Big Sur has been called the "longest and most scenic stretch of undeveloped coastline in the contiguous United States", a sublime "national treasure that demands extraordinary procedures to protect it from development", and "one of the most beautiful coastlines anywhere in the world, an isolated stretch of road, mythic in reputation". It is frequently praised for its dramatic scenery. We hope these comments are helpful.Coordinates: Coordinates: 36☁7′57″N 121★2′24″W / 36.299216°N 121.873402°W / 36.299216 -121.873402īig Sur ( / ˈ s ɜːr/) is a rugged and mountainous section of the Central Coast of California between Carmel and San Simeon, where the Santa Lucia Mountains rise abruptly from the Pacific Ocean. We of the At-Large community appreciate the opportunity to comment and welcome any ongoing dialog on the issue of DNS Abuse mitigation. Again, the more that can be laid out, with examples, the better. Perhaps a framework for alternative mitigation, involving the domain owner or website host, is appropriate. If, for example, a comment, on a news site, contains.a phishing link, it's not appropriate to take down the entire domain. It is also often mentioned that random abuse, in an otherwise non-abusive domain, needs to be handled Differently. The fact that the abuse was not the result of malice by the domain holder should not deter action taken to mitigate that abuse. If the domain hosts verifiable abuse, particularly as its primary function, it should be taken down immediately and restored after a fix has been applied. However, in the first instance, there is a suggestion that "a domain name should not be labelled as abusive when the abusive usage results from the action of a third party." This would seem to imply that determination of responsibility should happen prior to any action, taken by the Registrar and that seems inappropriate. In the second, case it is mentioned in the context of a reversal, of an action taken by a registrar, based on an abuse report. The white paper makes two references to 3rd party responsibility for abusive conduct. Perhaps some criteria for identifying a pattern of abuse would be helpful in separating the the spurious from the systemic. Giving registrars a checklist or framework, with which to evaluate a complaint, would help standardize both the formulation and resolution of complaints. The topic of poorly constructed and poorly supported complaints is ongoing and the At-Large would like the RrSG to consider more fully exploring this topic with examples, even if hypothetical. The At-Large would like to proffer just a few points. Overall, the paper represents an excellent collection of redress mechanisms that ought to be available to registrants, in the case of mistaken take-down. The occasionally conflicting interests of registrant and non-registrant individual end users demands we find the right balance in the fight against DNS Abuse. The At-Large community welcomes both the initiative by the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), to address Registrant Protections in DNS Abuse Mitigation, as well as the opportunity to comment. The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. As additional background, the RrSG periodically drafts and publishes white papers for informational purposes and this is our first attempt to better socialize our work with interested community members. This paper is not time sensitive, so if you would like additional time, please let us know. The RrSG is looking to publish the paper around the time of ICANN 71, but wanted to give the ALAC the opportunity to provide comments in advance as we know this is an issue of interest to your members. The RrSG DNS Abuse Subgroup drafted the attached White Paper discussing Registrant Protections in DNS Abuse Mitigation, centering on the issue of innocent registrants whose domains are impacted by DNS Abuse mitigation by a registrar (or registry, as the case may be). TBD submission date, feedback requested "around ICANN71".Īs per 05 June 2021 email from Ashley Heineman, Chair, RrSG:
0 kommentar(er)
