North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?
- From: Martin Hannigan
- Date: Wed Jun 19 10:04:52 2002
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "amar" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Richard Forno" <email@example.com>
> Cc: "Martin Hannigan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Jake Baillie"
> <email@example.com>; "Howard C. Berkowitz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:54 AM
> Subject: Re: ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?
[ SNIP ]
> Well yes and no. It actually has administrative value in the prosecuting of
> the real bad guys... So its not such a bad idea.
I have to tell you, the value is minimal. It's easy access since it
doesn't require a subpoena. And there are still ways around it even
if you do validate your entry as "clean". It probably would not stand
up as "evidence" of anything, and the better evidence starts at
transactional records of the carrier/hoster/provider.
> > 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.
Speaking from my current experience as Title III/CALEA Engineering at a
carrier, I'll tell you that I personally don't believe that
LEA's are making ICANN/Registrars do anything. It's a ploy
to spam. Sounds too easy, sounds like they are going through a
lot of trouble, but that's what I believe.
> Personally I refer to this new structure as Internet-II.
> > >
> > > On paper, and in theory, having 'clean' whois data is nice, and helpful
> > > 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...
Uh yeah. And their NetDiscovery CALEA service bureau is cool too
except that it probably doesn't exist in fact, only on paper.
[ SNIP ]
> Agreed - Front men are expendible but at some point there will be a link
> back to the bad-guys and they will get caught.
Yes, it's called a transactional record.
> > > 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.)
But isn't GIGO and the non-centralization of the net the beauty
> > > Are they going to go door-to-door like
> > > censustakers to verify this info?
> No just Department of Justice investigators in the US...
Does anyone have a reference that coroborates LEA's
involvement in this topic?
> > > 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???
None on the internet or PSTN.