner - "Then we are
stupid and deserve to die"...

>
> Well, rfc-ignorant.org have a different view:
>
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-whois.html
>
> -- amar




More information about the NANOG mailing list