In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Patrick Townson
<email@example.com> noted in response to an article by
Andy Sullivan wrote:
> Andy Sullivan writing for Reuters, quoted Commerce Secretary Michael
> Sullivan in TD V24_#515:
> Where spam and scam are concerned, ICANN almost treats it as just an
> abberation, something out of the blue which 'coincidentally' happens
> and that we users should not be concerned; after all, the 'experts'
> will cure it for us if they decide it needs curing, and we can
> always 'filter' our email, and run virus scanners galore, isn't that
> sufficient? And they do not want to make things _too easy_ to filter
> out; that might make the internet useful for average, everyday
> citizens once again.
Is that why ICANN kicked AOL off the Internet?
> Considering the huge amount of spam and cybercrime on the internet
> these days, I really have to wonder why the USA thinks it would be
> so awful having an 'oppressive government' involved in running things.
> Isn't the amount of spam and cybercrime we have now oppressive enough
> in its own right? Could (for example) China or Iraq make things any
> worse? In some ways they might make things _better_.
Considering how friendly a lot of Chinese networks are to spammers, I
think it very unlikely they'd make things better.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Scott Dorsey
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> So what would you have ICANN do about spam and other forms of
>> anti-social net behavior?
> The same thing that SRI did, before ICANN existed. Disconnect sites
> that refuse to control their problem customers.
ICANN doesn't have control over the wires.
> Very simple. The reason that spam exists is because some ISPs permit it.
> The reason that some ISPs permit it is because backbone sites permit it.
> Shutting off connectivity to kornet and thrunet would about halve
> the spam problem, right there.
> If backbone sites took spam seriously, it would go away. If ICANN took
> spam seriously, backbone sites would have to.
Why would they have to?
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I'm afraid you're overstating things a bit.
>> ICANN's arbitration authority is over the domain name. Period. It
>> has nothing to do with the content hosted at any site. They have
>> no control over any website (other than their own), simply the
>> name by which it's referenced.
> Yes. They can say "your service is not appropriate and therefore we
> refuse to allow bulkemail.com (a former uunet customer) to receive
Sure. So spammers would use even more throwaway domains than they do
> Furthermore, they can shut off the uunet dns until uunet gets
> their spam problem under control.
Not likely; besides, how much does uunet actually need the domain?
(All of their customers who are likely to go to it get DNS through
UUNET so they'd get there anyway.)
> I have said time and time again that spam could be cut back
> considerably if ICANN would just make it happen.
But how could it do that?
> But ICANN and Vint Cerf are not about to make that happen; their
> preference, (and the loud mouths of their choir of apologists)
> _like_ seeing the internet gradually being converted to a totally
> commercial thing.
There's nothing wrong with it being commercial; somebody has to _pay_
for all the wires, after all.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two comments, Seth ... _when_ did ICANN
'kick AOL off the internet'? And, if as you claim, 'ICANN has no
control over the wires' then how come if I do not sign their contract
when requested, granting them ownership and sole arbitrator privleges
over the name 'telecom-digest.org' they can refuse to allow me to be
on the net? I would say that if I am required to sign a contract
which 'allows me' to use my name and make speeches on the net, then
the person or entity who makes that requirement has a lot of control
over the net, wouldn't you? And what real problem would there be,
in the process of handing out those contracts to sign in which I must
agree to certain things to _amend_ those contracts to include things
dealing with spam/scam, etc? Everyone has to sign one of those
contracts every so often, don't they? So when they renew their name
every so many years, what if certain statements regards spam were
put in that contract with the same provisions otherwise: pay us our
money and sign this agreement? But since Vint Cerf and ICANN are
_purely_ into looking after USA commercial interests I doubt they
would go along with that at all.
Oh, Seth, do you know where I could get a .gif or .jpg of a little
man, preferably both cranky and a crank with a tin foil hat? I may
start a movement here called 'tin foil hat pride'? And I would put
a little script under him saying "I wanted to use the net in peace
and quiet, but today (date) I had to toss (number of) spams and
(number of ) virii and (number of) scams before I could start my
work. The (number of) slots would increment all the time. PAT]