Re: New ICANN registrant change process

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:

> 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.
ok, neat!


> > 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.
that's something I expected, yes... some rate that works out if I  just
registrar for 10 domains vs 10million. cool.


> > 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?
it's not clear, to me, that any of those hammers have real effect.


> > i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy.
>
> I love how people love to blame ICANN.

but, they are the names and numbers authority, no? it says so in their
name.