Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1421
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 17 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1421

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:27:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Stuart,

Thanks for the clarification.  Let me see if I understand this correctly... 

You are basically saying to those ccTLD managers that are not under contract 
with ICANN that unless they comply with the terms as spelled out in ICP-1 
(which they have never approved) and with the terms set out in the 
"Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs" as developed by the 
Governmental Advisory Committee (which was never voted upon by the ICANN 
Board), that you will refuse to update their nameservers.

That sure sounds like blackmail to me.    
- --
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:43:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Stuart and all assembly members,

  This is a bit of an odd and lacking explanation that you provide Stuart.
If you will pardon my blunt response here, 38 ccTLD's does not
even represent 1/3 of the ccTLD's and, all be it a positive and
perhaps stabilizing move for Ripe to take over for the KPNQuest
of ns.eu.net, is hardly a reasonable response in the larger picture
of which Elizabeth and Danny have expressed concerns about.

  As you well know and has been well documented many in the ccTLD
community, did not and have not to this date agreed with the ICP-1
policy that the ICANN BoD has approved/edicted as you suggest
in http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm and more
specifically at http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm#A20
and has yet to receive the approval of the stakeholder/user community
to which ICANN under the White Paper and MoU makes very clear and
Elizabeth referenced in her response (See below).

  In conclusion or closing here Stuart, I and it seems ccTLD managers,
clearly do not agree with your explanation here in response to Danny and
Elizabeth.  And that ICP-1 is more of a desire of some very few
ICANN BOD and staff members than it is of the stakeholder/user
community.

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie
> Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps
> you might be interested in the facts before forming your
> "impressions".
>
> There is no threat to Internet stability.  Soon after KPNQwest
> announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume
> operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been
> operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation
> for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other
> nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time
> in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to
> handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it
> happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate
> nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed.
> (Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no
> contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs
> that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the
> process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute
> nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.
> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.
>
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
> >that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
> >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
> >
> >htm
> >
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> >
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> >for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> >in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> >for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> >root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> >once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> >http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
> >
> >Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> >stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> >the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
> >
> >Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> >on the TLD name servers,
> >
> >Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> >services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> >on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> >the ccTLD Managers,
> >
> >Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> >the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> >updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
> >
> >The NC therefore resolves that:
> >The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> >ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:15:36 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Hey Stuart,

This is really poorly written and not well thought out.
Your use of the word assume (ing) (tions) and the word fact are horrible and out of
place.

Then you just go on to make future assumptions based upon the word of proven liars.

Stuart Quit!  You are out of touch and out of date and ignorant and you hurt both
the credibility of the Internet and definitely ICANN.

Eric

"M. Stuart Lynn" wrote:

> You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie
> Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps
> you might be interested in the facts before forming your
> "impressions".
>
> There is no threat to Internet stability.  Soon after KPNQwest
> announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume
> operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been
> operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation
> for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other
> nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time
> in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to
> handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it
> happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate
> nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed.
> (Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no
> contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs
> that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the
> process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute
> nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.
> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.
>
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
> >that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
> >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
> >
> >htm
> >
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> >
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> >for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> >in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> >for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> >root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> >once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> >http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
> >
> >Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> >stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> >the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
> >
> >Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> >on the TLD name servers,
> >
> >Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> >services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> >on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> >the ccTLD Managers,
> >
> >Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> >the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> >updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
> >
> >The NC therefore resolves that:
> >The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> >ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> 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: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 21:51:59 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Stuarts' post seems almost surreal.  It clearly shows a complete lack of
reality.
After many years in fields such as Ministry, Law and Philosophy and a degree
in psychology I recognize this as one of two things and probably a combination
of both - delusion and deception.
That is a problem but the bigger one is that it appears to be a collective
problem.

eric

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>
> > .. Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have not yet been completed
> > because the ccTLD operators have (despite repeated requests) failed to
> > cooperate in allowing the IANA to perform technical checks as provided
> > by longstanding IANA policy.  See the FAQs at
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> for a description
> > that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD managers the policy, its
> > longstanding basis (documented back to RFC 1591 in March 1994), and the
> > means by which those seeking to change the policy should proceed.
>
> Longstanding? No. By-ICANN fiat? Yes.  Technical foundation: Absent.
>
> This so-called "longstanding" policy appeared as if by magic from
> ICANN/IANA (can you tell the difference? I guess is that the ICANN label
> means that there is a least a pretense, albeit usually merely a pretense,
> of public comment.)
>
> RFC 1591 says nothing about requiring zone transfer access so that
> ICANN/IANA may dredge to an unlimited degree in the subsidiary zone's
> data.
>
> The extremely limited validation that is needed to check that a DNS
> delegation works can easily be done by running actual DNS queries rather
> than by demanding the right to rummage through a ccTLD (or gTLD's) entire
> database.
>
> It inconsistent for ICANN to claim on one hand that net stability (a term
> never defined by ICANN) requires that ICANN intrude into the zone files of
> ccTLDs to evaluate the "quality" of that zone data while on the other hand
> that that apparently long delays (such as have occurred with .nz) have no
> such impact on net stability.
>
> I would like to know the *precise* techical basis for the assertions made
> in http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm that flaws in
> subsidiary zones (such as a ccTLD) can have a negative impact on the
> parent zone.  (A variation of this same assertion has been made with
> regard to the euphonically named NTEPPTF report.)  As far as I can tell,
> such claims are specious and without merit.
>
> If DNS were as feeble and weak as ICANN asserts then the net would be open
> to a vast denial of service attack - bad people could bring down the net
> simply by building incorrect zone files.  But for more than a decade
> people have been building bad zone files, creating lame delegations, and
> pointing NS and glue records into never-never land.  Yet DNS and the net
> still run.  Why?  Because in DNS, the flow of control is from the top down
> (the way ICANN likes) rather than from the bottom up.  Errors in
> incorrectly configured subsidiary zones do not propogate upwards.
>
> The limit to ICANN's needs for quality in root data is merely to ensure
> that the delegation records for a subsidiary zone (e.g. a ccTLD) are
> correct and that any glue records are valid.
>
> As usual, ICANN looks for reasons to tread where ICANN ought not be
> treading - ICANN is like a telephone repairman who insists that repairing
> your home telephone requires that he have unlimited ability to inspect the
> bedroom and other private living quarters.
>
> To withhold updates to ccTLD delegation information because the ccTLD
> operators refuse to acceed to unjustifiable and excessive intrusions from
> ICANN is improper.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:35:30 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: US Cybersecurity Plan, DNS and protocols

[via politechbot.com]
	
White House preps cybersecurity plan
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=dnso-ga
 
 By Declan McCullagh
 Staff Writer, CNET News.com
 September 16, 2002, 6:58 PM PT

 WASHINGTON--The White House's cyberspace security plan, scheduled 
 to be released Wednesday, envisions a broad new role for the 
 federal government in maintaining Internet security.

 [...]

 Another point of criticism is the Domain Name System (DNS), which 
 translates domain names such as cnet.com into numeric addresses 
 such as 206.16.0.148. "The accuracy of the data in the DNS databases 
 needs to be improved and stronger mechanisms are needed to ensure 
 the authentication of the DNS database along with changes to the 
 database," the report concludes.

 The draft suggests that it's time for the federal government to 
 become more involved in the development of Internet protocols, 
 security and standards- -a role currently assumed by the Internet 
 Engineering Task Force. 

 Government, it says, must "conduct research and development for 
 the collective good. This is a role that the government played 
 during the founding of the Internet...The federal government, 
 without regulating or controlling the Internet, should 
 systematically ensure that necessary research and similar 
 activities are conducted to insure the security and reliability 
 of the Internet."  

 [...]

- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:59:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On 2002-09-16 16:14:02 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

>Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have not yet been  
>completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite repeated  
>requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to perform  
>technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.

Two questions:

1. What particular circumstances surrounding a change in secondary  
name servers make these checks so necessary that the change must be 
held up until the checks have been performed?

2. Were there any actual threats to stability due to the fact that 
IANA did not exercise its access to zone files from 1999-2001?

Thanks,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 07:23:37 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.

This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and other
peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide behind. For
instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a dozen school girls
involved in various sexual acts and after doing a header analysis, we find
it comes from a domain called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy Scouts
of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all bounce...

And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its contact
data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I have to ask -
Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the Whois or other
"client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?

This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse for
plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.

Todd

- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:04:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Lying to the RIRs

The ERC's Update Regarding RIR Submissions makes the following statement:

"It is semantic to the extent that we expect the ASO to continue to develop 
and propose global policies that in fact have or will receive broad community 
support, in which case the ICANN Board will simply accept (ratify) the 
proposal."

The ICANN Board has a long history of refusing to ratify proposals that have 
received broad community support, their action to reject the DNSO 
recommendation on WLS being but the latest example.   The Board no longer 
"coordinates" policies developed by others, instead they act unilaterally to 
create and impose policy at odds with the consensus of the community.  The 
RIRs are to be applauded for taking a stance against this egregious tyrant.

ICANN no longer understands what it means to "coordinate".  They have become 
accustomed to dictating policy from the top-down and intend to brook no 
checks upon their authority.  As Chuck Costello, the Vice Chair of the At 
Large Study Committee (ALSC), so eloquently stated:  "The management proposal 
is not merely a reform proposal, nor is it evolutionary. Rather, it is a 
declared intent of a palace coup d'etat from within ICANN." 

They may call it "reform", but it is nothing more than the pursuit of 
unrestrained power and the denial of our long-standing tradition of 
consensus-based decision-making.  ICANN can no longer lay claim to being the 
steward of the public trust.  It has repeatedly proven that it can't be 
trusted to act in the public interest.  Currently it is blackmailing the 
ccTLD community.  Who will next fall victim to its extortion?  Is this how 
one manages a public trust?  

- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:51:24 +0200
From: "Sabine Dolderer/Denic" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Dear Stuart,

On 17.09.2002 01:14 "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie
> Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps
> you might be interested in the facts before forming your
> "impressions".
>
> There is no threat to Internet stability.

from DENIC's sight I can not agree with you on that as it violates at least
the stability of .DE.

> Soon after KPNQwest
> announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume
> operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been
> operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation
> for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other
> nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time
> in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to
> handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it
> happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate
> nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed.
> (Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no
> contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs
> that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the
> process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute
> nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.

"Longstanding policy" cannot be implemented by unilatteraly changing the
rules. The status of ICP 1 is unclear and in rfc 1591 there is no
requirement of zonetransfer. IANA itself says that in the past there was no
check of the zones and frankly I have still no idea which technical check
can be performed by using the zone. In our opinion IANA is asking for data
which is not needed and IANA is not authorized to ask for to perform its
function and where DENIC has  no mandate from it's customers to give away.

> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.

In RFC 1591 contains no requirement for zonetransfers.

>
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.

Yes, but as you know dns.xlink.net another KPNQwest server has some
problems,

Sabine

>
> Stuart
>
>
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on
name
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression
that
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are
engaged in
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me
that
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been
made
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a
subject
> >that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the
stability of
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your
staff
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
>
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.

> >
> >htm
> >
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> >
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> >for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> >in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> >for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> >root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> >once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> >http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
> >
> >Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> >stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> >the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
> >
> >Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> >on the TLD name servers,
> >
> >Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> >services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> >on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> >the ccTLD Managers,
> >
> >Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> >the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> >updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
> >
> >The NC therefore resolves that:
> >The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> >ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html
>
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> 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
>
>
- --
Sabine  Dolderer
DENIC eG
Wiesenhüttenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt

eMail: [email-masked]
Fon: +49 69 27235 0
Fax: +49 69 27235 235

- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:28:17 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Thomas,

Thanks for your questions. See responses below.  References to FAQs 
are to "Frequently Asked Questions on Access to TLD Zone Files" at 
<http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>.

Stuart

Thomas Roessler wrote:
[snip]
>Two questions:
>
>1. What particular circumstances surrounding a change in secondary 
>name servers make these checks so necessary that the change must be 
>held up until the checks have been performed?
>

One of ICANN's significant efforts (prompted by requests by many 
ccTLD operators) has been to improve the IANA function to make its 
operations more consistent and timely.  Although resource limitations 
until 2001 resulted in the IANA making discretionary judgments on 
some occasions that the zone-file-accuracy check would be skipped, 
applying that kind of selectivity is not desirable since it can seem 
ad hoc and not policy-driven.  Accordingly, database accuracy checks 
are now performed in all cases at the time of nameserver changes. 
FAQs 5-7 summarize the checks that are done, which the IANA typically 
completes the same day the zone file is made available.

Your question hints at another important issue, which perhaps should 
give rise to a policy-development process in this area.  The IANA 
performs the zone file checks at the time of nameserver changes 
because that was the time at which the checks were done in the ISI 
era.  FAQ 14 discusses the reasons for this.  It seems reasonable, 
however, that going to a system of periodic checks of TLD zone files, 
rather than checking at the time of nameserver changes, might be a 
better way to address the problems of DNS database accuracy and 
consistency.  As pointed out in FAQs 19 and 20, we should all be 
receptive to improving coordination methods, and an examination of 
whether there are better ways to accomplish the goal of a sound, 
properly configured DNS would be an appropriate topic of a 
policy-development process.

>2. Were there any actual threats to stability due to the fact that 
>IANA did not exercise its access to zone files from 1999-2001?

First, let me clarify that the IANA did perform *some* TLD zone-file 
checks in 1999-2001.  For the reasons noted in FAQ 16, it did not do 
this routinely.  This situation has now been corrected.

As to problems from the less-than-uniform checking in the period up 
to 2001, it is of course difficult to say what errors weren't caught 
because some checks were not done.  During that period, however, 
errors were caught in cases where checks were done, and the IANA's 
more recent checks of previously unchecked TLDs have revealed some 
errors (that might or not have been present when earlier checks were 
skipped).  Of course, the DNS is very resilient and inevitably has 
many errors at any given time.  What is useful is a constructive, 
problem-solving approach to minimize the number and severity of 
errors.
>

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [email-masked]
- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:28:24 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Dear Sabine:

Thank you for your comments. I give specific references to FAQs (see
http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm) that address your points.

Reasonable people can always differ on these matters. However, we
believe that we are following long-established policy in a uniform
manner for the reasons stated in the FAQs. There may be better ways
to accomplish the desired stability goals.  (I discuss one idea in my 
message to Thomas Roessler.) If so, we would strongly encourage a 
review
through the ICANN policy process. It is always useful to re-examine
policies from time to time.

Stuart

Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:

>Dear Stuart,
>
[snip]

>"Longstanding policy" cannot be implemented by unilatteraly 
>changing >the rules.

***There is no change to the rules. See FAQ 14-16

>The status of ICP 1 is unclear and in rfc 1591 there is no
>requirement of zonetransfer.

***See FAQ 14

>IANA itself says that in the past there was no check of the zones and
>frankly I have still no idea which technical check can be performed 
>by >using the zone.

***See FAQs 5-8

>In our opinion IANA is asking for data which is not needed and IANA is
>not authorized to ask for to perform its function and where DENIC has
>no mandate from it's customers to give away.

***See FAQs 10-14

>>   See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
>>   for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
>>   managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
>>   1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
>>   the policy should proceed.
>
>In RFC 1591 contains no requirement for zonetransfers.

***See FAQs 7, 14
- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [email-masked]
- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:10:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

On 2002-09-17 07:23:37 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

>And in instances like this one, if the NIC bothered to check its  
>contact data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. 
>So I have to ask - Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of  
>taking reports or doing anything about these fraudulent or  
>inaccurate listings in the Whois or other "client databases"  
>maintained buy the NIC's?

There is a central form which you can use for such reports at  
<http://www.internic.net/>.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:58:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Stuart,

As a reasonable man, do you plan to protect the stability of the Internet by 
acceding to the reasonable request for these nameserver updates while the 
ICP-1 policy is re-examined?
- --
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 #1421
*************************