Re: New ICANN registrant change process

[David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>]

On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for
> > Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams
> > of complaints.
> <devils advocate hat>
> On what metric? Pure volume? Percent of registrations? type of complaint by
> similar x/y?
> </devils advocate hat>

By the terms the Registry sets in the Registry/Registrar Agreement and to which the Registrar agrees in order to sell 
the Registry's names.

> there are 'lots of complaints' against some registrars, but if you have
> ~20% of the .TLD market you're prone to get more volume than a 1%er, right?

There's this concept called "normalization", e.g., complaints per 100 delegations or some such.

> Also, this isn't REALLY the registrY's problem is it?

Depends on whether or not the Registry wants their TLD to be associated with spam/malware distribution/botnet 
C&C/phishing/pharming and be removed at resolvers via RPZ or similar. Ultimately, the Registries are responsible for 
the pool the Registrars are peeing in -- it's the Registry's namespace, is it not?

> i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy.

I love how people love to blame ICANN.

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail