| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Why .biz is the Spam TLD
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Actually, you're probably right on target. Since .BIZ was supposed to be "the" competitor for .'com' it's not really surprising. If the registry had limited the number of registrations any one registrant could obtain, it may have been somewhat mitigated, but spammers will do their evil no matter what domains are available to them. OTOH, if registries were to enforce clauses that do not allow spamming, domains could be deactivated once it is proven that they are, indeed, used for that purpose. Also, most agreements include clauses regarding illegal uses of domains. Now that the US has a federal law regarding spam, that could be enforced.
The problem I see with enforcement is the 'proof' that the domain holder is responsible for spamming. I've never seen a definition in any agreement that describes 'spam' so it would be a legal battle every time the registry attempted to enforce those clauses.
Catch 22?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:You forgot that each record has a TTL
by ldg
|
|
|
|
|
This might sound a bit socialist, but what about setting up ICANN as a federal regulatory body, similar to that of the FCC, instead of a not for profit "public benefit" corporation? We need some kind of regulatory body that can't be sued or fought every time they try (or one of the registries that they are responsible for) and enforce a (useful) provision in an agreement. Perhaps passing legislation that mandates ICANN a sort of "veto power," similar to that of the U.S. DoC, and exempts them from any lawsuits that may arise from any use of that veto power? Of course, any vetoes ICANN makes would be reviewed quarterly by the U.S. DoC (which it could overturn with its own veto [a veto of a veto? ;)] and people could make complaints to an ICANN Public Complaints Commission.
I believe in the judicial system, but I also believe in the power and usefulness of regulation when necessary. And, I don't think that something as unscrupulous as spam should subject ICANN (or its registries) to lawsuits.
You're quite right though, something has to be done and registries should do more to stop spam at that level. :)
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
