[anti-abuse-wg] ICANN's "Money Grab"

Yet more evidence that ICANN is simply serving their masters, the
registrars, while shafting the rest of us:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/27/verisign_warns_new_gtlds_could_destabilize_internet/


Taken together, the new gTLD program, and ICANN's lame and half-hearted
"negotiation" of a new (2013) Registrar Accreditation Agreement... an
agreement which fully supports business-as-usual, i.e. -ZERO- requirements
for registrars to perform any meaningful validation of WHOIS information,
ever... should make it clear to anybody who has any lingering doubts
that the unregulated monopoly known as ICANN is basically an organization
that... if it did not have a lot of powerful friends... would probably
be investigated (in the U.S. at least) under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.


What has this all got to do with network "abuse"?  Simple.  ICANN has
bent itself to the will of its real constituents (the registrars) and
made sure that none of them will ever be contractually obligated to 
ever do anything other than send an e-mail to the contact e-mail address
in a disputed domain WHOIS record... e.g. <Mr.Phony.Baloney at hotmail.com>...
and then get an affirmative reply back.  The registrars are NEVER even
required to find fault with even the most ridiculously bogus physical
address information (e.g. "123 Planetary Way, Mars, Milky Way, 999999")
nor are they ever contractually required to take any action at all if
one of their registered domain names has a contact phone number of
+9.999999999.

Don't believe me?  Look it up.  It's in the contract (2013 RAA)... plain
as day.

Why is there so much crime, phishing, hacking, and spamming on the net?
Well, you can't catch the criminals and the spammers if you can't find
them.  And ICANN... or rather the registrars who make ICANN policy on
these things... have made sure that NOBODY will ever be able to find
any spammer or criminal who doesn't want to be found.  OF COURSE they
will all swear up and down that they have done this for the benefit of,
or at the request of "privacy advocates".  It's just a complete
coincidence that it also helps them to line their own pockets.

And if you believe that, then I have a bridge that I'd like to have you
take a look at.


Regards,
rfg