I have two proposals:
1) Clearly, .COM is used for criminal and malicious activities.
I propose that we remove it due to abuse.
2) Barry Shein serves no useful purpose and should also be removed.
Karl
I have two proposals:
1) Clearly, .COM is used for criminal and malicious activities.
I propose that we remove it due to abuse.
Don't forget .ORG, .NET, .EDU, etc. After all, porn and/or spam might be
coming from those as well! Since when do the root nameservers become
responsible for monitoring and controlling spam and porn? I never understood
that as one of their responsibilities. If it suddenly became that way,
I'll be more than happy to forward them a list of spam domains that they can
take care of.
2) Barry Shein serves no useful purpose and should also be removed.
Agreed. Obviously this message served no useful purpose, so according
to the message below, Barry Shein and .std.com should be removed.
-jkk
I'm not sure what your problem is or what prompted this childish
remark. I'm sorry if I presented what I believe to have been a
reasoned comment with evidence and documentation etc. and somehow
elicted this from you. I can't figure out why, however.
If .com were used, for example, only for Slobbovian Universities, were
being managed by one to the exclusion of other uses, etc, then perhaps
it would be a good reason to consider decommissioning .com.
And if the .to domain is not in any way being used as a TLD for the
Kingdom of Tonga, but instead is being used only as a safe harbor for
what appear to be malicious activities, then perhaps it should be
decommissioned.
Is that simple enough?
One problem, as I see it, is that people claim they would prefer
non-governmental regulation of the internet. Yet any suggestion that
we do this is met with these sort of sneering, uncalled for,
tangential, childish remarks made by individuals who obviously
shouldn't be involved in regulating anything.
I think it's beginning to become obvious, to me anyhow, that any claim
that the internet is better regulated by those who are involved in its
engineering is a total failure as a concept.
Have you tried contacting the folks at tonic.to? I know them and they have
a shoot first, ask questions later policy about spam. Here's a quote from
their FAQ page.
Tonic feels very strongly that the sending of unsolicited bulk email or
excessive Usenet posting
("spamming") constitutes theft of service, and we do not condone the use
of .TO domain names for this
purpose.If we receive complaints that a .TO domain name has been used for this
purpose, we will advise the
domain owner of the complaint and request that they desist from this
activity. Tonic reserves the right to
remove any .TO name registration if a name is used as a source of spam, or
an address to which to reply
to such bulk mail solicitations. We will also publish the names and
contact information for any accounts
terminated for such a reason.
John
I think it's beginning to become obvious, to me anyhow, that any claim
that the internet is better regulated by those who are involved in its
engineering is a total failure as a concept.
You're therefore suggesting that the Internet is better regulated by those
who are totally unfamiliar with it. Or, in other words, you want your
heart transplant performed by a 10-year-old.
Special.
ag
If .com were used, for example, only for Slobbovian Universities, were
being managed by one to the exclusion of other uses, etc, then perhaps
it would be a good reason to consider decommissioning .com.And if the .to domain is not in any way being used as a TLD for the
Kingdom of Tonga, but instead is being used only as a safe harbor for
what appear to be malicious activities, then perhaps it should be
decommissioned.Is that simple enough?
I've already given you one example of a domain not used for porn.
Here's another one: bounce.to, another redirection service.
I'm sure I can find others.
Of course, according to you, the TLD is rogue unless there are absolutely
no bad apples.
By this logic, I can argue for UUNet to turn off their circuit to you
if I have solid proof of *ONE* of your customers spamming.
Yes, I know, your argument is that a majority of the domains are porn
domains (not that that, in itself, is hard evidence of criminal activity)
and are used to spam. Prove "a majority."
non-governmental regulation of the internet. Yet any suggestion that
we do this is met with these sort of sneering, uncalled for,
tangential, childish remarks made by individuals who obviously
shouldn't be involved in regulating anything.
You're being flamed because you said something very foolish. Deal with it.
Happens to everyone.
I think it's beginning to become obvious, to me anyhow, that any claim
that the internet is better regulated by those who are involved in its
engineering is a total failure as a concept.
Yes, Barry, you're setting a bad example.
Hey! How dare you impersonate Karl Denninger?!
Cheers,
-- jra
Here's another one: bounce.to, another redirection service.
> I'm sure I can find others.
Allow me to assist.
Is the cause of the complaint that there are non-Tongan porn sites
with .to domains? Would it make you happier if the porn sites in .to
were exclusively Tongan? Perhaps you disagree with porn sites in
general? There's better targets to aim at if so. 'sides, there's
better candidates for extinction on aesthetic grounds. There's a bar
in the Cook Islands that has an email address of - I am not making
this up ((c) Dave Barry) - drink@ronnies.co.ck. Aren't you glad the
Cook Islands aren't selling commercial subdomains to everyone?
m.
PS: No, I don't know what they were thinking either.
Actually, by his argument, the entire country of the Netherlands should be
arrested becasue the allow legal prostitution, a criminal activity in
"white bread" New Hampshire.
No, a typical method of judgement used where something won't likely be
100% one way or the other is the "preponderance of evidence".
More importantly, in the case of a gTLD, does it serve any useful
purpose for which it was issued, overall?
Since the examples you've given don't seem to me to be entities
organized within the Kingdom of Tonga, even if they're not porn
sites*, what purpose is being served by keeping .to in the root
servers?
So, to spell it out, the question is not whether or not there are
non-porn sites in the .to domain. The question is whether or not there
are any Tongan activities in the Tongan domain? Since the US Consulate
of the Kingdom of Tonga isn't even a Tongan site one wonders just what
purpose this domain is serving.
* Porn per se was never the touchstone issue. It just so happened that
the malicious activity was in promotion of a porn site, and looking at
their SLDs seemed to indicate that an unusually high percentage of
them were porn sites. And, one suspects, probably not porn sites
organized as business entities within the Kingdom of Tonga.
It is serving as their entry into the *global* e-marketplace. Ever
tripped over something you didn't know was there?
Totally unfamiliar with it? You mean, for example, that people in the
FCC are totally unfamiliar with, say, telephony? Or that they're all
ten year olds?
People who work for the FAA know something about air traffic issues
and aren't ten year olds. People who work for CDC know something about
epidemiology and aren't ten year olds. Etc.
Such regulatory agencies always employ people knowledgeable in the
technical aspects of the subject.
What's peculiarly missing in the internet realm is much anyone with
any skills in building processes by which decision-making and review
of policies can occur.
That's why, I assume, raising any policy or resource issue is
generally met with a flood of sarcastic remarks, non-sequitars, and in
particular a total lack of process by which to address such an
issue. It's completely missing.
You may believe that the above regulatory bodies are less than
perfect. But what you can't do is assert that what goes on in their
stead on the net works any better.
The Tongan consulate in SF *is* Tongan territory, not US. Seems like a
good place to keep a server to keep its traffic off the satellite to me.
Cable and Wireless runs the Internet connection to the islands and their
sites and their customers are in TO. See candw.to.
John
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt
Where does it say that to operated in a ccTLD you must physically be
located in that country?
http://www.tongatapu.net.to/sponsors/moore/default.htm
Moore Electronics Ltd., a company physically located in Tonga
http://www.tongatapu.net.to/sponsors/tess/default.htm
Tonga Electronic Secretary Service, a company physically located in Tonga
http://www.tongatapu.net.to/tonga/news/default_l.htm
is filled with lots of businesses in the Kingdom of Tonga
Since the above links prove that their is indeed Tongan activities, can we
move on.
Sam
No, a typical method of judgement used where something won't likely be
100% one way or the other is the "preponderance of evidence".
Agreed, and I don't think you have that, either!
More importantly, in the case of a gTLD, does it serve any useful
purpose for which it was issued, overall?Since the examples you've given don't seem to me to be entities
organized within the Kingdom of Tonga, even if they're not porn
sites*, what purpose is being served by keeping .to in the root
servers?
It's already been pointed out that there IS no one-to-one mapping of
domain names to geographical areas. What's your point?
* Porn per se was never the touchstone issue
OK - I am glad we agree on this.
My question here would be are these actual businesses or paper companies that
exist for the sake of more nefarious scheme.
I am certain that when 1 asserts that he represents another country
that the web page they would write would be indicitive of things
and or relating to things about that particular culture and the things
they have to the offer the world and their cultural heritage and
associated demographics that show gross national product with
a breakdown into their repective catagories.
Picking up the ring ring cloofon would be helpful in this instance.
Henry R. Linneweh
Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
And if the .to domain is not in any way being used as a TLD for the
Kingdom of Tonga, but instead is being used only as a safe harbor for
what appear to be malicious activities, then perhaps it should be
decommissioned.
Like ending phrases and sentences in prepositions?
Peter Stemwedel
Network Engineer
InterAccess Co. petes@interaccess.com
168 N. Clinton (312) 496-4694 Office
Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 496-4499 FAX
Get involved, then! Bitching about stuff on NANOG doesn't help,
as you've seen, so I really can't understand why you continue to
do so. If there's such an obvious gap, fill it!
Personally, I don't think the gap is nearly as bad as you think;
however, I'm involved with or on the edges of a number of groups
that are quite active in some of the areas you seem to feel are
missing from the Internet industry.
Of course, this is /way/ off of the inflammatory topic that you
started this thread with, so I'll save my prosyltizing(sp?) for
some future event.
> >I think it's beginning to become obvious, to me anyhow, that any claim
> >that the internet is better regulated by those who are involved in its
> >engineering is a total failure as a concept.
>
> You're therefore suggesting that the Internet is better regulated by those
> who are totally unfamiliar with it. Or, in other words, you want your
> heart transplant performed by a 10-year-old.People who work for the FAA know something about air traffic issues
and aren't ten year olds. People who work for CDC know something about
epidemiology and aren't ten year olds. Etc.Such regulatory agencies always employ people knowledgeable in the
technical aspects of the subject.
Knowledgeable people != good policy makers
Knowledgeable people != good decisions about regulatory issues
Knowledgeable people != people you can trust
What's peculiarly missing in the internet realm is much anyone with
any skills in building processes by which decision-making and review
of policies can occur.
So the IANA and IETF have been doing what for the past several years?
That's why, I assume, raising any policy or resource issue is
generally met with a flood of sarcastic remarks, non-sequitars, and in
particular a total lack of process by which to address such an
issue. It's completely missing.
I believe your assumption is incorrect. The issues involved
are control and the power to change things. Is it all that surprising
that people get a wee bit wound up over that? When you propose that
policy should be made by some regulatory agency instead of by consensus,
what do you expect? What you are proposing is nothing short of asking us
to abdicate power.
You may believe that the above regulatory bodies are less than
perfect. But what you can't do is assert that what goes on in their
stead on the net works any better.
Why not? I can still pass a packet from one end to the other, and if
I can't, I can buy transit to do so. Fundamentally, that's all the
Internet needs to do. If that wasn't happening, or I couldn't buy
transit to do so, then I might be a little warmer to your ideas. As
it stands, I will vigorously oppose your desire to hand our collective
power of policy making to another entity just because they _might_ do
a better job than us.
Regards,
Chris
> You're therefore suggesting that the Internet is better regulated by those
> who are totally unfamiliar with it. Or, in other words, you want your
> heart transplant performed by a 10-year-old.
Totally unfamiliar with it? You mean, for example, that people in the
FCC are totally unfamiliar with, say, telephony? Or that they're all
ten year olds?
Previous attempts by government entities to regulate the Internet have been
characterized by a total unfamiliarity with the medium. I have no reason
to believe that any future attempt to regulate the Internet will be marked
by any more competence than I've seen thus far.
Such regulatory agencies always employ people knowledgeable in the
technical aspects of the subject.
You're not asking for regulation based on technical aspects of the
Internet, though. You're asking for regulation based on someone offending
your social sensibilities. That's entirely different.
That's why, I assume, raising any policy or resource issue is
generally met with a flood of sarcastic remarks, non-sequitars, and in
particular a total lack of process by which to address such an
issue. It's completely missing.
It's completely missing mostly because of the history of the Internet, and
a resisitance on the part of the Powers That Be for creation of any central
authority. Inasmuch as I'm a vocal member of the Peanut Gallery, I would
participate in that resistance.
You may believe that the above regulatory bodies are less than
perfect. But what you can't do is assert that what goes on in their
stead on the net works any better.
Actually, I would suggest that it does. The system that we have today is
free from government interference, which encourages effeciency and
creativity. Encouraging government regulation because you're personally
offended is ... well ... stupid.
ag