Public Comment on the Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs (SADAG) Report

[Farell Folly]

Dear all,

>From the comments and suggestions we received, the Public Comment we made
on the SADAG report has been updated. Please review it before we submit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10K4cnqMrhRnF1mZFtBbQKpzGNMBcZv2OCjvly_8eYoQ/edit#



Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

Le 21 sept. 2017 23:38, "Nick Shorey" <lists at nickshorey.com> a écrit :

> Hi everyone,
>
> My apologies that I have yet to have time to provide an in-depth response
> on this issue - unfortunately tackling issues of DNS abuse in the $dayjob
> has impeded my spare time today - oh the irony!!
>
> My initial reaction is that we need to consider what we recommend as a
> result of this study.
>
> It's clear the report has highlighted issues of concern, areas of
> contention, and elements where some further analysis maybe required. As
> just one example, when I held discussions with the authors of this study
> during Johannesburg, I noted there was a gap in analysis of the
> relationship between WHOIS privacy services and DNS abuse, which may
> broaden insight.
>
> There also seemed to be a concentration of abuse within the new gTLD space
> to particular TLDs - further in-depth analysis probably needed to
> understand the root causes - more engagement with cyber security companies
> to better understand criminal modus operandi would be useful.
>
> So what questions might we consider regarding next steps? Couple of
> thoughts:
>
> - Should a further gTLD round (or continuous registration process) be
> opened until further analysis and reviews have been completed?
>
> - Should ICANN continue to gather and publish such data (i.e. through
> things like the Domain Abuse Activity Reporting Tools) on this issue, and
> how should this feed into Compliance processes?
>
> - How can this and future studies inform the policy making process?
>
>
> Hope this is helpful!
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
>
> *Nick Shorey*
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 <+44%207552%20455988>
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Enrique Chaparro <
> echaparro at vialibre.org.ar> wrote:
>
>> Let me add that the three hypotheses are logical fallacies. Of course,
>> if your starting point is a logical fallacy you can prove anything you
>> want, as we clearly see everyday. As always, the old research
>> guideline stands: “correlation is not causation”.
>> For instance, a new critical bug in bind (which has a tearful history of
>> bugs) could cause a surge in DHS hijacking anytime, completely
>> out of the hypotheses.
>>
>> On the other hand, the IP constituency's insistence on measures
>> that go in the direction of centralising more and more the Internet's
>> critical sttucture shouldn't be a surpise for anyone.
>>
>> Regards from the Far South,
>>
>> Enrique
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171002/4f8003ed/attachment.htm>