Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1425
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Thursday, September 19 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1425

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:19:49 -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...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:54 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...

> <snip>
> the registrars really need to be liable for their actions, i.e. the
enablement
> of the SPAM itself.
> </snip>
>
> ...you don't need a domain name to send spam.

No but anyone that sends SPAM without one is easily blocked. Besides I
though away any email for my servers that I cannot resolve the senders
address on and that is an overhead that I am committed to.

Todd

>
> jon
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> >To: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
> >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...
> >Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:47:41 -0700
> >
> >
> >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
>

- --
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 14:18:38 -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...

Rick I know that the WHOIS database is not used per se to generate SPAM
lists nor, especially since many of the addresses in WHOIS are bogus anyway.
The WHOIS system was setup so that responsible parties could get access to
other responsible parties. What it has become is something totally
different. What we need is a system for getting at domain owners such that
there is something that can be done about spam and spam providers. Amongst
other issues.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:49 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...

>
> 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
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > 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
>

- --
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 17:42:53 -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...)

On Wednesday 18 September 2002 05:06 pm, Andy Gardner wrote:
> You need to locate the person who makes money from the sale (either the
> seller, or quite frequently, the affiliate of the seller).
>
>
> Many spammers have got it down to a fine art. They host on a free host, and
> the website is used only to farm leads (without identifying the final
> product for sale). That way they avoid having their affiliation terminated
> for spamming.
>
>
> You need the co-operation of the free site host (to ID the IP# used to
> create and manage the site) and the co-operation of the ISP who owns that
> IP#, to ID the actual person running the little spam operation.
>

That would be very nice, Any, except that getting that cooperation is not 
happening.  What is easier is contacting the operator of the server and 
letting them shut off the spammer.  If they don't notify them that the IP 
will be blocked.  Literally every ISP I have contacted has shut off accounts 
of spammers.  When the originating server is actually operated by the spammer 
himself, I go upstream and shut it off that way.  I have had very little luck 
with contacting free host sites that spew spam.  The really bad porn sites 
use the huge spam services and most of that spam seems to come from Asia - at 
least the ones I get.  

I don't know about you, but I am not going to spend hours a day hunting down 
the seller sites.  I am blocking IPs if they are not willing to stop the 
spam.  There are also programs like spam assassin and I'm looking into that 
for myself.  ISPs are beginning to offer it as well.

>
> Then you need that person to be in a location that allows you to prosecute
> them for spamming.

Again, that is a prohibitive method at best.  

>
>
> Note: No domain names may have been involved in this spam (apart from the
> ones used to try to divert complaints to someone else , so those poor
> people can have THEIR business ruined/jeopardised by the likes of spamcop.

Yup, I've been threatened and have had to respond that people need to check 
headers for IPs and not domains or email addresses.  

Leah
- --
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 17:45:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BC Telephone Conference

Philip,

Will you be posting the transcript of the upcoming BC Telephone Conference on 
ICANN Reform scheduled for Wednesday 25 September at 13.00 UTC/GMT?

It would be a benefit to the rest of the community if we could consider the 
comments made by your constituency members, and Marilyn appears to be quite 
capable at arranging for a transcription service.

By the way, I agree with the points raised in your  DRAFT Business 
Constituency position paper posted at: 
http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BC%20position%20ERC%209-2002v2.doc
- --
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 17:54:00 -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...

> 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.
>

So we should suspend reality then? My point is that not all parties that
provide registration services provide DNS services and not all those that
provide DNS services do so in a way that has any bearing on what ICANN is
concerned with.

Thanks,

                     -rwr

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

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "'vinton g. cerf'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:16 PM
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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:06:40 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names are highly irrelevant in the struggle  against spam (Re: [ga] Vint why do none...)

At 4:49 PM -0400 9/18/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
>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.

No no no.

Pretty much all spam is selling something.

You need to locate the person who makes money from the sale (either the
seller, or quite frequently, the affiliate of the seller).

Many spammers have got it down to a fine art. They host on a free host, and
the website is used only to farm leads (without identifying the final
product for sale). That way they avoid having their affiliation terminated
for spamming.

You need the co-operation of the free site host (to ID the IP# used to
create and manage the site) and the co-operation of the ISP who owns that
IP#, to ID the actual person running the little spam operation.

Then you need that person to be in a location that allows you to prosecute
them for spamming.

Note: No domain names may have been involved in this spam (apart from the
ones used to try to divert complaints to someone else , so those poor
people can have THEIR business ruined/jeopardised by the likes of spamcop.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com

- --
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 19:27:11 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Another sham election

The vote for DNSO/ICANN Board director begins in two days, and no one really 
cares.  Not even the candidates.  None of them have posted to the GA list, 
nor to any other list.  There has been no debate on job performance, no 
debate on the course of ICANN reform, no debate at all.  It's all rather 
pathetic, but totally in keeping with the reality that most of us will never 
be voters in this process -- voting rights have been denied to the membership 
of the DNSO GA and continue to be denied under the terms of the "Reform".  

The architect of the continued denial of our voting rights is Alejandro 
Pisanty who has already been endorsed by members of the BC, the ccTLDs, the 
NCDNHC, the registrars, the GTLDs, and the IPC.  Apparently the only other 
constituency that doesn't feel a need to suck up to the Board and to deny us 
our rights is the ISP constituency.

Never mind the fact that Alejandro has voted against every single DNSO 
recommendation put forth in recent memory, or that he endorses the vile plan 
to totally eliminate representation for the At-large, or that he wants to end 
all consensus-based decision-making in favor of action by Board fiat, or that 
he seeks to achieve an unaccountable Board not even liable to an Independent 
Review Panel -- he will still be elected by a landslide because the Council 
reps place a greater priority on efforts to curry favor than they do in the 
proper exercise of judgment. 

You will hear all the usual platitudes:  he listens, he's been doing a good 
job, we should keep him on while the reform is underway...  the truth is that 
he listens only to what he wants to hear, that he's been doing a horrible job 
(both in terms of his voting record and his reform plan), and the best thing 
that we could do would be to oust him before he makes things far worse.

But that won't happen.  This will be the quickest election in history because 
every constituency wants to score points with Alejandro.  This election is 
not about who is the best person for the job, it's all about 
influence-peddling and being seen in the forefront of the endorsement list.  

- --
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 17:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> This standoff is painted a bit too dramatic by both sides.

I disagree; I find this issue to be extremely important from several
points of view.  ICANN's claims are technically incorrect and represent an
unwarranted expansion of its scope of authority (and are also based on
what I believe is rather unwarranted historical exgesis.)  And the way
that ICANN decreed these conditions lacks procedural integrity and
propriety.

On a technical basis, the information obtained by a zone transfer is
neither necessary nor sufficient to do a proper check of the quality of a
delegation.

A zone transfer is not necessary because all of the information that is
required to do a quality check can be obtained through the use of far less
intrusive (and less voluminous) standard DNS queries (using standard
tools like "dig").

A zone transfer is not sufficient because from the zone file alone it is
impossible to tell whether some of the servers are lame, (i.e. there is a
delegation/NS record in the parent/root zone but the server itself doesn't
realize that it is supposed to be authoritative for the delegated zone.)  
This latter information, which is *not* present in the zone file, and thus
not visible to one who relies on a zone transfer, is completely visible
using standard DNS non-zone-transfer queries (and standard tools, like
"dig").

Take a look at Patrik Falstrom's delegation checker -
http://www.paf.se/domain/ - for a tool that does a reasonable set of
validity checks using quite routine tools and without doing a zone
transfer.

ICANN should not be in the business of checking that other items in a
zone, i.e.  items not related to the delegation linkage itself, are
correct - that is the responsibility of the zone operator.  ICANN's
responsibility is merely to ensure that the linkage from its root zone to
TLDs is solid.  Tools like those from Mice-n-Men and elsewhere (e.g.
"dnswalk") are appropriate for those who wish to test that other data in
the privacy of their own computers.

If ICANN's fears were real and even if a zone-transfer based evaluation
could form the basis of an adequate check, then a check at
delegation-update time would be far to infrequent.

However, the more focused, more accurate, more lightweight, and less
intrusive tests represented by Falstron's checker could easily be
performed once every day for every delegation.

		--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 22:23:05 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cyberspace Security and the Root(s)

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello DannyYounger,

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 3:31:38 PM, you wrote:

Dcc> Doesn't this seem to argue against the concept of the desirability of a
Dcc> single root?  From strictly a security perspective, can someone sufficiently
Dcc> knowledgable advise as to which is better -- having a single root or having
Dcc> multiple roots?

A single root is infinitely more secure than multiple roots.  The
primary goal of information security is to maintain the integrity of
information.  Having multiple roots makes it much more difficult to
maintain the integrity of the information -- the root namespace.  Just
as a company would not have multiple customer databases, a court
system would not keep multiple criminal records or a doctor would not
keep multiple records for a patient.

There has to be a single reliable source from which other sources pull
their information.  Using the example of a company database, there
should be a single customer database that can be used by other
databases, such as the customer service database or the billing
database.  Have you ever dealt with a company that maintained multiple
databases?  Customer service has one set of information, billing has
another, and there is no way to reconcile that information.
Maintaining multiple root would ultimately dissolve into that type of
chaos -- and therefore it is less secure.

The current root system actually meets the criteria outlined in your
quote.  The root servers are maintained by different organizations
dispersed throughout the world, properly configured recursive name
servers have the ability to query all of these servers making the root
system very robust.

Hope this helps.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPYk1C3+n87oa5a9VAQEyxwP+MWzPjguHdpPKdupwM4I2MS7AA2+mmDs4
AXdqwAn84gML9NbXftnWNuWI0nHulodMF+ZLWRLv4Be4OG5O3/Fh/tXZpR4Sn+uK
Du2yEJhI7zG7w14o07xrfymd4gQwAxYqQ4s0lKVl21vSwNLjKNFAb6G1M0O7gKGN
NbYcGuW68xU=
=lnkx
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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 21:30:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

Kent and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:34:58PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> > Steve Metalitz, in providing the "IPC Response to ALAC Assistance Group
> > Report", makes the following comment in one of the footnotes:
> >
> > "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.

  Indeed this is also incorrect in your context here Kent.  Indeed
the members of the IPC are organizational.  But not all of them
collectively represent their members, as some of them are also our
[INEGroup] members.  Just like the now newly structured ISOC,
which now longer has individual members that have a voice and a
vote it's elected officers are only elected buy the organizational
members of various status's.  Hence, to make such a blanket statement
in rebut to Danny's is quite misleading...

>
>
> I know you know this.  Why do you deliberately make such a
> misrepresentation?
>
> --
> 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 21:43:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icannatlarge.com

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Indeed Joanna has the history stated very accurately here.  Well done
Joanna!

  I would only add some commentary or opinion here.  That being that
it has been clear for several years that Esther Dyson has been decidedly
against any At-Large for ICANN where the members can elect the majority
of the BoD members.  It is clear in my mind anyway, and I am sure a
huge number of other well documented in the ALSC archives as well
as a number of other places, that ICANN betrayed and frankly have
thwarted the Mandate of the MoU and the White paper in regards
to @large representation and a policy determining body as part of the
rightful and proper structure of ICANN.  As such the remaining
tid bits of trust for ICANN were eliminated...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> > This "ICANN Community" responded by engaging in wholesale trademark
> > infringement and deception.  The website icannatlarge.com uses U.S.
> > Registered Trademarks 2,400,781 and 2,517,318 prominently in the
> > domain name and on the website, along with the ICANN logo, with no
> indication that the
> > website is not, in fact, authorized or licensed by ICANN.
>
> Hello John,
>
> I don't think you quite fully appreciate the events that lead our
> organization to this point. Let's review the history. Danny has explained
> that the site was commissioned, approved and paid for by Esther Dyson and
> Pindar Wong, the former Chair and Vice-Chair of the ICANN Board, that
> authorized Joop Teernstra's company (imachination) to do the work on the
> website for Icannatlarge.com.  In addition, Esther and Pindar registered as
> founding members of ICANNAtLarge, as did ICANN At Large Director, Karl
> Auerbach, Marilyn Cade and former ICANN CEO and President, Michael Roberts,
> amongst other leading ICANN players.
>
> This organization grew from the work of the At Large Study Committee, and in
> particular, an Esther Dyson and Pindar Wong membership drive instigated in
> response to the Board's call for the At Large Community to self-organize
> into a proposed ALSO, with Denise Michelle providing ICANN Staff support to
> the ALSC at that time. The At Large community received assistance in this
> effort from a number of independent sources, including Thomas Roessler, who,
> as you know, is Chair of this GA, and provided the fledgling ICANNAtLarge
> organization with mailing lists. The ICANN ALSC mailing list, which had
> provided the resources needed for the members to self-organize up to that
> point, closed its lists, but not before pointing all its members to the
> Iannatlarge initiative. So what occurred in fact was that ICANN Staff
> actually pointed the wider community towards this organization. All of this
> is documented in the ICANN ALSC archives and all was done with ICANN prior
> knowledge and consent.
>
> Not only that. The name, ICANNAtLarge, was actually picked by Pindar Wong,
> who together with Esther was still very much engaged with the ALSC and
> funded by ICANN at the time they launched ICANNAtLarge. Pindar paid Joop for
> the initial website to be built and Esther pledged a further US$10,000 to
> the new organization in which she was proactively involved. Her donation was
> listed under "funding" on the ICANNATLarge website, together with other
> pledges intended to be distributed by a new Board once they had been elected
> directly by the membership.
>
> Esther then decided the best way forward for Icannatlarge would be to
> appoint a liaison between our members and Icann staff. She offered the role
> to Alexander Svennsson and there were objections that the appointment was
> made without a proper election being held, which is how Denise Michelle, who
> was recently out of work with the ALSC, slid neatly into the job quietly and
> just assumed the role. Esther decided to use the $10,000 promised to
> ICANNAtLarge to pay Denise's salary on a temporary basis. Members were told
> that in return for the $10,000 to be paid to Denise, she would assist
> ICANNATLarge with its self-organizing effort.
>
> Of course, Denise Michelle was in a fact acting under contract to ICANN, as
> a member of ICANN staff, not ICANNAtLarge. She was hired by Stuart Lynn to
> manufacture a consensus for his Reform Plan in the At large community,
> meanwhile trashing any form of individual participation or semblance of
> democratic process along the way. Whether Denise ever received the $10,000 I
> do not know, but she then evaporated for a little while, and when she
> reappeared, she was attached to a completely new At Large organization, a
> new and rather dysfunctional website, a confusingly similar domain name, a
> new definition for what At Large meant and an ICANN At Large bank into which
> she invites all pledges to be sent - nothing short of an At Large coup
> d'estat, of which nothing had ever been discussed in advance amongst the
> community. To add injury to insult, the ICANN fundraising tour redirected
> precious independent sources into a competing entity from which direct
> participation by individual At Large members, our members, was to be denied.
>
> Understandably, some members felt this betrayal of the At large by ICANN
> Staff warranted complete withdrawal of our organization from the Reformed
> ICANN, including dropping ICANN from the name of the organization itself. A
> heated debate followed and we will have the results on a vote of the full
> membership to choose the organization name by the middle of next week.
>
> Whatever it's name, here is an organization that is in it for the long haul,
> is committed to actually engaging the user in cooperative processes, and is
> working to have an impact on internet governance over the long term future.
> The decision making, and therefore I guess also the responsibility, is
> passed directly to individual members, not a Nominating Committee, so that
> anybody who intends to start throwing stones at us, will need more than a
> handful to make any impact....:-)
>
> Probably the most important vision for our organization is to implement the
> very things that ICANN is discarding. As ICANN is phasing out direct user
> participation and abandoning any form of At Large elections or voting
> mechanism, ICANNAtLarge will be phasing it in. This will put us in a
> favorable position to show the world that there is another group around
> ICANN that better serves the public interest than the window dressing being
> paraded in the spotlight by ICANN Staff as meaningful At Large
> participation.
>
> With all the above aspects in mind, I hope you now view this effort in a
> more favorable light than at the time you penned your comments. Should you
> have any further comments to make, I'd be pleased to hear them.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna Lane
> Chair, Icannatlarge
>
> There is nothing
> > I could find on the website which would tip off the unsuspecting visitor
> > that the site is not an official ICANN site.
> >
> > Either ICANN has decided to abandon its trademarks through
> > non-enforcement, or the people responsible for that site should be held
> liable.
>
> --
> 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 #1425
*************************