Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #154
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, September 21 2000         Volume 01 : Number 154

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:29:41 -0400
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

At 05:41 18/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>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 is a property of the implementation, not of the protocol.
TLS *IS* SSL version 3.0 with the owner names changed and some minor tweaks 
to the list of cryptoalgorithms.

- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:03:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

Harald,
Your mails concerning the protection of the DNS exchanges are
certainly of  real value and importance. Your initial mail about your
agreement for any solution as far as there would be no proprietary
change in DNS files shown that the issue is of common interest.
And important.

However I must say I cannot understand your mails, they seem
written in Government French to me. Would you know some place
on the web where to find some documentation on that matter..
Deep thanks.
Jefsey

At 21:29 20/09/00, you wrote:
>At 05:41 18/09/2000 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>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 is a property of the implementation, not of the protocol.
>TLS *IS* SSL version 3.0 with the owner names changed and some minor 
>tweaks to the list of cryptoalgorithms.
>
>--
>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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:52:32 -0400
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

At 04:03 21/09/2000 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>However I must say I cannot understand your mails, they seem
>written in Government French to me. Would you know some place
>on the web where to find some documentation on that matter..

ouch....

RFC 2246 defines TLS, and its relationship to SSL.
RFC 2065 defines the security extensions to DNS.

There are books on both subjects - try amazon.com to get lists.
More on TLS than on secure DNS, I think.

I also recommend Bruce Schneier's "Appled cryptography" - not so much for 
its algorithm descriptions (which are very good), but for the insight it 
gives into how cryptographers and security people think.

Happy infohunting!

- --
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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Secure DNS

Jefsey,

try the BIND 9 Administrator Reference Manual  it discusses DNSSEC and is
the only known implementation of DNSSEC.
 
http://www.nominum.com/resources/Bv9ARM-091200.pdf

- -rick

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> However I must say I cannot understand your mails, they seem
> written in Government French to me. Would you know some place
> on the web where to find some documentation on that matter..
> Deep thanks.
> Jefsey

- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:23:49 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] registries and registrars

At 10:03 20/09/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>You will recall that the original model, discussed in Barcelona and in
>Monterrey, was that of an "at-large" *constituency*. 

I seem to recall that this was your idea, Kent. It did not find favour,
perhaps because the ccTLD's dominated those two first meetings.
<snip>
>Once again, I must remind people that while the IP interests get all the
>attention, it is fact the registries and registrars that are the most
>adamant special interest groups in the DNSO.  This is completely
>understandable -- they are the ones that have *direct* legal ties to
>ICANN. 
>
On this point, and on this point only, I agree with Kent.  Because of their
direct legal ties with ICANN the registries and registrars have also the
most opportunity to act oppressively towards the registrants--by forcing
them to sign their rights away if they want to be registered or renewed at
all.
If IP interests act oppressively, they prefer to do this indirectly, by way
of  the registries and registrars.
Tomorrow, other interests and lobby groups can exploit the same avenue.

- --Joop--
www.idno.org
- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:07:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconference today 21 Sep 2000

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000921.NCtelecon-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 21 September 2000 - agenda
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 September 2000.

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on 21 September at the
     following time:

     (8:00 US East Coast, 14:00 CET, 21:00 Japan/Korea, 22:00 Melbourne)
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Local time between April 2nd and October, 2000.
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         12:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   5:00
         Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST   7:00
         Washington DC, USA                   (EDT) UTC-5+1DST   8:00
         Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   8:00
         Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   9:00
         Nouakchott, Mauritania                     UTC+0+0DST  12:00
         Dublin, Ireland                            UTC+0+1DST  13:00
         Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
         Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
         Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
         Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
         Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
         Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
         Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  22:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. Dany Vandromme is kindly providing the teleconference bridge

  3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints. To listen to the
     NC telecon, please call the following phone number:

     Phone number: 
     Duration: 2 hours

     Agenda and related documents

     Ken Stubbs will be chairing the NC teleconference.

     Due to the last minute input on the agenda, the order of items is
     subject to the approval at the beginning of the meeting.

       A. Approval of the agenda

       B. Minutes from August 17th NC teleconference

       C. Intake Committee report

          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200008.NC-intake.v4.html, Version
          4, August 2000

       D. Proxy vote proposal

          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000920.NCproxy-vote.v0.html,
          Version 0, 20 September 2000

       E. Business Constituency dues problem

       F. Los Angeles DNSO Meeting (NC and GA)
            1. Decision on the webcast
            2. DNSO point of contact

       G. DNSO Review report

          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000919.NCreview-report.v1.2.html,
          Version 1.2, 19 September 2000

       H. Budget Committee update

          Work in progress

       I. Financial report from ICANN staff

       J. ICANN staff report for status on independent review panel
          nominations

       K. Discussion regarding individual outreach and representation

       L. Next Names Council Teleconferences
             * Thursday October 19th
             * Other prior to LA ?

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

                      Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconference today 21 Sep 2000

I'm sorry but the phone number for the phone bridge appears to be absent?

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 
>   2. Dany Vandromme is kindly providing the teleconference bridge
> 
>   3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints. To listen to the
>      NC telecon, please call the following phone number:
> 
>      Phone number: 
>      Duration: 2 hours
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's humid here.<--

- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:37:34 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] It's started. Fwd: New Policy for Domain Names

Who is behind this? Under what authority are they doing this?

This is exactly the type of thing that should be avoided at all costs.

[Note the sender's domain name is not valid.]

>From: [email-masked]
>To: Domain Name Holder<>
>Subject: New Policy for Domain Names
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:31:42 -0400
>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
>
>New Top Level Domains to come out early next year!
>
>July 16, 2000 - Yokohama, Japan - The Internet Corporation for Assigned
>Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced that it adopted a policy that will
>introduce new global top-level domains (TLDs).  The proposed new domains
>include: .web, .inc, .rec, .shop, .store, .firm, .law, .biz, .nom, .news,
>.arts .xxx, .porn, and .sex.  The approved TLDs are to be made available
>starting early 2001.  ICAAN however has not released the exact time and
>date.
>
>The decision to release the new TLDs was prompted by the increasing scarcity
>of domain names.  Domain registrations reached an all time high with over 10
>million domain name registrations in the first six months of this year.  The
>overwhelming consensus of the Internet community is that new domain names
>are needed to increase competition and to create an alternative to .com,.net
>and .org domain extensions.
>
>The demand for quality domain names is so significant that domain name
>registration companies and the Internet as a whole is expected to bog down
>during the first several hours at the opening of these new TLDs making it
>difficult for consumers to get the new names they desire.
>
>In anticipation of this problem, Regland.com is hosting a centralized
>database for the pre-registration of these names prior to their opening. For
>further information about the pre-registration process please visit
>www.RegLand.com <http://www.RegLand.com>.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
>this letter cannot be considered "spam" as long as we include:
>1) contact information (see above); and,
>2) the way to be removed from future mailings (see below).
>
>To be removed from this list, please mail to:
>[email-masked]?subject=remove with 'remove' in
>subject line and you will be removed from our 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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:00:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] It's started. Fwd: New Policy for Domain Names

Simon,

I'm sure that there are dozens of these initiatives around, trying to 
make few bucks with little effort.
Any suggestion on how to avoid it?
(BTW, you cannot think that this is serious, and that somebody serious 
is behind it)
RG

>Who is behind this? Under what authority are they doing this?
>
>This is exactly the type of thing that should be avoided at all costs.
>
>[Note the sender's domain name is not valid.]
>
>>From: [email-masked]
>>To: Domain Name Holder<>
>>Subject: New Policy for Domain Names
>>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:31:42 -0400
>>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
>>
>>New Top Level Domains to come out early next year!
>>
>>July 16, 2000 - Yokohama, Japan - The Internet Corporation for 
Assigned
>>Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced that it adopted a policy that will

>>introduce new global top-level domains (TLDs).  The proposed new 
domains
>>include: .web, .inc, .rec, .shop, .store, .firm, .law, .biz, .nom, 
news,
>>.arts .xxx, .porn, and .sex.  The approved TLDs are to be made 
available
>>starting early 2001.  ICAAN however has not released the exact time 
and
>>date.
>>
>>The decision to release the new TLDs was prompted by the increasing 
scarcity
>>of domain names.  Domain registrations reached an all time high with 
over 10
>>million domain name registrations in the first six months of this 
year.  The
>>overwhelming consensus of the Internet community is that new domain 
names
>>are needed to increase competition and to create an alternative to 
com,.net
>>and .org domain extensions.
>>
>>The demand for quality domain names is so significant that domain name

>>registration companies and the Internet as a whole is expected to bog 
down
>>during the first several hours at the opening of these new TLDs making
 it
>>difficult for consumers to get the new names they desire.
>>
>>In anticipation of this problem, Regland.com is hosting a centralized
>>database for the pre-registration of these names prior to their 
opening. For
>>further information about the pre-registration process please visit
>>www.RegLand.com <http://www.RegLand.com>.
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
>>this letter cannot be considered "spam" as long as we include:
>>1) contact information (see above); and,
>>2) the way to be removed from future mailings (see below).
>>
>>To be removed from this list, please mail to:
>>[email-masked]?subject=remove with 'remove' in
>>subject line and you will be removed from our 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
>
>
>
>
- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:16:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] It's started. Fwd: New Policy for Domain Names

Hello Simon,

Thursday, September 21, 2000, 9:37:34 AM, you wrote:

> Who is behind this? Under what authority are they doing this?

> This is exactly the type of thing that should be avoided at all costs.

Overreaction to a well known scam.  They don't have to have authority
for what they are doing.  They guarantee nothing, and get to keep the
money either way.

This is not new, they have been spamming this scam everywhere.

- -- 
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:30:27 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] It's started. Fwd: New Policy for Domain Names

Roberto,

>I'm sure that there are dozens of these initiatives around, trying to
>make few bucks with little effort.
>Any suggestion on how to avoid it?

Yes. I know exactly how to avoid it. But I don't believe I have the 
platform to address the solution from.

>(BTW, you cannot think that this is serious, and that somebody serious
>is behind it)

I've been receiving phone calls about it. I've been informed that 
pre-registrations are also being taken in the same list of TLDs by some of 
the ICANN-approved registrars.

So, yes. This email is a scam, but there are some serious players who have 
been implicated to accepting pre-registrations in the same list of TLDs.

>RG
>
> >Who is behind this? Under what authority are they doing this?
> >
> >This is exactly the type of thing that should be avoided at all costs.
> >
> >[Note the sender's domain name is not valid.]
> >
> >>From: [email-masked]
> >>To: Domain Name Holder<>
> >>Subject: New Policy for Domain Names
> >>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:31:42 -0400
> >>X-Sender: [email-masked]
> >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
> >>
> >>New Top Level Domains to come out early next year!
> >>
> >>July 16, 2000 - Yokohama, Japan - The Internet Corporation for
>Assigned
> >>Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced that it adopted a policy that will
>
> >>introduce new global top-level domains (TLDs).  The proposed new
>domains
> >>include: .web, .inc, .rec, .shop, .store, .firm, .law, .biz, .nom,
>news,
> >>.arts .xxx, .porn, and .sex.  The approved TLDs are to be made
>available
> >>starting early 2001.  ICAAN however has not released the exact time
>and
> >>date.
> >>
> >>The decision to release the new TLDs was prompted by the increasing
>scarcity
> >>of domain names.  Domain registrations reached an all time high with
>over 10
> >>million domain name registrations in the first six months of this
>year.  The
> >>overwhelming consensus of the Internet community is that new domain
>names
> >>are needed to increase competition and to create an alternative to
>com,.net
> >>and .org domain extensions.
> >>
> >>The demand for quality domain names is so significant that domain name
>
> >>registration companies and the Internet as a whole is expected to bog
>down
> >>during the first several hours at the opening of these new TLDs making
>  it
> >>difficult for consumers to get the new names they desire.
> >>
> >>In anticipation of this problem, Regland.com is hosting a centralized
> >>database for the pre-registration of these names prior to their
>opening. For
> >>further information about the pre-registration process please visit
> >>www.RegLand.com <http://www.RegLand.com>.
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress
> >>this letter cannot be considered "spam" as long as we include:
> >>1) contact information (see above); and,
> >>2) the way to be removed from future mailings (see below).
> >>
> >>To be removed from this list, please mail to:
> >>[email-masked]?subject=remove with 'remove' in
> >>subject line and you will be removed from our 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
> >
> >
> >
> >

- --
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:29:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] It's started. Fwd: New Policy for Domain Names

Hello Simon,

Thursday, September 21, 2000, 12:30:27 PM, you wrote:

>>(BTW, you cannot think that this is serious, and that somebody serious
>>is behind it)

> I've been receiving phone calls about it. I've been informed that 
> pre-registrations are also being taken in the same list of TLDs by some of 
> the ICANN-approved registrars.

> So, yes. This email is a scam, but there are some serious players who have 
> been implicated to accepting pre-registrations in the same list of TLDs.

So let me get this right.  You post a message that is a scam, but keep
the names of the (supposed) real registrars who are doing the same
thing to yourself?

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #154
************************