TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites

Re: Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites

Robert Bonomi (
Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:05:00 -0000

In article <>, Robert Bonomi
<> wrote:

> In article <>,
> George Mitchell <> wrote:

>> In an article from Monty Solomon, our Moderator wrote:

>>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Programs like this, designed to protect
>>> the average user seem like a good idea, considering how much of the
>>> internet these days is porn or scam/spam in nature. Does anyone know
>>> why ICANN has always steadfastly refused to consider top level domain
>>> names of .spam , .scam , and .porn which would enable most users to
>>> do a rather good job of filtering? PAT]

>> Sure would, if the spammers, scammers, and pornsters would
>> cooperatively run their operations from those top-level domains. But
>> how many do you think would volutarily register there?

>> George Mitchell

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably none of them would voluntarily
>> move into the proper category. They'd probably have to be forced into
>> the proper categories, i.e. if you want connectivity with the net,
>> you need to be in (whatever) category. It happen that way now with the
>> top level domains .edu , .mil and .gov . If you are not an EDUcational
>> or a MILitary or GOVernment entity you do not get in those categories.
>> Of course this would require some policing efforts by ICANN and its
>> registrars. I am sure there would be a lot of wimpering and whining by
>> some folks, but thats' life around the net. PAT]

> You obviously fail to grasp the fundamental difference between
> "you
> can't get in here unless you are ...." and "you must be in here if
> you are ...."

> Yes, you cannot get an '.edu' unless you are an educational
> institution. *HOWEVER*, nothing _prevents_ an educational institution
> from getting a name in another TLD, and many *do*.

> Heck, even the U.S. ARMY uses .com domain names.

> "In theory", things like '.scam', '.spam', or '.xxx' are a 'wonderful
> idea'. In reality, however, due to the perverseness of human nature,
> they are simply *unworkable*.

> Among other 'minor' flaws with the idea is the simple fact that
> providers don't ask 'what domain names will you be using' when they
> sell connectivity. I've *never* seen an ISP contract that requires
> you to notify the ISP if you start using different (or _additional_)
> domain-names.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let me ask you this: _Why_ cannot I
> get into the EDU or the MIL or GOV domains? Why cannot I insist
> upon and recieve or as
> my domain name? Would it be because the EDU/GOV/MIL registrars have
> agreements among themselves to not admit me if I lack the required
> credentials?

In the case of '.GOV', and '.MIL', the registry operator is the
registry owner, and, as registry operator and _sole_registrar_, simply
will not accept submissions that do not meet the registry owner's
requirements/restrictions. (Which are effectively "I already know
whether or not you qualify, so, don't bother if you don't.)

In the case of .EDU, the registry owner requires that all registrars
'verify' that the registrant qualifies under the rules set up by the
registry owner.

> Would it also be because the other _valid, bonafide_
> occupants of those domain names would be likely to raise Holy Hell
> if I were admitted without the proper credentials?

Utterly inaccurate, unfounded speculation. DISPROVEN by actual
history, in point of actual fact. 'non-compliant' TLD registrations
_were_ allowed in several 'generic' TLDs in the past. NONE of the
prior registrants 'raised Holy Hell' with anyone, at the time. There
are several unqualified .EDU's still in existence today. and a whole
bunch of .ORGs, and .NETs. And nobody is doing any hell-raising about

> Or more down to
> earth possibly, _why_ cannot I be admitted on my own terms to the
> .aero or .museum domains?

*I* will sell you a 'lifetime' registration for 'telecom-digest' in either
of those domains for $100. And update the nameservers I operate to
resolve those names to the machine addresses you specify.

> Now with those questions in mind, tell me _why_ I must be
> automatically admitted to the .org or .com or .net domains, purely
> on my own say-so?

Since your premise is in error with regard to the underlying, I cannot
offer a constructive answer.

'.org' is restricted to registered 'not for profit' business
operations ... Just 'your own say-so' is -not- good enough, any more.

'.com',and '.net' are open to *anyone*, and, as such, you don't even
have to 'say-so' about anything to get register a domain in such.

> be registered (or not) have any relevance to ICANN's wishes in the
> matter?

"Yes." "No." "Maybe."

"One or more of the above." Check.

> You mean I cannot just say I am an educational institution
> and be taken at my word, or claim that "I am in charge of the Army
> or Navy" and be accepted as such? Would ICANN and its various
> registrar-agents look sort of askance at such a statement by myself?

How in the h*ll would _I_ know? I'm not ICANN, and although I am a
registrar-agent for several TLDs, it does _not_ include .EDU, or .MIL,

I recommend you "try it and find out", and report the results.

> Then _why_ are they so perfectly happy and willing to dump anyone
> and everyone -- including all the trash in the world -- into the
> domains known as .com and .net and .org (particularly .com)?

Reviewing history will show that '.com' was expressly set up to be a
'catch-all' -- for those entities who _did_not_qualify_ for one of the
'more selective' DTS.

Given that, it is not in the least surprising that it _has_ 'caught

The world is not a perfect place. You have precisely *two* choices --
you 'live with' the imperfections, or you "get off".

> I get so tired of the wimpering and carrying-on about (1) 'how
> decisions such as domain assignment are not the responsibility of
> ICANN (what a lot of bologna!) and (2) 'we cannot dictate to other
> sites what they can or cannot do with their sites' (more bologna,
> and possibly even more insidious than even excuse (1) above. Of
> course we can dictate! We do it all the time in the instances of
> .edu .mil and .gov where one must at least come close to 'hitting
> the mark' in order to being accepted therein.

Yup. It is the difference between:

1) you must meet these criteria, if you wish to use this name
2) you must use this name if you meet these criteria, whether or not you
want to.

*Every* TLD in existence is an example of the first option above.

Proposed TLDs like '.XXX', '.SCAM', '.SPAM', etc. have *ZERO* value,
unless they are implemented as option 2, above. There are,
unfortunately, *insurmountable* barriers to the implementation of
_any_ 'option 2' approach in the real world. These aren't esoteric
matters like whether or not ICANN has the responsibility, or who can
or cannot dictate to whom about what they can do with their sites;
rather they are *practical* issues, like "WHO DECIDES what those
categories are that you _must_use_ if you have certain kinds of
content?" You may think that '.scam', '.spam', '.porn', etc. are
obvious ones -- what about '.abomination' for any domain that touches
on same-sex relationships -- be it pictures, stories, life-style
discussions, "dating services" or whatever. If they're going to be
spamming pornography are they required to register in ".spam",
".porn", or _both_?

Next: what about 'sub-domains' that are set up _after_ the domain is
created? suppose I register a domain "pastoral-pictures", with a
description of "a gallery of scenes of natural beauty" -- shouldn't be
any problem for a '.com' registration by your 'rules', right?

A year later, I add some extra pages at
",com", Is _this_ a violation of the
registration? Do I _have_ to use '.porn' instead? Does it matter if
those pages are classical fine art or "hustler" shots?

The problems: _who_ decides? WHO CHECKS?
*WHERE*DOES*THE*MONEY*COME*FROM* to do all those potential
'non-compliance' checks?

Then the 'minor' issues, like HOW OFTEN do you have to do those checks
to keep things 'clean'? Realizing that scammers and spammers figure
they've "gotten their money's worth" out of a domain registration that
stays live for only one to three _days_.

> I think it would really be hilarious if a class-action lawsuit was
> started naming ICANN and its registrar-agents as the defendant, and
> the general computer-using public as the plaintiff-class. The
> complaint would be ICANN has misused its trust as the caretakers of
> record of the net by allowing all the trash to be dumped into the
> category .com, causing the general devaluation of the net by causing
> effective filtering of undesireable material (you fill in the blanks
> as desired; spam, scam, porn, etc) to be largely ineffectual,
> especially when filtering could be so simple: .spam, .scam, .porn .
> And listen to no more of their excuses; either reform the net in
> general, or get out of the business and let others do it. I think
> a class-action against ICANN would feel _so good_ don't you? I now
> understand they are off on another one of their international vacation
> trips at present; is it Morocco? PAT]

"Your Mission, Mr Townsend, should you decide to accept it, is to find
a lawyer who will state for public record that the aforementioned
'complaint' provides any basis for a lawsuit in any court of competent
jurisdiction. As always, should you, or any member of your IMF be caught
or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
Good Luck, Pat."

P.S. Barbara Bain and Martin Landau have other commitments, you'll have
to make due with alternates.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As Oscar Wilde once noted, he did not
care what the internet writers nor the registrar-agents had to say
about him, as long as they spelled his name correctly. It is
T-O-W-N-S-O-N. You are welcome. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: redefined: "Re: (Ab)use of Javascript; was Re: Web Services Increasingly Under"
Go to Previous message: Mark J: "Re: Dropping the F-Bomb"
May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Two New Services Try to Warn You About Sleazy Sites"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page