First they could start by revoking domain ownership if spam comes from there.
How does email spam come from a domain? You can just set whatever domain you want in the headers. For a long time, I had spammers using my personal domain in their From: headers, sent from their servers (I knew because I received automated replies on my catch-all box). What exactly would be accomplished by taking away my domain?
As for IP blocks, that's like throwing napalm to kill a few weeds. You'd affect hundreds or thousands of users of an ISP just to kill a spammer, who will just move to the next connection.
I view content spam as websites that mirror Wikipedia/SO/GoogleGroups for example. Or sites that simply fill their pages with garbage, referral links, URL's to game search-engine rankings, etc. Again, start by revoking the worst offende's domain ownership. Eventually, you'll be able to get rid of domain-squatters as well because it invariably means that they have to put meaningful content on their site and not useless junk.
So instead of issuing TLDs, they could start performing censorship. I'm seriously glad they don't share your views.
Having a website sitting somewhere is not spam. It's not being pushed on anyone; if search engines are indexing content that their users don't want to see, that's their problem. It shouldn't require to pass some bureaucrat's consideration to what is "proper content" to be accessible. Many of us around the world already find the US' TV censorship quite ridiculous, we don't need any more of that.
"How does email spam come from a domain? You can just set whatever domain you want in the headers. For a long time, I had spammers using my personal domain in their From: headers, sent from their servers (I knew because I received automated replies on my catch-all box). What exactly would be accomplished by taking away my domain?"
Solutions to prevent/combat email header spoofing have been gaining quite a bit of traction and are quite prevalant. And yes, if that means taking the domain away from people that don't implement said solutions, then poof you've lost the domain. It would accomplish getting rid of domain owners that enable spammers.
"As for IP blocks, that's like throwing napalm to kill a few weeds. You'd affect hundreds or thousands of users of an ISP just to kill a spammer, who will just move to the next connection."
If you lease out IPs that have been assigned to you to a spammer, then you better get him off your network. Otherwise you'll lose your entire block. It's not rocket science, nor is it overkill. You mention that spammers will move on to the next connection if they get kicked off. Yeah, well that's not really ICANN's problem is it, that's up to the IP block lessee's to solve if they want to start sub-leasing out to unknown/untrusted individuals in the public.
"So instead of issuing TLDs, they could start performing censorship. I'm seriously glad they don't share your views."
There is a big difference between censorship and removing junk from your network. Perhaps it is something we should worry about, but we should have thought of censorship BEFORE we allowed the US to maintain control of ICANN, don't you think?
"Having a website sitting somewhere is not spam"
Probably not the common definition, but if it pollutes the domain/tld namespace with useless/junk domains then yes you can call it spam.
"It's not being pushed on anyone; if search engines are indexing content that their users don't want to see, that's their problem"
I agree with you. However, my point was more along the lines of "use it for something useful, or lose it" in order to both prevent useless domain squatting AND content spam.
"Many of us around the world already find the US' TV censorship quite ridiculous, we don't need any more of that."
Nope, we don't, I agree with you. Hence why I suggested we either treat ICANN like a for-profit private enterprise with NO government monopoly or privilege of licensing, OR we damn well make sure it behaves like non-profit acting for the public good. I.e. no lucrative money grabs such as the one in this article. Assuming that's even possible with an entity controlled by the US government.
Look. These are just some ideas we can implement to combat spam and other malicious behavior on the internet. But sticking our heads in the sand by ignoring some of these solutions just because they aren't perfect is definitely not going to fix them. At the very least they're better than what we have now.
Solutions to prevent/combat email header spoofing have been gaining quite a bit of traction and are quite prevalant. And yes, if that means taking the domain away from people that don't implement said solutions, then poof you've lost the domain. It would accomplish getting rid of domain owners that enable spammers.
So if I don't even use my domain for email, I'm liable to lose it because I don't have the knowledge or even awareness to set up the proper SPF records or whatever solution du jour? That's a terrible tax on people who just want to have their own small website.
And what for? If the receivers can check for the existence and SPF records of the domain, they can also just block email from domains without any valid SPF records. There's no reason to create such draconian policies.
There is a big difference between censorship and removing junk from your network. Perhaps it is something we should worry about, but we should have thought of censorship BEFORE we allowed the US to maintain control of ICANN, don't you think?
Not really, because they don't usually censor. It should be something we should worry about if we gave you the control of ICANN.
Probably not the common definition, but if it pollutes the domain/tld namespace with useless/junk domains then yes you can call it spam.
No, because "useless" is subjective.
Hence why I suggested we either treat ICANN like a for-profit private enterprise with NO government monopoly or privilege of licensing, OR we damn well make sure it behaves like non-profit acting for the public good. I.e. no lucrative money grabs such as the one in this article.
I don't see why is this TLD scheme against the public good in any way. Transferring money from big companies to an organization which provides such a core service seems great to me, and all the downsides I've been hearing about are mostly people's aesthetically sensibilities being hurt.
At the very least they're better than what we have now.
So if I don't even use my domain for email, I'm liable to lose it because I don't have the knowledge or even awareness to set up the proper SPF records or whatever solution du jour? That's a terrible tax on people who just want to have their own small website.
I never said that. Are you even trying to have a discussion, or just disagreeing for its own sake?
Not really, because they don't usually censor. It should be something we should worry about if we gave you the control of ICANN.
Didn't you just complain about US government censorship in your previous post? Either way, you're blatantly clumping together censorship with other things, so it's pointless to discuss this point with you.
No, because "useless" is subjective.
Doesn't matter if the majority of people agree with the subjective opinion. And currently we have the subjective opinion of the few managers of the ICANN calling all the shots.
I don't see why is this TLD scheme against the public good in any way. Transferring money from big companies to an organization which provides such a core service seems great to me, and all the downsides I've been hearing about are mostly people's aesthetically sensibilities being hurt.
Wow, you didn't actually read anything I wrote about this point, did you? Guess that wouldn't fit your narrative or suit your argument.
Adding censorship is never better.
That's your opinion, really. Again, loaded with a biased and opinionated definition of "censorship", rendering discussion of this point with you pretty useless.
How does email spam come from a domain? You can just set whatever domain you want in the headers. For a long time, I had spammers using my personal domain in their From: headers, sent from their servers (I knew because I received automated replies on my catch-all box). What exactly would be accomplished by taking away my domain?
As for IP blocks, that's like throwing napalm to kill a few weeds. You'd affect hundreds or thousands of users of an ISP just to kill a spammer, who will just move to the next connection.
I view content spam as websites that mirror Wikipedia/SO/GoogleGroups for example. Or sites that simply fill their pages with garbage, referral links, URL's to game search-engine rankings, etc. Again, start by revoking the worst offende's domain ownership. Eventually, you'll be able to get rid of domain-squatters as well because it invariably means that they have to put meaningful content on their site and not useless junk.
So instead of issuing TLDs, they could start performing censorship. I'm seriously glad they don't share your views.
Having a website sitting somewhere is not spam. It's not being pushed on anyone; if search engines are indexing content that their users don't want to see, that's their problem. It shouldn't require to pass some bureaucrat's consideration to what is "proper content" to be accessible. Many of us around the world already find the US' TV censorship quite ridiculous, we don't need any more of that.