Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1422
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 18 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1422

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

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:58:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, at 14:51 [=GMT+0200], Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:

> > 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,

The Open Root Server Consortium (ORSC) has the (new) nameservers for .DE
as advertized by your .DE zonefile as of late last night (our time).
Normally the ORSC maintains the root zone for the ccTLDs by copying
ICANN's zone. If ICANN cannot deal with changes in a reasonable way, it
may be best, if the ccTLDs inform ORSC in the future of any nameserver
changes...

- --
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 15:46:02 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group

Hello Peter,

It looks like you have received some of your answers in the recently 
published "Third Status Report: Formation of ccNSO Assistance Group"
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-17sep02.htm

Of course, none of your important questions have been answered -- but, after 
all, this is the new and reformed unaccountable ICANN, so what else could you 
possibly expect?

"The following ccTLD managers, participants of the GAC, and other 
knowledgeable members of the community have agreed to participate in this 
Assistance Group: Sebastian Bachollet; Bart Boswinkel; Becky Burr; Chris 
Disspain; Hartmut Glaser; Alf Hansen; Hiro Hotta; Geoff Huston; Michael 
Katundu; Christian de Larrinaga; Pierre Ouedraogo; Patricio Poblete; Oscar 
Robles; Philip Sheppard;Mohd Sharil Tarmizi; Kiyoshi Tsuru; and Bernard 
Turcotte."

Peter wrote:
Dear Alex,

The adcom has been approached by the North American and South American
representatives with the news that your committee has privately requested
that they agree to serve on an Assistance Group your committee is proposing
to form. A copy of  one of your invitation letters is pasted below.

You will understand how confusing and even distressing this is to us, as you
undertook in two conversations with us, when we proposed the formation of
such a group to you, that you would have further discussions with us on a
number of matters. One of those was the formation of such a group, in which
case we had suggested that the Adcom or its nominees would be the
appropriate cctld representatives. A second issue was the nature of the
mandate of any such group, and in particular its ability to "bridge" the
current gap between the ccSO designed after a bottom-up process by the
cctlds, and the ccNSO proposed in the Blueprint apparently without reference
to the cctld consensus.

The two representatives of the adcom you have approached have indicated to
us that they need Adcom approval if they are to accept your invitations to
serve.

We understand because of the time pressure placed on them in your request,
several may have already provided you with an answer, before our
deliberations on this have concluded.
If the matter is as urgent as your behaviour indicates, we wonder why there
has been silence from you since our calls last month, and why you are yet to
reply to our follow up enquiry of August 30.

To allow Adcom to make a decision on the matter, and to advise the other
cctld
managers we understand you have also privately approached, we ask for
answers to the following questions:

1. Do you intend to continue discussing the formation of an assistance group
with the cctld representatives, or are those discussions discontinued on
your part?

2. Which cctld managers have you picked to be on your group, and what are
the principles by which that selection was made?

3. Which other non- cctld representatives have you thought it appropriate to
add to your  group, and what are the criteria you have developed and applied
in your selection process?

4. What is the mandate of the assistance group, and particularly, is
bridging the gap between the cctld consensus position and the Blueprint
ruled out?

You will understand the temptation for the Adcom to regard this group as a
top down device, cynically designed to provide evidence of support for the
Blueprint from a constituency of ICANN that has publicly opposed several
major features of the Blueprint. You will understand the dilemma your
conduct poses to cctlds, who in the main continue to be supporters of a
White paper principles-based ICANN, and who oppose your procedures and
conclusions but nevertheless wonder whether it might be appropriate to take
one more (possibly final) chance to contribute to the shared ideal.

The difficulty they face is in accepting appointment to a position which
seems
to be limited to implementing something the cctlds have articulated clear
consensus disagreement with.

The answers to our questions will be of assistance in advising our members,
and we look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

ccTLD adcom

- --
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 17:36:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] self-organization

Does ICANN have any principles left?  

It used to believe in the principle of self-organization, but now it chooses 
to dictate to ccTLD managers exactly how they should construct their own 
Supporting Organization.  We have a Board Committee soliciting advice from 
others not even in the proposed SO on how to best impose a top-down solution 
upon a community that has already demonstrated its resolve and capability to 
self-organize.

The other day Alf Hansen wrote:  "As a ccTLD manager for .no I would not 
accept if the DNSO started to dictate how my relations to the Norwegian 
Government should be and how our internal formation of local policy was 
organized."  One has to wonder if Alf, now a member of the ccNSO assistance 
group, is comfortable with ICANN's meddling in the internal affairs of the 
ccTLDs.  One also has to wonder why others such as Phil Sheppard, the former 
Chair of the DNSO Council, would willingly agree to stick his nose into the 
business of another SO, instead of respecting the right of the ccTLD Adcom to 
pursue its own legitimate plans without interference.

- --
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 17:32:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] From Politech: Better version of text of White House draft cybersecurity plan

All assembly members,

  In an earlier post that Alexander sent to the assembly members
here.

A more accurate and up to date version from Politech is follows:

==========  Copy from Politech on White House cybersecurity plan
========
Subject: FC: Better version of text of White House draft cybersecurity
plan
   Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 06:49:35 -0400
   From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
     To: [email-masked]

Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html

- ---

From: SteelHead <[email-masked]>
Organization: LinuxHelpers
To: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: White House draft plan wants new Internet role for Feds
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 03:35:56 -0700

I have converted all of the pages to jpg's and posted them along with
the efx files.  If you use a windows box www.efax.com has a reader
availible for free, but you do need to give them an email address.

All of the files are in  http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/

I expect there should be like 108 files in there if it all went
correctly.

I did not have time it OCR them, there were more than I expected, but
the pages should be readable as an image.  I have limited bandwidth so
please be patient with my server.

Bill

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

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/

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

Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays:
http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:33:34 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be 
addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
effort on policy and implementation.

vint

At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>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

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:37:28 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The proposed ccNSO Assistance Group

At 17.09.2002 15:46, [email-masked] wrote:
>"The following ccTLD managers, participants of the GAC, and other 
>knowledgeable members of the community have agreed to participate in this 
>Assistance Group:

With some annotations from me (and Google):

Sebastian Bachollet (Business Constituency, CIGREF)
Bart Boswinkel (.nl ccTLD)
Becky Burr (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering [->VeriSign])
Chris Disspain (.au ccTLD)
Hartmut Glaser (.br ccTLD, LACNIC)
Alf Hansen (.no ccTLD)
Hiro Hotta (.jp ccTLD, NTT, ISP/CP) 
Geoff Huston (IAB, Telstra, APNIC)
Michael Katundu (Kenya GAC representative)
Christian de Larrinaga (ISOC England)
Pierre Ouedraogo (.bf ccTLD)
Patricio Poblete (.cl ccTLD)
Oscar Robles (.mx ccTLD)
Philip Sheppard (Business Constituency, AIM, former NC Chair)
Mohd Sharil Tarmizi (GAC Vice Chair, Malaysia representative)
Kiyoshi Tsuru (IP consultant, WIPO panellist, Mexico)
Bernard Turcotte (.ca ccTLD)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:47:58 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: self-organization

Danny and all,

Since my name was mentioned:

I think it would have been better if the ccTLDs themselves had been
asked to select their own representatives in the ERC Assistance Group,
but they were not asked.

Instead ICANN selcted the participants. In this context

- - I represent only myself.
- - I am only giving advise to ERC.
- - The ERC may choose to listen to the advises or not.
- - If they decide not to listen to the Assisteance Group, they have to
make 
  visible to everyone why.
- - Since I and the other participants represent only ourselves in our 
  personal capacity (not the views of the ccTTLDs or other groups), 
  I do not see that this exercise is particulary useful. To pick a 
  few number of individuals to give serious advises influencing a large 
  numer of groups in the Internet, shows in my view very well that this
is 
  not a bottom up process. 

  But since I believe in communication rather than boycott, I have
offered 
  to participate.
- - In any case I and the other participants will not dictate anything. 
  We will give the ERC some advices. The ERC make the choises.

Best regards,
Alf H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 17. september 2002 23:37
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: self-organization
> 
> 
> Does ICANN have any principles left?  
> 
> It used to believe in the principle of self-organization, but 
> now it chooses 
> to dictate to ccTLD managers exactly how they should 
> construct their own 
> Supporting Organization.  We have a Board Committee 
> soliciting advice from 
> others not even in the proposed SO on how to best impose a 
> top-down solution 
> upon a community that has already demonstrated its resolve 
> and capability to 
> self-organize.
> 
> The other day Alf Hansen wrote:  "As a ccTLD manager for .no 
> I would not 
> accept if the DNSO started to dictate how my relations to the 
> Norwegian 
> Government should be and how our internal formation of local 
> policy was 
> organized."  One has to wonder if Alf, now a member of the 
> ccNSO assistance 
> group, is comfortable with ICANN's meddling in the internal 
> affairs of the 
> ccTLDs.  One also has to wonder why others such as Phil 
> Sheppard, the former 
> Chair of the DNSO Council, would willingly agree to stick his 
> nose into the 
> business of another SO, instead of respecting the right of 
> the ccTLD Adcom to 
> pursue its own legitimate plans without interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:39:58 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

At 17.09.2002 14:58, [email-masked] wrote:
>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 standoff is painted a bit too dramatic by both sides.

ICANN is insisting on a principle (first a zone transfer, /then/
a nameserver), although it probably does not expect that giant
ccTLDs like .de/DENIC have malformed root zones which the ccTLD
operator does not check for RFC compliance.

The ccTLDs are insisting on a principle (no zone transfer to 
IANA), although they probably do not expect ICANN to use the
data for illicit purposes and they can get written assurances
required by national privacy laws.

The main problem is the lack of detailed and accepted procedures.
RFC 1591 is not clear: "There must be a primary and a secondary 
nameserver that have IP connectivity to the Internet and can be 
easily checked for operational status and database accuracy by 
the IR and the IANA." Operational status and database accuracy
can be checked in various ways. The controversial ICP-1 is 
supposed to contain only existing policies; however, this 
specific policy has only been enforced from time to time during 
1999-2001. It is understandable that ccTLD operators perceive
this as a new requirement -- for them, it /is/.

The issue behind the problem is of course the ccTLD-ICANN 
relationship. Some ccTLDs continue to talk to ICANN like customers
of a provider of root services, because that's what they want
it to be. ICANN continues to talk to ccTLDs like the Guardian 
of the DNS, rigidly applying its requirements even -- or rather:
especially -- in cases where swift action is needed.
ICANN seems to think: If we allow one change of a nameserver
entry without exercising our rights, we might lose them.
Some ccTLD seem to think: If we allow ICANN to inspect our
zone files, we accept some form of ICANN "supremacy" forever.

In the end, we need to discuss the ICP-1 requirement again,
without the question of precedents obscuring the view.
CENTR states: "Whilst some tests could be conducted on the zone 
file - such as for syntactic correctness - we do not believe 
they are of sufficient importance to justify the need for zone 
transfers." (http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-AXFR.html)
ICANN a.k.a. IANA states: "Proper DNS configuration of all TLD 
zones is a global, not just a local, issue." 
(http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm)

Why not set up a small, technically oriented task force with
people from ICANN and ccTLDs to find out what checks ICANN 
would have performed, how these checks could be performed
without transferring zone files or at least in a much more
secure way. If the ccTLDs have to be content with a written
assurance by ICANN that their data will not be misused, 
ICANN should equally be content with a written assurance by
the ccTLD operator that a suite of consistency tests has 
been performed according to mutually agreed procedures.
Of course, some ccTLDs may actually prefer to have ICANN 
perform the tests independently.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 18:39:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: self-organization

Alf and all assembly members,

  As one whom has been a ICANN apologist for some time and of some
renown, it is not surprising that you were one of the folks "Selected"
for this "ERC Assistance Group" as it is called..  Given that you are
however
one that recognizes that the evolving and convoluting ICANN of late
is not a bottoms-up process helps gain some small amount of confidence
in your potential objectivity.  No doubt that that was one of the factors
in which you were selected for this dubious "ERC Assistance Group".

  However as the very process of "Selection" rather than election
or volunteer participation was not considered in essence puts this
"ERC Assistance Group" in some serious question as to it's
legitimacy in accordance with the White Paper and the MoU.
Hence any advice that you or any of the other "Selected"
members of this dubious group may provide and acted upon or
addressed in any serious manner will none the less only further fan the
fires of discontent, distrust, and dismay in the ICANN staff and BoD.

Alf Hansen wrote:

> Danny and all,
>
> Since my name was mentioned:
>
> I think it would have been better if the ccTLDs themselves had been
> asked to select their own representatives in the ERC Assistance Group,
> but they were not asked.
>
> Instead ICANN selcted the participants. In this context
>
> - I represent only myself.
> - I am only giving advise to ERC.
> - The ERC may choose to listen to the advises or not.
> - If they decide not to listen to the Assisteance Group, they have to
> make
>   visible to everyone why.
> - Since I and the other participants represent only ourselves in our
>   personal capacity (not the views of the ccTTLDs or other groups),
>   I do not see that this exercise is particulary useful. To pick a
>   few number of individuals to give serious advises influencing a large
>   numer of groups in the Internet, shows in my view very well that this
> is
>   not a bottom up process.
>
>   But since I believe in communication rather than boycott, I have
> offered
>   to participate.
> - In any case I and the other participants will not dictate anything.
>   We will give the ERC some advices. The ERC make the choises.
>
> Best regards,
> Alf H
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 17. september 2002 23:37
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: self-organization
> >
> >
> > Does ICANN have any principles left?
> >
> > It used to believe in the principle of self-organization, but
> > now it chooses
> > to dictate to ccTLD managers exactly how they should
> > construct their own
> > Supporting Organization.  We have a Board Committee
> > soliciting advice from
> > others not even in the proposed SO on how to best impose a
> > top-down solution
> > upon a community that has already demonstrated its resolve
> > and capability to
> > self-organize.
> >
> > The other day Alf Hansen wrote:  "As a ccTLD manager for .no
> > I would not
> > accept if the DNSO started to dictate how my relations to the
> > Norwegian
> > Government should be and how our internal formation of local
> > policy was
> > organized."  One has to wonder if Alf, now a member of the
> > ccNSO assistance
> > group, is comfortable with ICANN's meddling in the internal
> > affairs of the
> > ccTLDs.  One also has to wonder why others such as Phil
> > Sheppard, the former
> > Chair of the DNSO Council, would willingly agree to stick his
> > nose into the
> > business of another SO, instead of respecting the right of
> > the ccTLD Adcom to
> > pursue its own legitimate plans without interference.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:48:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

Vinton and all assembly members,

  I amongst a huge number of stakeholders/users and of course
Assembly members hope that incidents or repetition such as
this one that Todd properly again revisited here, will also prompt
a goodly number of ICANN BoD and staff members to resign post
haste due to lack of adequate performance.

  This amongst a number of other missteps and poor judgments
from the ICANN BOD and staff seem to require that a
12 step program similar to AAA would be in order here.
However as some here are well aware, many drunks
fall off the wagon several times before becoming reformed.
Hence the ICANN reform effort needs to also address
the personalities aspect as well.  Sadly it does not...

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be
> addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
> over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
> widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
> kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
> effort on policy and implementation.
>
> vint
>
> At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> >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
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 02:00:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Domain names are highly irrelevant in the struggle against spam (Re: [ga] Vint why do none...)

> At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:

> >I get this SPAM this morning
> >and after doing a header analysis, we find
> >it comes from a domain

The only thing certain about the origin of an email is the IP of the
mailserver through which it was sent. In many/most spam messages the
sender's email address in the header is fake, including the domain name(s)
involved. Even the hostname of the mailserver is quite often fake. We can
only rely on the IP.

> >called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy Scouts
> >of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all bounce...

- --
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 21:42:17 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[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...

Todd,

You are barking up the wrong tree.

ICANN doesn't even maintain proper whois data for an entire TLD - .cx.

The whois data for the .cx TLD lists a company which has been defunct for
three years.

And you think they are going to fix second-level domain registrations?

Dream on.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of todd
> glassey
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:24 AM
> To: vint cerf
> Cc: [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
>
>

- --
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 21:52:31 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

>
> 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.

How about identifying an existing entity in the contact data maintained by
IANA for .cx?

Given that you refuse to update the whois information for an entire TLD, I
can't see how you say things like that with a straight face.

- --
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 21:22:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

Alexander and all assembly members,

  Although the explanations that Alex provides below are to a small degree
correct, they are also overly simplistic as well.  (See more below
Alex's comments/statements ).

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 17.09.2002 14:58, [email-masked] wrote:
> >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 standoff is painted a bit too dramatic by both sides.

  Perhaps, and than again perhaps not.  First Alex, let's not forget
that ICANN's ICP-1 is not broadly supported by the stakeholders/users
and does not, and never has enjoyed any form of consensus amongst
the Registry part of those stakeholders/users.

>
>
> ICANN is insisting on a principle (first a zone transfer, /then/
> a nameserver), although it probably does not expect that giant
> ccTLDs like .de/DENIC have malformed root zones which the ccTLD
> operator does not check for RFC compliance.

  RFC compliance is silly really as RFC are not standards and never
have been nor were intended to be.  RFC's are Requests for Comments,
nothing more.

>
>
> The ccTLDs are insisting on a principle (no zone transfer to
> IANA), although they probably do not expect ICANN to use the
> data for illicit purposes and they can get written assurances
> required by national privacy laws.

  National privacy laws do and should supersede anything ICANN
wishes to impose upon the ccTLD's or for that matter any TLD what
so ever in any country.

>
>
> The main problem is the lack of detailed and accepted procedures.
> RFC 1591 is not clear: "There must be a primary and a secondary
> nameserver that have IP connectivity to the Internet and can be
> easily checked for operational status and database accuracy by
> the IR and the IANA." Operational status and database accuracy
> can be checked in various ways. The controversial ICP-1 is
> supposed to contain only existing policies; however, this
> specific policy has only been enforced from time to time during
> 1999-2001. It is understandable that ccTLD operators perceive
> this as a new requirement -- for them, it /is/.

  ICP-1 is not a broadly excepted policy.  Unless or until it is
it is not really relevant as to the newness of it to any registry.

>
>
> The issue behind the problem is of course the ccTLD-ICANN
> relationship. Some ccTLDs continue to talk to ICANN like customers
> of a provider of root services, because that's what they want
> it to be. ICANN continues to talk to ccTLDs like the Guardian
> of the DNS, rigidly applying its requirements even -- or rather:
> especially -- in cases where swift action is needed.

  Good point here.  The ccTLD's are correct.  ICANN is not.
The White Paper and the MoU make the nature of this relationship
clear.

>
> ICANN seems to think: If we allow one change of a nameserver
> entry without exercising our rights, we might lose them.
> Some ccTLD seem to think: If we allow ICANN to inspect our
> zone files, we accept some form of ICANN "supremacy" forever.

  And both assumptions could not be further from actual operational
fact or good practice.

>
>
> In the end, we need to discuss the ICP-1 requirement again,
> without the question of precedents obscuring the view.

  Precedents never obscure an accurate view.

>
> CENTR states: "Whilst some tests could be conducted on the zone
> file - such as for syntactic correctness - we do not believe
> they are of sufficient importance to justify the need for zone
> transfers." (http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-AXFR.html)
> ICANN a.k.a. IANA states: "Proper DNS configuration of all TLD
> zones is a global, not just a local, issue."

  I agree with this view, and it is logical.  However others may not.

>
> (http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm)
>
> Why not set up a small, technically oriented task force with
> people from ICANN and ccTLDs to find out what checks ICANN
> would have performed, how these checks could be performed
> without transferring zone files or at least in a much more
> secure way. If the ccTLDs have to be content with a written
> assurance by ICANN that their data will not be misused,
> ICANN should equally be content with a written assurance by
> the ccTLD operator that a suite of consistency tests has
> been performed according to mutually agreed procedures.
> Of course, some ccTLDs may actually prefer to have ICANN
> perform the tests independently.

  This would be a good approach if and only if ICANN was
trusted.  However presently ICANN has shown clearly that
it is not to be trusted.

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1422
*************************