I deal with gray all the time, but I am afraid that we are dealing with positions on both sides of this argument that could use a lot more nuance to find common ground. Denouncing spamhaus as clumsy and evil vigilantes isn't quite the true picture - and equally ccTLDs operate within a specific legal framework, but so do other ccTLDs in countries with similar legal systems. Definitely something to discuss and use to drive process change internally, though doubtless that's already being done. --srs (htc one x) <div class="gmail_quote">On 26-Jun-2013 9:14 PM, "andre" <<a href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za">andre@ox.co.za</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:01:26 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com">ops.lists@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > Consider, if you will, a domain that has absolutely no "content", but > is the command and control for a fast flux botnet. Which has been > the case with both the latvian as well as austrian cctld cases. We have many domains that are ONLY used for email, some for DNS, etc. etc. (one client uses his domain just for MUD) -- So "content" should not even be mentioned / discussed... but there are so many valid points and if you are open/unbiased it is very hard to decide a firm opinion. For myself: we all become desperate as the fight against spam/abuse is sometimes a very difficult one as things are not always white and black but more than 50 shades of grey :) </blockquote></div>