[RFCI-Discuss] Geographical domains: ny.us versus msk.ru

[Alex van den Bogaerdt]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:26:45PM +0400, Alexey Lobanov wrote:

> Domain "com" contains even more abuseable resources. Should abuse at com be
> contactable for same reason?

_domain_ "com" does not have a requirement to support postmaster.

You are probably thinking of the _zone_ "com" which does have many
subdomains.  These subdomains, which are not part of domain com
because domain com is just that: "com", may be abusable.

If you don't know the difference between a domain and a zone, now would
be a good time to study it.


> A geographical domain maintainers have zero power to process abuse
> reports related to subdomain owners. They are just custodians,
> registrars. They are not an ISP providing connectivity for these resources.

First of all: they do have the power, because they are the ones
delegating authority over the domain name space.  At the very
least they can remove NS records from their zone should a child-zone
do bad things.  This would effectively remove the child-zone from
the internet and thus solve much of the problems.

But this is not important.  What is important is that they must have
a postmaster address if their domain (not: their zone) is used.

So, if for instance "admin at msk.ru" exists, then "postmaster at msk.ru"
must also exist.  It doesn't matter that they are, or are not, just
custodians.  They provide @msk.ru email (in this example) and thus
they have to support postmaster.

> Same is applicable to ny.us, of course.

Indeed.  Exactly the same.

Things change.  If the reason for listing msk.ru has been solved, then
they can request removal:

"If you are the site administrator for the listed domain or netblock,
 and this has been corrected, please contact admin at rfc-ignorant.org to
 have this listing removed."

And if you have evidence that ny.us should be listed, then present
this evidence.

I'm sure it will be processed in the same way as evidence for msk.ru is.

Alex