Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1424
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 18 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1424

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:55:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: IPC on ALAC

Hello Steve,

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the "metric for representativeness" 
along with other matters.  As I review the mailing list archives for 
different At-Large structures over the course of the last six months, I note 
thousands upon thousands of postings by hundreds and hundreds of active 
involved members.  On the other hand, when I review the mailing list archives 
of the IPC, I see only 16 postings in total by only eight members in the last 
half year.  

Clearly though, list discussion is only one metric by which the viability of 
a group may be measured, and I am pleased to note that while your list 
traffic is inordinately low (not even one post in the last two and a half 
months), you somehow manage to convey the position of your entire 
constituency without the benefit of any such discussion.  It must be a 
tribute to your excellent leadership to be able to issue these position 
papers without any recourse to the actual opinions or vote of your membership.

But before we begin establishing threshhold metrics designed to keep others 
from participating, why don't we first review whether your own organization 
even deserves to remain a part of the GNSO.  I see little value in your 
continued participation while other interest groups (ranging from privacy 
coalitions to individual domain name holders) are denied an equal opportunity 
to be a member of the Council.  Why should policy decisions regarding the DNS 
continue to be skewed by intellectual property owners when those in 
opposition to your interests should rightfully command an equal voice and 
counterbalance in the process?  

It would be far better to remove your constituency from the process until 
such time as parity and balance is achieved, wouldn't you agree?  After all, 
you do support the notion of fairness, don't you?

- --
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 10:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:59:33 -0700, you wrote:

> >Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
> >not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
> >collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
> 
> While I understand this objection, I also note that many of the people
> who participate in icannatlarge.com, in the ALOC or in the other At
> Large efforts are acting on behalf of organizations who collectively
> represent thousands of members.

I have a concern that the assertion of representation is frequently
nothing but a bald assertion.  For example, I have several interests in
intellectual property - I have various patent, trademark, and copyright
rights.  And I am a member of the California State Bar section on
Intellectual Property (I'm speaking at its annual meeting next month).  
But I have not given my assent to be represented by those on the IPC.

In fact how do we know that those people on the IPC are actually who they
say they are and that they are properly accredited by the bodies they
claim to represent?  Requirements for identification and authentication
have been imposed on at-large and used as reasons to disembowel the
at-large.  Why are such requirements not imposed equally on other bodies 
within ICANN?

		--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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:19:10 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[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...

> enough ICANN is still the best place to enforce that. Because 
> without DNS services they are dead in the water.

Big difference between registration services and DNS services.

Just my $0.02 ;)

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of todd glassey
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: vinton g. cerf
> Cc: [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...
> 
> 
> Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's 
> email and other contact info items are/is bogus. The real 
> issue is that the NIC's must start to be accountable for the 
> integrity of the information they are using to justify or 
> authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances 
> where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars 
> really need to be liable for their actions, i.e. the 
> enablement of the SPAM itself.
> 
> In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues 
> and we all know where those lawsuits have gone and what their 
> outcome is. What I propose is two fold. The first is that the 
> registrars need to be accountable for providing services that 
> are used to hurt other people or to impede their IP rights. 
> The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be 
> accountable for what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly 
> enough ICANN is still the best place to enforce that. Because 
> without DNS services they are dead in the water.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
> Subject: 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
> 

- --
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 10:41:14 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to informthem of  WHOIS data that is wrong...

Rick,

Your analysis is sterling, however to suggest that someone else is lame so I might
as well be is a little poor in the area of social propriety.
I also think we should be careful is speaking of all the NICs - i consider ccTLD
managers nics.
Sincerely,
eric

Rick Wesson wrote:

> Todd,
>
> your email address is harvestable from the archive of this list, from each
> post to usenet, from your web page etc. the whois is but one source that
> provides harvestable email addresses.
>
> As for enforcement; ICANN is not the place becuase it has no powers to
> enforce, the place is the courts, and congress;
>
> -rick
>

- --
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 19:50:10 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On 17 Sep 2002, at 22:59, [email-masked] wrote:

> > "The report seems to suggest that a regional at-large structure with as few 
> > as 200 individual members could be accredited to exercise responsibilities 
> > including direct appointment of a member of the Nominating Committee.  This 
> > number appears far too low to justify a claim of representativeness of the 
> > range of "individual Internet users" from any region, and certainly from 
> > regions in which there are tens or hundreds of millions of such Internet 
> > users."
> > http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/alacag/pdf00000.pdf
> > 
> > As of March 2002, the IPC had only 66 members.
> 
> Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
> not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
> collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
> 
> I know you know this.  Why do you deliberately make such a 
> misrepresentation? 

The IPC with its 66 members representing "tens of thousands of members" is as 
unrepresentative as any other club on the Net. 
The concept of representativeness the IPC report is referring to does not and will never 
work on the Internet. Only electorates with enumerable citizens can generate 
representative bodies. Internet users are not countable. Thus, an At Large membership can 
never be representative "of the range of individual Internet users". 

I assume the IPC is aware of this. Why then does the IPC repeat this misconception again 
and again? 

jeanette
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:25:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

Just as the US has state and populace representation.  We must have both
also.
Special interests (a State) populace a certain number of People.

And the only way for user representation to work is through a system that
creates some assemblance of equality between the two.

In that there is no human rights bill for the internet it would seem that the
laws should be left to protect the IPC and that ICANN should balance that
with users interests.
OTOH this overweighing on behalf of IP interests will be their undoing on the
internet.  Can you spell WorldCom?  Is ATT headed in the same direction?
Embracing the stockholder/stakeholder/user may not be a short term profitable
concept but stability it works.

Sincerely,
Eric

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:59:33 -0700, you wrote:
>
> > >Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
> > >not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
> > >collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
> >
> > While I understand this objection, I also note that many of the people
> > who participate in icannatlarge.com, in the ALOC or in the other At
> > Large efforts are acting on behalf of organizations who collectively
> > represent thousands of members.
>
> I have a concern that the assertion of representation is frequently
> nothing but a bald assertion.  For example, I have several interests in
> intellectual property - I have various patent, trademark, and copyright
> rights.  And I am a member of the California State Bar section on
> Intellectual Property (I'm speaking at its annual meeting next month).
> But I have not given my assent to be represented by those on the IPC.
>
> In fact how do we know that those people on the IPC are actually who they
> say they are and that they are properly accredited by the bodies they
> claim to represent?  Requirements for identification and authentication
> have been imposed on at-large and used as reasons to disembowel the
> at-large.  Why are such requirements not imposed equally on other bodies
> within ICANN?
>
>                 --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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:52:16 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:50:10PM +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2002, at 22:59, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
>>> "The report seems to suggest that a regional at-large structure with as few 
>>> as 200 individual members could be accredited to exercise responsibilities 
>>> including direct appointment of a member of the Nominating Committee.  This 
>>> number appears far too low to justify a claim of representativeness of the 
>>> range of "individual Internet users" from any region, and certainly from 
>>> regions in which there are tens or hundreds of millions of such Internet 
>>> users."
>>> http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/alacag/pdf00000.pdf
>>> 
>>> As of March 2002, the IPC had only 66 members.
>> 
>> Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
>> not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
>> collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
>> 
>> I know you know this.  Why do you deliberately make such a 
>> misrepresentation? 
> 
> The IPC with its 66 members representing "tens of thousands of
> members" is as unrepresentative as any other club on the Net.  The
> concept of representativeness the IPC report is referring to does not
> and will never work on the Internet.  Only electorates with enumerable
> citizens can generate representative bodies.  Internet users are not
> countable.  Thus, an At Large membership can never be representative "of
> the range of individual Internet users". 

Thanks for that very succinct and clear statement of the fundamental
problem with the idea of an At Large membership.  I've been trying to 
say it for a long time, and I'm very glad to see that you have come 
with such a clear description of the problem.  :-)

> I assume the IPC is aware of this.  Why then does the IPC repeat this
> misconception again and again?

Acutally, I'm quite sure that the IPC is very well aware of this. 
However, there is such a cacaphony of voices shouting about
"representation" that it is easy to fall into the trap of responding in
the same vein.

Happens to me all the time. :-)  

Now that you have given such a clear statement of the fundamental
problem, perhaps we can all avoid that trap.

Kent

Speaking only for myself, of course.
- --
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 14:01:16 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names are highly irrelevant in the struggle against spam (Re: [ga] Vint why do none...)

True,

I recently received spam where the spammer had (for my convenience & to 
avoid bouncing email since they obviously were not sending from a valid 
SMTP host) with my email address in both the from and to sections of the 
message.

~kristy

At 02:00 AM 9/18/2002 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > 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

- --
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 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names are highly irrelevant in the struggle  against spam (Re: [ga] Vint why do none...)

Kristy,

you can prevent this and many more ways from recieving spam, check out
http://www.cauce.org/ or www.sendmail.org for some tips.

The domain's don't create spam, people do.

- -rick

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:

> True,
>
> I recently received spam where the spammer had (for my convenience & to
> avoid bouncing email since they obviously were not sending from a valid
> SMTP host) with my email address in both the from and to sections of the
> message.
>
> ~kristy
>

- --
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 15:31:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Cyberspace Security and the Root(s)

In reading the recently published "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace", 
my attention was drawn to one particular remark:

"To combat these vulnerabilities, the security of the infrastructure must not 
be dependent on a single layer, group or focal point, but rather must be 
found in multiple layers, distributed defenses, and the ability to recover 
quickly from any attack."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.pdf

Doesn't this seem to argue against the concept of the desirability of a 
single root?  From strictly a security perspective, can someone sufficiently 
knowledgable advise as to which is better -- having a single root or having 
multiple roots?  
- --
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 15:27:41 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

Greetings Joanna,

It is a very simple issue.

Does ICANNatlarge have a license to use ICANN's trademarks?  Your answer, in
about 500 or so words, is "no."

A former Chair of the ICANN Board does not have the authority to grant a
trademark license, and she wouldn't have had that authority even when she was
chair.  As Mr. Cerf is fond of explaining, individual board members are not
entitled to make decisions on behalf of the entire corporation, and Mr. Cerf
is willing to go to court over that principle (whether or not it applies to
the dispute actually being litigated).  It doesn't matter if Esther Dyson
donated, what Mike Roberts thought was a good idea, or how much Denise
Michelle was paid by whom or for what.

Similarly, trademark licenses are not granted by the collective group of
cronies you call "ICANN players", and I am completely familiar with the
history of the effort.

ICANNatlarge.com is not authorized by or affiliated with ICANN, and its use
of ICANN trademarks is misleading, deceptive and dilutive.  You either have a
license or you don't, and it is clear that you don't.

But, keep up the good work, since if ICANN does not act to enforce its
federally registered trademarks, then it will lose them.  In ten years, we'll
all be ICANN.

Regards,

John

- --
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 21:37:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, at 19:50 [=GMT+0200], Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> The IPC with its 66 members representing "tens of thousands of members"
> is as unrepresentative as any other club on the Net.  The concept of
> representativeness the IPC report is referring to does not and will
> never work on the Internet. Only electorates with enumerable citizens
> can generate representative bodies. Internet users are not countable.

Domain name holders are countable. In principle holders of email addresses
are too. But since the latter can be had for free, unlike the former,
fraud is too easy, unless there is a membership fee. But then we might as
well throw in a domain with the membership, since they are so cheap these
days.

- --
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 21:58:22 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On 18 Sep 2002, at 21:37, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, at 19:50 [=GMT+0200], Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> > The IPC with its 66 members representing "tens of thousands of members"
> > is as unrepresentative as any other club on the Net.  The concept of
> > representativeness the IPC report is referring to does not and will
> > never work on the Internet. Only electorates with enumerable citizens
> > can generate representative bodies. Internet users are not countable.
> 
> Domain name holders are countable. In principle holders of email addresses
> are too. But since the latter can be had for free, unlike the former,
> fraud is too easy, unless there is a membership fee. But then we might as
> well throw in a domain with the membership, since they are so cheap these
> days.

Ok, here is a second reason why the (national) concept of representativeness is more or 
less useless on the Internet. Although ICANN's policies do indeed affect all users, only 
a minority of users will ever care enough to devote substantial time to naming and 
numbering matters. This is true not only for individual users but also for businesses, 
the IP community or non-commercial groups. International, sector-related policies don't 
attract the same amount of attention as domestic policies do. While it is true that 
domain name holders are countable, it would yet be ridiculous to expect  a majority of 
whatever type of domain name holders to vote on ICANN policies. 
There is no really good, well-tried solution for this problem apart from international 
treaty organizations. The only comforting fact is that it concerns _all_ constituencies 
in ICANN, not only individual users. Even though the IPC wants to make us believe 
otherwise. 

jeanette
> 
> 

- --
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 16:49:13 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names are highly irrelevant in the struggle  against spam (Re: [ga] Vint why do none...)

I honestly don't know why anyone would try to reach the domain name 
holder regarding spam when that is most likely not the spammer in the 
first place - at least rarely nowadays.  Spam complaints need to go to 
the originating IP and the contact information for that is not in the dn 
holder's whois record.  

Like Kristy, I receive mail all the time with the "from" and "to" containing 
my own email address.  It comes from servers all over the world, 
although mostly Korea and  Romania.  The domain name whois is 
worthless for find spammers or stopping spam.  You need the contact 
for the relay mail servers.

Leah

On 18 Sep 2002, at 14:01, Kristy McKee wrote:

> True,
> 
> I recently received spam where the spammer had (for my convenience & to
> avoid bouncing email since they obviously were not sending from a valid
> SMTP host) with my email address in both the from and to sections of the
> message.
> 
> ~kristy
> 
> 
> At 02:00 AM 9/18/2002 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > > 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
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:14:10 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cyberspace Security and the Root(s)

The answer is obvious, Danny.  If you a single system and it fails, you lose 
it all.

The idea of multiple roots simply means that there are many systems out there 
that the community may use.  If one enitre system fails, there are others to 
which to point.  If some roots carry more information (TLDs) than others, it 
simply affords that much more for users.  It does not imply that any one root 
is better than another.

Of course cooperative "peering" is the best solution, where all roots carry 
all other roots' TLDs and everyone has the same information.  Unfortunately, 
that effort was permanently altered when ICANN duplicated one TLD and 
announced it would do so at any time it pleases.  However, the major roots 
have decided to discontinue resolving the original .biz tld, so they will be 
better able to alleviate the inherent problems with the duplication.  So that 
battle is now ended, but the precedent still must be reversed.  The community 
is not well served when one root system claims total authority for the entire 
internet.  It may well boil down to "who do you trust."  

For security purposes, the roots must all follow security measures for each 
server and cluster, but with a myriad of distributed root systems, there is 
little danger of having a catastrophic failure.  

I think at the end of the day, there will always be multiple root systems and 
people will use them.  It makes little difference who approves of them. It's 
a world wide choice available to all users.   No one country or entity will 
rule the net.

Leah

On Wednesday 18 September 2002 03:31 pm, [email-masked] wrote:
> In reading the recently published "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace",
> my attention was drawn to one particular remark:
>
> "To combat these vulnerabilities, the security of the infrastructure must
> not be dependent on a single layer, group or focal point, but rather must
> be found in multiple layers, distributed defenses, and the ability to
> recover quickly from any attack."
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.pdf
>
> Doesn't this seem to argue against the concept of the desirability of a
> single root?  From strictly a security perspective, can someone
> sufficiently knowledgable advise as to which is better -- having a single
> root or having multiple roots?

- --
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 23:31:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, at 21:58 [=GMT+0200], Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Ok, here is a second reason why the (national) concept of representativeness is more or
> less useless on the Internet. Although ICANN's policies do indeed affect all users, only
> a minority of users will ever care enough to devote substantial time to naming and
> numbering matters. This is true not only for individual users but also for businesses,
> the IP community or non-commercial groups. International, sector-related policies don't
> attract the same amount of attention as domestic policies do. While it is true that
> domain name holders are countable, it would yet be ridiculous to expect  a majority of
> whatever type of domain name holders to vote on ICANN policies.
> There is no really good, well-tried solution for this problem apart from international
> treaty organizations. The only comforting fact is that it concerns _all_ constituencies
> in ICANN, not only individual users. Even though the IPC wants to make us believe
> otherwise.

I do see your point, but where does the possibilty of working/adequate
representation end? Local politics? The European Union? A consumer
organization for cars? A group for the rights of the blind? It is also
a matter of how important people find it, or how much they are
affected. Those that do or are, will take the lead. That is, I would care
to think, inevitable, even in 'real' politics.

And what about the bodies who take care of rivers, lakes and polders in my
country (NL)? They also have an elected board, chosen by all inhabitants
(and with extra votes for those who own land). They take care of a very
limited set of problems/tasks: dry feet, and rivers that are clean as well
as navigable. Surely their task is more a matter of life and death than
domain names and IP-numbers. Still, it hardly means a thing to most
people, esp. those on higher grounds, who don't own a boat and don't dare
to swim in open water.

And those that do vote, how informed are they?

So, on a conceptual level, what is wrong with accepting that only a small
percentage of the voters gets really involved?

And another thing: Does it make sense to let some civil servant from each
country participate in a new ICANN of the type of a treaty organization?
Will all countries have enough resources and interests to participate in
governing this corner of the universe, called DNS? And will these civil
servants be informed enough? And who will _really_ control them?

- --
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 14:16:20 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[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...

RMR - not as far as the average customer is concerned - they only know that
their point of contact with the DNS service process is the registrar.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>; "'vinton g. cerf'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform
them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

> > enough ICANN is still the best place to enforce that. Because
> > without DNS services they are dead in the water.
>
> Big difference between registration services and DNS services.
>
> Just my $0.02 ;)
>
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > Of todd glassey
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:48 AM
> > To: vinton g. cerf
> > Cc: [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...
> >
> >
> > Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's
> > email and other contact info items are/is bogus. The real
> > issue is that the NIC's must start to be accountable for the
> > integrity of the information they are using to justify or
> > authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances
> > where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars
> > really need to be liable for their actions, i.e. the
> > enablement of the SPAM itself.
> >
> > In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues
> > and we all know where those lawsuits have gone and what their
> > outcome is. What I propose is two fold. The first is that the
> > registrars need to be accountable for providing services that
> > are used to hurt other people or to impede their IP rights.
> > The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be
> > accountable for what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly
> > enough ICANN is still the best place to enforce that. Because
> > without DNS services they are dead in the water.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
> > Subject: 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
> >
>
>

- --
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 #1424
*************************