Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #152
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 19 2000         Volume 01 : Number 152

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:13:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

William,

Personally, I don't like (easy) generalizations and I have a definite 
preference (that has caused me problems, and is still doing so!) to call
 people and things with firstname and lastname (literal translation from
 italian idiom = does it make sense in English?).

What do you mean by "DNSO"?
I did not have the impression that the GA (which is part of the DNSO, 
IMHO) had any role at all in the election. I cannot even remember a post
 of the old/new director to the GA list, neither evidence of him reading
 any of the stuff over here.

The real point is that it is time to revise the rules of the game. We 
experimented something with the DNSO, we have different opinions on its 
succesfulness, but maybe consensus on the need to revise its 
effectiveness/representativity. The elections, whose method is also to 
be analysed to check for improvement, are just one point among others.
BTW, on this subject, let me say loud and clear that I have no problem 
with the person elected but serious reservations on the method. As I 
said already, a subset of the NC (11 people are sufficient) can nominate
, endorse, and elect, not caring at all what everybody else in the DNSO 
thinks or does.

IMHO, this is a farce.
But the DNSO itself is not (still IMHO).
Therefore, the DNSO has to stand up and correct the situation before it 
collapses. The point is that, with the current system, the elected 
Director does not represent the DNSO, but just the NC (and maybe 3 or 4 
constituencies, at the most).

Regards
Roberto

>Hello Kristy,
>
>Friday, September 15, 2000, 1:14:01 PM, you wrote:
>
>> This is the saddest news I've read today.
>
>> I don't know whom the decision makers really are; but they should 
feel ashamed
>> right now, if not because they ought to; then because it is the 
feeling that
>> will be with them from here on out.
>
>Did anyone really expect any other result?  The DNSO is a captured
>body, and Cohen is their virtual poster boy.
>
>His "election" was a given I thought.
>
>
>-- 
>Best regards,
> William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:09:34 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Hello Roberto,

Sunday, September 17, 2000, 3:13:03 PM, you wrote:

> William,

> Personally, I don't like (easy) generalizations and I have a definite 
> preference (that has caused me problems, and is still doing so!) to call
>  people and things with firstname and lastname (literal translation from
>  italian idiom = does it make sense in English?).

> What do you mean by "DNSO"?

The DNSO is nothing more than the constituencies and their names
council.

> I did not have the impression that the GA (which is part of the DNSO, 
> IMHO) had any role at all in the election. I cannot even remember a post
>  of the old/new director to the GA list, neither evidence of him reading
>  any of the stuff over here.

The GA is not a part of the DNSO, in reality. It is nothing more than
illusory, much like democracy in the IDNO.

> IMHO, this is a farce.
> But the DNSO itself is not (still IMHO).

It most certainly is.  Much like all of ICANN is.  There is nothing
fair, representative, open, or transparent about anything related to
ICANN, and the DNSO is one of the most glaring examples of that.

> Therefore, the DNSO has to stand up and correct the situation before it 
> collapses. The point is that, with the current system, the elected 
> Director does not represent the DNSO, but just the NC (and maybe 3 or 4 
> constituencies, at the most).

Of course its that way.  That was the way it was setup.  It was
INTENDED to be that way.  We all know that, don't we?  Please don't
tell me you still have the belief that the GA is a substantive part of
the DNSO?  Or that the DNSO has even the most modest claim to being
representative?

The DNSO and ICANN are in the hands of special interests.  They
dictate these things.   The nomination of Jonathon Cohen, the fool who
said that people shouldn't be allowed to register generic names like
patents.com, was a given.  There was no possible alternative result.
Anything else would have been a risk to the corporate and IP interests
which have done so well at capturing this process.

And no, an individual's constituency would not have changed diddly.
It only would have resulted in the NC and ICANN pointing to the
constituency and saying, "Look how representative we are."

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:27:40 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:13:03AM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>  As I 
> said already, a subset of the NC (11 people are sufficient) can nominate
> , endorse, and elect, not caring at all what everybody else in the DNSO 
> thinks or does.

This is false.  The members of the Names Council are elected.  They
don't get to the NC unless they gain the support of people within their
constituency. 

> IMHO, this is a farce.
>
> But the DNSO itself is not (still IMHO).
> Therefore, the DNSO has to stand up and correct the situation before it 
> collapses. The point is that, with the current system, the elected 
> Director does not represent the DNSO, but just the NC (and maybe 3 or 4 
> constituencies, at the most).

Not "maybe".

This would likely be the case no matter what.  I do not forsee any
likely future where the various constituencies, current or imagined, are
going to magically agree -- any election will be carried by a simple
majority of the constituencies, with the angry losers growling and 
snapping afterwards.  Pity that more people can't emulate Peter de 
Blanc's elegant and constructive "thank you" message.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:27:00 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

> From: Roberto Gaetano: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:13 PM

> Personally, I don't like (easy) generalizations and I have a definite 
> preference (that has caused me problems, and is still doing 
> so!) to call
>  people and things with firstname and lastname (literal 
> translation from
>  italian idiom = does it make sense in English?).

The American idiom is to "call things as they are seen".

> IMHO, this is a farce.
> But the DNSO itself is not (still IMHO).
> Therefore, the DNSO has to stand up and correct the situation 
> before it collapses. 

While a credible call, it can't be done. You were yourself involved, as
was I, in the pre-DNSO efforts and contributor to the various
competitive DNSO charters that were drafted. Do you recall, in Berlin,
when the DNSO was instantiated? The ICANN BoD decided that NONE of the
competing proposals were sufficient and instituted their own? The
DNSO.ORG was then donated to the ICANN at the direction of Amadeu. The
current DNSO is not the one that either of us worked on. It is also
wholly extant at the whim of the ICANN BoD. The NC cannot even alter its
own charter. Just try it and watch what the ICANN BoD does in response.

No, this is nothing like what we envisioned, in those halcyon days,
three years ago.

I am going to Marina Del Rey, will you be there?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:34:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term a t the  ICANN Board

Roeland,

>
>The American idiom is to "call things as they are seen".
>

Thanks!

>
>........
>
>No, this is nothing like what we envisioned, in those halcyon days,
>three years ago.

I don't think that there's nothing that can be done to modify the 
situation. Of course, the commercial + trademark + whatever, you name it
, interest will always play an important role, but the point, IMHO, is 
how to introduce elements that limit this role, and allow others, that 
are currently absent and/or underrepresented, to expand theirs.

Of course, there's another approach possible, which is: "there's nothing
 we can do about". If I'll switch to this latter, I'll let you know ;>).

>
>I am going to Marina Del Rey, will you be there?

Provided I get funding, yes.
We still have to get a beer together and speak F2F about the multiple 
roots...

Looking forward to it.

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:20:57 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS

At 07:38 15/09/2000 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>ICANN, the registries and registrars are going to have to work out how the
>protocols (currently only RRP 1.1.0) will be updated to manage the keys,
>if they are to be put into the root, the keys will have to be sent to the
>registry somehow. The discussions on how to do this have not even begun.

To be precise: What we don't have yet is a secure procedure for a customer 
of a registry to ask for its KEY records to be signed and get the signed 
records back.

A self-signed zone like the root has no problem that RRP is relevant to.

               Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:15:28 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ANNOUNCE: A Day with the North-American ICANN Candidates

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the
Internet Democracy Project are pleased to announce two events featuring the
ICANN North American candidates, both in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Monday,
October 2, 2000.  In these events, both open to the public and webcast with
remote participation, the seven North-American candidates will engage in an
informal dialogue and participate in a formal candidate debate.

* "A Dialogue with the Candidates," 4:20-6:00PM EDT, moderated by Jonathan
Zittrain, Professor, Harvard Law School.  Professor Jonathan Zittrain's
Internet & Society class will host a moderated discussion with the
candidates, exploring the role of ICANN as an organization, the role of the
ICANN directors, and the scope and meaning of ICANN's At-Large Membership.
The discussion will be open to the public and webcast live with remote
participation.  Both the online and in-person audiences will have the
opportunity to pose questions for the candidates.  This event is presented
by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

* "ICANN North-American Candidate Forum," 7:30-9:30PM EDT, moderated by
David Johnston, President, Waterloo University.  Expanding the format of the
Presidential Commission debates, David Johnston has been invited to moderate
a question-and-answer session among the seven North-American ICANN
candidates about the issues facing ICANN and the role of ICANN itself.
Candidates will respond to questions posed by a distinguished panel
including Declan McCullagh of Wired Magazine.  The forum will be open to the
public in-person and online via webcast with a real-time discussion forum.
After the forum, candidates will have the opportunity to submit brief
written follow-up responses to the forum's questions, and these responses
will be posted along with video and other archive materials in the archive.
This event is presented by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the
Internet Democracy Project.

For more information about these events, please visit the "A Day with the
ICANN North-American Candidates" web site at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum>.

Please note that these events are not sponsored by, nor affiliated with,
ICANN.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is a
research program which explores cyberspace, shares in its study, and
identifies and engages the challenges and opportunities it presents.  The
Internet Democracy Project is a non-partisan organization that seeks to
enhance public participation in decisions concerning the future of the
Internet

We look forward to seeing you in Cambridge or online.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
The Internet Democracy Project

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:17:54 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

TLS anyone?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:21 AM
> To: Rick H Wesson
> Cc: Kent Crispin; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS
> 
> 
> At 07:38 15/09/2000 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >ICANN, the registries and registrars are going to have to 
> work out how the
> >protocols (currently only RRP 1.1.0) will be updated to 
> manage the keys,
> >if they are to be put into the root, the keys will have to 
> be sent to the
> >registry somehow. The discussions on how to do this have not 
> even begun.
> 
> To be precise: What we don't have yet is a secure procedure 
> for a customer 
> of a registry to ask for its KEY records to be signed and get 
> the signed 
> records back.
> 
> A self-signed zone like the root has no problem that RRP is 
> relevant to.
> 
>                Harald
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:52:50 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Secure DNS

"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> 
> You are aware that even in the current relaxed crypto atmosphere,

My reading is not that the atmosphere is "relaxed". The US gov't lost
two court decisions in the Bernstein case:

http://www.eff.org/bernstein/

so they changed their regulations and asked for a re-hearing. Big deal.

All they changed was making export of public domain software not require
a permit. The Wassenaar agreement has had an exemption for public domain
code for years, but the US gov't. has consistently refused to live up to
that agreement. They're now living up to it part way, but still not
completely. They require notification, for something the agreement says
is exempt, period.

The EFF argue that the requirement for notification means the export
regulations are still an unconsitutional restriction on freedom of
speech.

Also, they're still restricting key sizes in commercial software.

> none of us in the USA can help with this?

I think you can. If I'm wrong, methinks you should all be screaming
at your congresscritters and ICANN should be drafting something
much like RFC 1984. 

DNS security code provides only authentication, not encryption, so it
should be exempt even under US law. See the page on toad.com referenced
in my original post, though. They granted and then withdrew export
permission on this if I understood the story right.

Also, BIND (Berkely Internet Name Daemon, the most widely used DNS
server) is "public domain" code by the Wassenaar definition of the
term (http://www.fitug.de/news/wa/index.html) so it would be
exportable under current regulations even if their reasons for
withdrawing permission under the old regs were valid.

> BTW, I'm begining to be sorry that I ever mentioned the idea.
> 
> http://www.dnso.net/mhsc-tld.htm
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:01:08 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

At 10:17 18/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>TLS anyone?

Not the best place to hash this out....but TLS tells you only that it's 
hard to interfere with the transmission, not who it came from....for that 
you need a public key infrastructure of some kind (TLS with X.509 
certificates is defined, but not used much for client authentication).

            Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:41:42 -0700
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 11:01 AM
> 
> At 10:17 18/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >TLS anyone?
> 
> Not the best place to hash this out..

agreed

> ..but TLS tells you only that it's 
> hard to interfere with the transmission, not who it came 
> from..

Kinda, TLS is for third-party verification of the cert. It both
authenticates and encrypts. The downside is that it is server-centric.
Unlike SSL, which is satisfied with a simple signature, TLS actually
goes to the CA and checks the cert. This makes it a three-party
transaction with the CA being the third party. There are a lot of other
details, like being able to use pin-only certs, rather than actual CPI.

> ..for that 
> you need a public key infrastructure of some kind (TLS with X.509 
> certificates is defined, but not used much for client authentication).

This is exactly what I had in mind when I made that recommendation for
the root registry. Registries are natural CAs, they just don't know it
yet.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:02:55 -0400
From: "Newell, Craig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ANNOUNCE: A Day with the North-American ICANN Candidates

Hi everyone,
This is my first post - so don't flame me yet...LOL. Day with the candidates
should be great, since it's local I'm definitely planning on going. I'm also
working to get to Marina del Rey in November, but that's a little harder to
work out.

Craig Newell

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
Edelman
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ANNOUNCE: A Day with the North-American ICANN Candidates

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the
Internet Democracy Project are pleased to announce two events featuring the
ICANN North American candidates, both in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Monday,
October 2, 2000.  In these events, both open to the public and webcast with
remote participation, the seven North-American candidates will engage in an
informal dialogue and participate in a formal candidate debate.

* "A Dialogue with the Candidates," 4:20-6:00PM EDT, moderated by Jonathan
Zittrain, Professor, Harvard Law School.  Professor Jonathan Zittrain's
Internet & Society class will host a moderated discussion with the
candidates, exploring the role of ICANN as an organization, the role of the
ICANN directors, and the scope and meaning of ICANN's At-Large Membership.
The discussion will be open to the public and webcast live with remote
participation.  Both the online and in-person audiences will have the
opportunity to pose questions for the candidates.  This event is presented
by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

* "ICANN North-American Candidate Forum," 7:30-9:30PM EDT, moderated by
David Johnston, President, Waterloo University.  Expanding the format of the
Presidential Commission debates, David Johnston has been invited to moderate
a question-and-answer session among the seven North-American ICANN
candidates about the issues facing ICANN and the role of ICANN itself.
Candidates will respond to questions posed by a distinguished panel
including Declan McCullagh of Wired Magazine.  The forum will be open to the
public in-person and online via webcast with a real-time discussion forum.
After the forum, candidates will have the opportunity to submit brief
written follow-up responses to the forum's questions, and these responses
will be posted along with video and other archive materials in the archive.
This event is presented by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the
Internet Democracy Project.

For more information about these events, please visit the "A Day with the
ICANN North-American Candidates" web site at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum>.

Please note that these events are not sponsored by, nor affiliated with,
ICANN.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is a
research program which explores cyberspace, shares in its study, and
identifies and engages the challenges and opportunities it presents.  The
Internet Democracy Project is a non-partisan organization that seeks to
enhance public participation in decisions concerning the future of the
Internet

We look forward to seeing you in Cambridge or online.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
The Internet Democracy Project

- --
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, 19 Sep 2000 14:17:30 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [announce] Jonathan Cohen elected for 3 years term at the  ICANN Board

Kent,

>
>This would likely be the case no matter what.  I do not forsee any
>likely future where the various constituencies, current or imagined, 
are
>going to magically agree -- any election will be carried by a simple
>majority of the constituencies, with the angry losers growling and 
>snapping afterwards.

That's exactly the point.
The result of the election is determined by the simple majority of the 
Constituencies. The function of the GA is non-existent, as the 
collection of a nomination and 10 endorsements can easily be done by the
 NC reps of said "simple majority of the Constituencies".

My point is that the GA should have a meaningful role (for instance to 
determine who are the first (n) nominees to be forwarded to NC).
Otherwise, we may eliminate the joke/farce of the endorsement 
altogether.

  Pity that more people can't emulate Peter de 
>Blanc's elegant and constructive "thank you" message.

If you are addressing this remark at me, there is a misunderstanding. I 
have no problem at all with the person that has been elected (I thought 
I made it clear, but apparently not enough), I have a problem with the 
"process". And this is the same problem I had last year (please refer to
 the archives). Obviously, I would have had the same problem if a 
different person would have been elected, Peter, or Jamie, or anybody 
else.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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 #152
************************