Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1200
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 17 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1200

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:10:22 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] how to deal with liars?

Thomas,

I do not believe the Chair has the right to change membership criteria.  Or 
to suggest it to the Names Council with out the public support of a great 
majority of their group.

I appreciate your approach to enable the group to work toward consensus and 
a vote.

Until all netizens and newbies are represented with the SO structure, our 
GA should remain open to all for membership as well as that for which the 
GA was originally intended.

Thanks,

:)

~k

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:28:42 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA vote: status

[To: [email-masked]]

FYI.

To the GA Members 

After 24 hours of vote, 141 ballots have been received.
Total voting electorate: 586  
That is 24%

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:23:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Vote Tally

Come on people get out there and vote and vote often.

I will be voting, this personality, tomorrow afternoon.  I will vote for
Jamie's motion and abstain from the other.

Voting is the highest right and privilege that we in civilized
communities have.  It is a voice.
It is also an honour and a responsibility that too many of our friends
and family have died for.

It has been a hard fought for right here in the GA.  TR has tried to
block this and other votes and the BoD has totally blocked the AL votes.

Please meet this honour bestowed upon you by exercising your duty as a
global netizen.

"the greatest freedom is the obedience of the law" Abe.  "the greatest
waste of freedom is the failure to exercise it" Eric

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> [To: [email-masked]]
>
> FYI.
>
> To the GA Members
>
> After 24 hours of vote, 141 ballots have been received.
> Total voting electorate: 586
> That is 24%
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:22:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN Budget

The Proposed Fiscal Year 2002–2003 Budget has been posted to:  
http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-15may02.htm

ICANN intends to pay for the following staff positions:

The gTLDs will get --

1.  a gTLD Registry Liaison/Administrator
2.  a Policy Analyst/Liaison
3.  a New gTLD Planning/Evaluation Manager 

The ccTLDs will get --

1.  a Counsel for International Legal Affairs
2.  a ccTLD Liaison
3.  an IANA Administrator
4.  an IANA Administrative Assistant 
5.  a Junior Counsel (ccTLD/IANA Support)  
   
The registrars will get -- 

1.  a Contract Monitor
2.  a Chief Registrar Liaison
3.  a Registrar Liaison 

The "At-Large" will get --

1.  Fucked  

"The expenditures for at large support will be made only to the extent that 
separate external funding support is received."
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:17:55 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
: > What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA,
and
: > are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
: > follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would
be
: > the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
:
: Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.
:
: There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.

    If that is the rule, and "there is no logic involved," should the rule
be changed?    The GA list generates dozens of messages on some days, and
this is really too much for many people.   It isn't as if they are somehow
less qualified, they maybe have other demands on thier time and bandwidth
than following *all* of the traffic.   Which is why some people I know use
the archives to keep up, when something interesting is actually happening.

Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:17:55 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
: > What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA,
and
: > are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
: > follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would
be
: > the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
:
: Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.
:
: There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.

    If that is the rule, and "there is no logic involved," should the rule
be changed?    The GA list generates dozens of messages on some days, and
this is really too much for many people.   It isn't as if they are somehow
less qualified, they maybe have other demands on thier time and bandwidth
than following *all* of the traffic.   Which is why some people I know use
the archives to keep up, when something interesting is actually happening.

Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:26:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 1:17:55 PM, James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
: >> What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA,
> and
: >> are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
: >> follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would
> be
: >> the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
> :
> : Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.
> :
> : There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.

>     If that is the rule, and "there is no logic involved," should the rule
> be changed?    The GA list generates dozens of messages on some days, and
> this is really too much for many people.   It isn't as if they are somehow
> less qualified, they maybe have other demands on thier time and bandwidth
> than following *all* of the traffic.   Which is why some people I know use
> the archives to keep up, when something interesting is actually happening.

Being a part of a group such as this is not just a privilege, it is a
responsibility.

It isn't about "qualified" or not.  If they cannot remain members of
the list, then they are not members of the assembly.

It is easy enough in just about every modern email client for average
users to filter emails from lists such as this one into their own
folder.  Then they can select which ones to read, if any, when they
come in each day.  The barrier to being a voting member is a small
one, and I don't feel it is reasonable to say that it is too high a
barrier.  It is a quite simple and quite small commitment to make.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:20:06 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
: >     If that is the rule, and "there is no logic involved," should the
rule
: > be changed?    The GA list generates dozens of messages on some days,
and
: > this is really too much for many people.   It isn't as if they are
somehow
: > less qualified, they maybe have other demands on thier time and
bandwidth
: > than following *all* of the traffic.   Which is why some people I know
use
: > the archives to keep up, when something interesting is actually
happening.
:
: Being a part of a group such as this is not just a privilege, it is a
: responsibility.
:
: It isn't about "qualified" or not.  If they cannot remain members of
: the list, then they are not members of the assembly.
:
: It is easy enough in just about every modern email client for average
: users to filter emails from lists such as this one into their own
: folder.  Then they can select which ones to read, if any, when they
: come in each day.  The barrier to being a voting member is a small
: one, and I don't feel it is reasonable to say that it is too high a
: barrier.  It is a quite simple and quite small commitment to make.

    But this is not a requirement for those who belong to "official" DNSO
constituencies?

   Jamie
- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:30:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Thursday, May 16, 2002, 2:20:06 PM, James Love wrote:
>     But this is not a requirement for those who belong to "official" DNSO
> constituencies?

That was an exception I did not agree with (one imposed by the Names
Council), but my understanding is that they must remain on the
official mailing list for that constituency (in other words an active
participant) and is thus in the same spirit.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:05:44 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

>     But this is not a requirement for those who belong to "official" DNSO
> constituencies?

Constituencies determine their membership criteria according to their
charter and bylaws. Mailing lists are typically a useful communications tool
and not part of that criteria (although, it could conceivably be).

The GA, of course, is not a constituency, but a pan-constituency forum that
also welcomes the participation of interested, qualified individuals that
may not necessarily be a constituency member.

My point is that participatory criteria can, and are, determined by the
membership of the distinct groups within ICANN - an effort that, to the best
of my knowledge, has never been undertaken by the GA.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:08:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Jamie,

The rules
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
state:
    The DNSO General Assembly is composed of those persons 
    who want to be members of that assembly. At present, 
    this includes "ex-officio" the subscribers to the GA-lists, 
    the participants to the DNSO Constituencies and the 
    participants to the Working Groups. 

Please note "the GA-lists", i.e. [email-masked] and [email-masked]
While the first one is sometimes noisy, the second is on average 
1-2 emails a week, from the Secretariat.
Therefore you may be a member of the GA without getting a huge
traffic and filtering it into folders, but rather reading archives.

Elisabeth

> From [email-masked] Thu May 16 22:17 MET 2002
> From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> : > What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA,
> and
> : > are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
> : > follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would
> be
> : > the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
> :
> : Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.
> :
> : There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.
> 
>     If that is the rule, and "there is no logic involved," should the rule
> be changed?    The GA list generates dozens of messages on some days, and
> this is really too much for many people.   It isn't as if they are somehow
> less qualified, they maybe have other demands on thier time and bandwidth
> than following *all* of the traffic.   Which is why some people I know use
> the archives to keep up, when something interesting is actually happening.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:34:24 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

Thomas,
>  - Recommendation 25 describes a public consultation period as "the
>    channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the
>    stakeholders/constituency scheme participate in policy-making".  I
>    believe that this is an extremely poor suggestion for public
>    participation: During such public consultation periods there will
>    typically be no actual dialogue between the public and task force
>    members.... <snip>

The trend is for Task Forces to submit a questionnaire to those affected
stakeholders who have been excluded from the process, so I confine myself to
comments on that particular mechanism.

Questionnaires are a useful damage limitation tool for the Task Force:-

1) The Task Force can select only those questions for which it already has
answers.
2) Those affected have no mechanism to ask questions the Task Force doesn't
want to answer.
3) The questionnaire is open to the everybody, including those already
represented by the constituencies, in effect, skewing the questionnaire
results so as to dilute the views of those not represented elsewhere. It's a
"one-person, two or more votes" policy for the constituency members and
"one-person, no votes" policy for individuals excluded from constituency
membership.
3) All public comments can be ignored since the results are simply advisory,
rather than part of the mechanism to create policy.
4) Data from questionnaires takes so long to be extract, analyze and
publish, that it's usefulness is much diminished by the time the results are
released (example: WHOIS data).

Regards,
Joanna

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:36:01 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

I'd have to look back through the archives of my weblog to confirm it, but I
believe there's some precedent for changing ccTLD extensions when a country
changes names. I think ICANN successfully migrated a country to a new
extension last summer.

      -- Bret

- -- 
Bret Fausett | [email-masked] | http://www.lextext.com
Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP     Los Angeles, California
      Follow my ICANN Blog: http://icann.blog.us
___________________________________________________________

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> East Timor was formerly also known as "Timor Portuguesa"
> (hence .tp?). http://www.iana.org/root-whois/tp.htm
> 
> The official country name will now be
> "Republica Democratica de Timor Leste"
> (http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.asp?ID=1071)
> which makes .tl for Timor Leste quite probable.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:53:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'd have to look back through the archives of my weblog to confirm it, but I
> believe there's some precedent for changing ccTLD extensions when a country
> changes names. I think ICANN successfully migrated a country to a new
> extension last summer.
> 
>       -- Bret

Yes, indeed, that changes happen. 
We had .zr (Zaire) which was created in 1996:
960926 Zaire (Republic of) top-level domain (ZR2-DOM) 
and later on .cd (Congo Democratic) created in 1997:
970820 Congo (The Democratic Republic of the) top-level domain (CD27-DOM) 
because Zaire changed its name to Congo Democratic.

cf. http://www.ccwhois.org/ccwhois/cctld/ccTLDs-by-date.html

But it is exceptional that a ccTLD can be removed from
the root, and .zr was indeed an exceptional case.

The IANA Report on Deletion of the .zr Top-Level Domain
(20 June 2001) is at:
http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:14:47 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Solution to one problem,perhaps...

Has anyone ever thought about turning the operations model of the ICANN
process around... I have this bizarre concept that we can change how DNS
works in one fell swoop by creating a reasonably specific set of requirement
statements and sending them as an implementation request to the IETF...

No really - think this thru - how many of you have specific changes in
either the technology or process of operating the technology that resolves
the root of everything... with request for a next generation version of DNS
we can fix the things that are cumbersome in operating a Registrar or Root
Zone Service... heck we could add things like a Domain Revocation Control
Process for real-time shutdowns and the like...

This would also provide an interesting and new vision on how the management
team reacts to the IETF/IESG/IAB's just ramming another protocol out onto
the Internet without bothering to figure out what its impact or liabilities
are... And since today's Internet is not a test bed but a commercial
production network, maybe it needs to be treated as such.

My motion then to this GA is that we create a small WG to study and report
of the possibilities for adding services into the DNS environment for
enhanced security and to make a recommendation to the IETF that they charter
the DNS WG to implement this as per our specifications or to work with us on
perturbations. We can then look to corporate sponsorship of the process and
by this simple act we will have done a number of things.

    1)    Not that its critical, but the ISOC would have set a  value on
owning its own IP for operating itself.

    2)    The IETF would have a method of taking direction for development
of protocols specifically targeted or tuned to function as per commercial
and operational needs, rather than because you filled out the protocol port
form at IANA

Just a though

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

> Sandy
> > Harris
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:39 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> >
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > An ICANN that fails to either limit its mission so that voting isn't
> > > important, or that fails to honor the commitment to 50% control by
> > > an at-large made up predominantly of end-users, is going to be
> > an incumbent
> > > and insider protection society.  Unattractive.  Irresponsible.
> > Unstable.
> > > In fact, doomed.
> >
> > Thank you. That is the best summary of ICANN's
> > problems I've seen.
>
>
> Certainly the most succinct. I concur.
> Regards,
> Joanna
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:30:13 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

At 03:36 PM 16/05/02 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>I'd have to look back through the archives of my
>weblog to confirm it, but I believe there's some
>precedent for changing ccTLD extensions when a country
>changes names. I think ICANN successfully migrated
>a country to a new extension last summer.

Zaire (.zr), perhaps upset that South Africa got (.za),
became Congo, Democratic Republic of the (.cd) in what
was surely a savvy marketing move. The process began in
1997 and was completed in August 2001. See:
http://www.iana.org/reports/zr-report-20jun01.htm

There's another potential change coming up for .yu
as I reported here:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?thold=-1&mode=flat&order=1&sid=642#5307

:) -g

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:49:01 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] NC BS

William,
By that logic, neither Amadeu Abril as an ICANN Director, nor any GA Task
Force Representative have the necessary mandate to hold their current
positions. Are you suggesting we restage these elections? Or could it be
that you just want Jamie to use up his daily quota on minutiae, so that he
can't usefully campaign for his Motion?
Regards,
Joanna

> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> : > What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA,
> and
> : > are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS
> policy, and
> : > follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would
> be
> : > the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
> :
> : Because the rules specifically state that they are not GA members.
> :
> : There is no logic involved, it is a simple fact.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:27:09 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA motions on ICANN Reform - voting % thus far

[To: [email-masked]]

FYI.

To the GA Members 

After 24 hours of vote, 141 ballots have been received.
Total voting electorate: 586  
That is 24%

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:08:01 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Solution to one problem,perhaps...

At 04:14 p.m. 16/05/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>... with request for a next generation version of DNS
>we can fix the things that are cumbersome in operating a Registrar or Root
>Zone Service... heck we could add things like a Domain Revocation Control
>Process for real-time shutdowns and the like...

Makes the question of who "we" are even more pressing...

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:11:30 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Bushwhacked by the registries and registrars

Danny Younger wrote:
> Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service collects funds from the
> "stakeholders" (citizens) and yet the IRS does not have any say
> in how those
> funds are to be allocated. <snip>

Excellent point. And not only the IRS in America, also in Europe and
elsewhere. But this actually points to the enforcement issue. Because the
IRS does not set the taxes, it simply acts as an enforcement agency for
those who set the taxes (elected representatives of government), then
perhaps we should be thinking about splitting these functions in the context
of internet regulation also. If there was an enforcing agency, independent
of ICANN, (or its successor) would that solve some of the problems?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:15:49 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA vote: status

Thanks for the reminder. 

My own personal view is that while I don't fully agree with having such a vote, that Alexendar's motion comes closer to an acceptable approach, IF the GA seriously wants an improved functioning private sector led entity.  

I know that there is a concern, always, that people won't vote.

I agree that all GA members, regardless of their voting preference, should remember to vote! Even if you abstain. 

Best regards, 
Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA vote: status

[To: [email-masked]]

FYI.

To the GA Members 

After 24 hours of vote, 141 ballots have been received.
Total voting electorate: 586  
That is 24%

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:17:53 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Solution to one problem,perhaps...

todd glassey wrote:
 
> Has anyone ever thought about ... creating a
> reasonably specific set of requirement
> statements and sending them as an implementation
> request to the IETF...

I don't think it does or should work that way. If
you want to influence the IETF process, join their
working groups, or talk to the people who have.

> ... with request for a next generation version
> of DNS we can fix the things that are cumbersome
> in operating a Registrar or Root Zone Service...

That would be the DNS operations WG:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html

> heck we could add things like a Domain Revocation
> Control Process for real-time shutdowns and the
> like...

It isn't at all clear we need that. After all, it 
is pretty simple now. Delete a few records and wait
for changes to propogate. Sure a tool for that
might be handy, but that doesn't need protocol
changes. Just go write the tool.

If you want to make it "real-time" in the sense of
avoiding propagation delay, immediately killing
data that may be held in caches anywhere on the 
net, I think you're out of luck. Unless I've badly
misunderstood something pretty basic, you cannot
do that short of rewriting DNS from the ground up
and it isn't clear that a rewrite to that spec is
possible, let alone desirable.

Anyway, the hard issues for domain revocation are
questions of policy, not mechanism. Who gets
revoked? Spammers? Trademark violators? Terrorists?
Pornographers? Who makes revocation decisiond, and
how? and so on ...

> This would also provide an interesting and new
> vision on how the management team reacts to the
> IETF/IESG/IAB's just ramming another protocol
> out onto the Internet without bothering to figure
> out what its impact or liabilities are...

ROFL.

> And since today's Internet is not a test bed but
> a commercial production network, maybe it needs
> to be treated as such.

It is. Look at an archive of any WG list to verify
the players' affiliations.
 
> My motion then to this GA is that we create a small
> WG to study and report of the possibilities for
> adding services into the DNS environment for
> enhanced security and to make a recommendation to
> the IETF that they charter the DNS WG to implement
> this as per our specifications or to work with us
> on perturbations.

The IETF created a DNS security WG some time ago.
It has since been re-arranged, so the relevant
page is now:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html

Why on Earth would you imagine we can do this better?

I do think there might be a role for us in getting
DNS made more secure, but it is nothing like what
you suggest.

Basically, how you make DNS secure is by putting
public key signatures on DNS data so the recipients
can verify your authority for tha data,

So, should we be pushing ICANN to get root zones
signed, to include key management practice in the
things registry contracts cover, and so on? I'd 
say, emphatically yes, though it isn't clear that
this is urgent yet. It may not matter until there
are more servers ready to use the information.

Also, one of the major obstacles to deployment of
Secure DNS is that the .com zone is too large. If
you try to sign it, you hit several problems. The
records get a lot bigger, so the servers run out
of RAM, have to use disk, get much slower, ...
Also with several million records in .com, it is
expensive to sign it and perhaps prohibitively
so to keep signatures up to date.

So perhaps we should be looking at whether to
stop new .com registrations, revoke unused ones,
whatever. Of course this is tied to questions of
when and how to deploy alternatives.

In my view, if security is actually ICANN's most
important problem, as various peoplem proclaimed
when re-arranging the meeting agenda last fall,
then knocking .com down to manageable size should
be our top prority.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1200
*************************