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

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi Farell,

Thank you so much for your work on this comment. It is excellent. I have made some light edits, mainly wordsmithing it so that the comment is consistent with other statements that the NCSG has submitted, but in terms of substance you have performed an excellent analysis of the DNS Abuse in gTLDs Report. Thanks again!

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Public Comment on the Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs (SADAG) Report
> Local Time: 2 October 2017 6:50 AM
> UTC Time: 2 October 2017 05:50
> From: farellfolly at GMAIL.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> 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](tel:+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/20171002/26a7ba26/attachment.htm>