Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #762
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 29 2001         Volume 01 : Number 762

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:41:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 9:37 AM
>
> |> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:59:48AM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> |> > > based on the notion that you can build products to plug
> |> the holes," said
> |> > > Schneier. "But we are losing the battle with computer
> |> security. We are
> |> > > building new products, but every year gets actively worse."
> |> >
> |> > F.U.D. The problem is *with* the new products, because
> |> organizations are
> |> > so rushed to shove product out the door security if it is
> |> considered at
> |> > all is largely an afterthought. This does not render the problem
> |> > unsolvable.
> |>
> |> Whether it is solvable or not, it is a real problem, not FUD.
>
> The real problem is net admins that don't keep up with the notices and
> upgrades.

  This is a good and most important point that addresses the crux of the
problem that Kent and Patrick commented to.  Indeed, most admins,
and it seems especially ICANN admins, do not a have the breadth of knowledge
and do not keep up with Notices and upgrades.  I and my companies
admins and including our management staff are required to do so.
One good source for these notices which on occasion I have posted
to this list is http://www.sans.org.  There are of course a number of others
as well.

> I have a number of Win2K and Linux host that have survived both
> Code Red and Nimda. NO ONE writes absolutely secure software, just like NO
> ONE writes 100% bug-free systems. With millions of lines of code, it would
> take millions of years for exhaustive testing. We can do 100% unit testing,
> but current problems are integration level issues. Do multiple units
> interact securely?. No one can find all of those permutations prior to
> product release, or even post-release.
>
> see http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/
>
> |> > Do away with laughable EULA's(would you buy a car that said
> |> > "may blow up or not run at all but we're not
> |> responsible?") and start
> |> > holding companies accountable for the crap they are
> |> foisting upon the public
> |> > and I guarantee you'd see a world of change.
> |>
> |> If everybody would just get along, we would have world peace.  The
> |> devil is in the details.
>
> --
> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:16:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:26 PM
> |>
> |> on 9/28/01 2:14 PM, Patrick Greenwell at
> |> [email-masked] wrote:
> |>
> |> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> |> >> what caught my attention was Scheier's [...] his
> |> viewpoint that companies are
> |> reluctant to report cyberattacks because of the stigma,
> |> making things worse.
> |> >
> |> > It's not just stigma, it's a potential liability issue as well.
> |>
> |> A company that sets out to hide from legal responsibilities
> |> is not one the
> |> industry should be defending. Reluctance to share reports
> |> amongst colleagues
> |> for any reason would hamper the industry's overall ability
> |> to exercise
> |> damage limitation. I'm not sure that's an acceptable position for an
> |> organization that is accountable to the public for
> |> regulating the security
> |> of the industry's critical infrastructure.
>
> - snip -
>
> We are not talking about ICANN here, rather a corporation that provides
> Internet services (ICANN arguably doesn't, being political and all).
> Security standards were NEVER a part of the ICANN charter, BTW.

  No security was never specifically a requirement.  But stability IS.
In that Stability IS part of the ICANN Charter, security is an very
entragal part of that Stability!!!

>
>
> |> > I do believe that the idea that Internet security is a
> |> losing battle is
> |> > alarmist hogwash.
> |> >
> |> > Hit something with a stick for long enough and eventually
> |> the object of
> |> > attention is going to take steps to avoid getting hit.
> |>
> |> Hit hard enough, the object is going to suffer catastrophic
> |> failure from a
> |> single event.
>
> Be that as it may, they become some of my better customers. Afterwards,
> those are the ones that actually listen. Complacency is one of the larger
> problems here.

  Yes Complacency is the biggest problem.  Ignorance is one that
feeds that complacency.  Ignoring these concerns that have been
expressed to the ICANN BoD many times, and ignored, seems
not excusable to me.  On the other hand, to change the MdR meeting
to focus ONLY on security concerns is inappropriate and feeds the
very reaction the terrorists wish to have.  I would not be one to
advocate giving them that!!  It seems however that the ICANN
BoD and staff a willing to...

>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:07:08 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Review Task Force

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:54:25 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Appendix B
>Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies

Thanks for the report Roberto.  While disappointing some changes such
as GA Chair elections have not been made it is nice to now have a
clear template to measure an individual's constituency application
against.

What I propose to interested people is that we put together an
application that answers all questions posed below.  We try and gain
maximum agreement on each component and when we have a final
application we ask as many people as possible to lend their name in
support to it.

I suggest that rather than have one person go away and do a personal
draft of the whole thing we work through the 8 major chapters one by
one.  People can all contribute their own wordings and we merge
together to get the best overall result before heading onto the next
section.

It would be nice to have this done in time for Los Angeles.  Not even
necessarily to ask the Board to make a decision at that meeting but to
physically gain more signatures for the petition and lobby key people.
Then present to the Board for their consideration at the next meeting?

DPF

>
>1. Need
>1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?
>1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now 
>lacking?
>
>2. Common interest
>2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new 
>constituency share?
>
>3. Distinction
>3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the 
>proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly 
>and other parts of ICANN?
>
>4. Representation
>4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new 
>constituency be?
>4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of 
>representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?
>
>5. Alternatives
>5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides 
>recognition of a new constituency?
>5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could 
>be fulfilled?
>
>6. Organisation on a global scale
>6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to 
>organise the proposed new constituency?
>6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command 
>the financial and human resources required by a constituency?
>
>7. Support within the DNSO
>7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to 
>seek support from existing constituencies?
>
>8. Impact assessment
>8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing 
>constituencies?
>8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the 
>finances and administration of the DNSO?
>8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy 
>formation within the DNSO?

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:31:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, at 18:16 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> > But I would
> > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > measures.
> 
> Quite the contrary, actually.  Which is the reason why, for example, the
> recent Nimda worm exploited proprietary software, and not open source
> software.

So they say, and as a worshipper of FreeBSD I have no reason to deny
it. I was actually more thinking about root-server security. I cannot
quite see what ICANN has to with the software run on nameservers.
Securing the root-servers physically is about the only thing, and
their distribution. Bind is outside ICANN's sphere, so are the RFCs
about DNS. I'd be curious about other topics.

> It is the worst-kept secret on the internet that the greatest threat to
> stability of the domain name system lies in the fact that ICANN has done
> practically nothing along the lines of their required job of escrowing domain
> registrant data in the event of registrar failure.  Naturally, this important
> and neglected job only inures to the benefit of domain name registrants, by
> protecting the integrity of domain name registrations against financial or
> other disruption in registrar operation.  Domain name registrants are, of
> course, not a constituency of this domain name regulation authority, so
> security of registrations is simply not a priority.

Are you telling us this is not already taken care of today???

- -- 
[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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:12:04 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

hmm, so some don't consider business registrants/others 
a constituency?  We think we are represented by one of the ICANN DNSO
constituencies. And the non commercial registrants are engaged through the
N-C Constituency.  

...and that security and data escrow are a priority, and should become even
more so.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:32 PM
To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, at 18:16 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> > But I would
> > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > measures.
> 
> Quite the contrary, actually.  Which is the reason why, for example, the
> recent Nimda worm exploited proprietary software, and not open source
> software.

So they say, and as a worshipper of FreeBSD I have no reason to deny
it. I was actually more thinking about root-server security. I cannot
quite see what ICANN has to with the software run on nameservers.
Securing the root-servers physically is about the only thing, and
their distribution. Bind is outside ICANN's sphere, so are the RFCs
about DNS. I'd be curious about other topics.

> It is the worst-kept secret on the internet that the greatest threat to
> stability of the domain name system lies in the fact that ICANN has done
> practically nothing along the lines of their required job of escrowing
domain
> registrant data in the event of registrar failure.  Naturally, this
important
> and neglected job only inures to the benefit of domain name registrants,
by
> protecting the integrity of domain name registrations against financial or
> other disruption in registrar operation.  Domain name registrants are, of
> course, not a constituency of this domain name regulation authority, so
> security of registrations is simply not a priority.

Are you telling us this is not already taken care of today???

- -- 
[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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:33:38 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

To All who have contributed to this marvelous thread a hearty thank you!

A meeting consumed with this is not meeting at all.  You have all taken
great
pains to put forth your position.
Us dotcommoners thank you we have learned a great deal.

The original concept was that it is ludicrous to have a meeting with
this as
the sole agenda.  That is obviously true.

The second point was that this was a ruse to keep us from more pressing
matters
including a charge that it was indecent to use tragedy in such a way, as
to
block normal progressions.

Please refocus on the AT LARGE and the IDN(whatever)RHO and the survival
of the
DNSO.  Our staff and BoD do neither know nor care about security.  I am
sure
that Danny will soon have pearls of truth regarding these matters and we
should
be ready for discussion on that topic.

nine members or six;
what restrictions on membership;
restrict the IDNa or allow it to be wide open;
funding for the GA

Security is a great issue but not here and now.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Roeland and all assembly members,
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > |> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > |> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:26 PM
> > |>
> > |> on 9/28/01 2:14 PM, Patrick Greenwell at
> > |> [email-masked] wrote:
> > |>
> > |> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > |> >> what caught my attention was Scheier's [...] his
> > |> viewpoint that companies are
> > |> reluctant to report cyberattacks because of the stigma,
> > |> making things worse.
> > |> >
> > |> > It's not just stigma, it's a potential liability issue as well.
> > |>
> > |> A company that sets out to hide from legal responsibilities
> > |> is not one the
> > |> industry should be defending. Reluctance to share reports
> > |> amongst colleagues
> > |> for any reason would hamper the industry's overall ability
> > |> to exercise
> > |> damage limitation. I'm not sure that's an acceptable position for an
> > |> organization that is accountable to the public for
> > |> regulating the security
> > |> of the industry's critical infrastructure.
> >
> > - snip -
> >
> > We are not talking about ICANN here, rather a corporation that provides
> > Internet services (ICANN arguably doesn't, being political and all).
> > Security standards were NEVER a part of the ICANN charter, BTW.
>
>   No security was never specifically a requirement.  But stability IS.
> In that Stability IS part of the ICANN Charter, security is an very
> entragal part of that Stability!!!
>
> >
> >
> > |> > I do believe that the idea that Internet security is a
> > |> losing battle is
> > |> > alarmist hogwash.
> > |> >
> > |> > Hit something with a stick for long enough and eventually
> > |> the object of
> > |> > attention is going to take steps to avoid getting hit.
> > |>
> > |> Hit hard enough, the object is going to suffer catastrophic
> > |> failure from a
> > |> single event.
> >
> > Be that as it may, they become some of my better customers. Afterwards,
> > those are the ones that actually listen. Complacency is one of the larger
> > problems here.
>
>   Yes Complacency is the biggest problem.  Ignorance is one that
> feeds that complacency.  Ignoring these concerns that have been
> expressed to the ICANN BoD many times, and ignored, seems
> not excusable to me.  On the other hand, to change the MdR meeting
> to focus ONLY on security concerns is inappropriate and feeds the
> very reaction the terrorists wish to have.  I would not be one to
> advocate giving them that!!  It seems however that the ICANN
> BoD and staff a willing to...
>
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> 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
- --
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:03:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

Not everything businesses or non-commercial groups do is within ICANN just
because they are represented in it.  What is it you think IS within
ICANN's purview and needs addressing? 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> hmm, so some don't consider business registrants/others 
> a constituency?  We think we are represented by one of the ICANN DNSO
> constituencies. And the non commercial registrants are engaged through the
> N-C Constituency.  
> 
> ....and that security and data escrow are a priority, and should become even
> more so.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:32 PM
> To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, at 18:16 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> > From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
> > > But I would
> > > think that if there is one subject that is not really suited to deal
> > > with in an open transparent and bottom up process it is security
> > > measures.
> > 
> > Quite the contrary, actually.  Which is the reason why, for example, the
> > recent Nimda worm exploited proprietary software, and not open source
> > software.
> 
> So they say, and as a worshipper of FreeBSD I have no reason to deny
> it. I was actually more thinking about root-server security. I cannot
> quite see what ICANN has to with the software run on nameservers.
> Securing the root-servers physically is about the only thing, and
> their distribution. Bind is outside ICANN's sphere, so are the RFCs
> about DNS. I'd be curious about other topics.
> 
> > It is the worst-kept secret on the internet that the greatest threat to
> > stability of the domain name system lies in the fact that ICANN has done
> > practically nothing along the lines of their required job of escrowing
> domain
> > registrant data in the event of registrar failure.  Naturally, this
> important
> > and neglected job only inures to the benefit of domain name registrants,
> by
> > protecting the integrity of domain name registrations against financial or
> > other disruption in registrar operation.  Domain name registrants are, of
> > course, not a constituency of this domain name regulation authority, so
> > security of registrations is simply not a priority.
> 
> Are you telling us this is not already taken care of today???
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 very hot and 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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:10:53 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Hi Roberto,

I too have a comment.

I have no argument with the concepts. I just think the ICANN board meeting is
simply an inappropriate forum to discuss the issues.  I would think IETF risks
being a waaaaaaay better place. The net has existed for years with its 'dirty
little secrets' surving on the basis that those with sufficient knowledge could
do damage in one way or another (like kashpuref did) but chose not to out of
some form or reverence or spirit of cooperation. There are things that are
simply not talked about.  Even when Ira Magaziner (Anyone remember him?) was
briefed on a few of the nasties, did anything change? Nope it was business as
usual at DoC.  Was any mention of the issues included in the bidding process
that ended up with ICANN awarded a contract? Nope.  Its not in their terms of
reference. Nor, when you think of it, should it be. In fact, some of these
things...you start discussing them in open at a meeting...its just like printing
out inflammatory leaflets.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I concur with Sandy's post, but would also add a comment.
>
> The most spectacular effect that the terrorist attack has created is the
> collapse of the Twin Towers, and the most sad effect are the thousands of
> casualties, but there is another effect that has not to be underestimated:
> the critical situation in which the western economy has been put. I speak
> about the impact on airline industry, the burden on insurance companies, the
> drop in the stock market, and other things that will impact us for the years
> to come (higher insurance premia, higher cost of travel, longer boarding
> times, etc.).
>
> The terrorists of the new millennium might well concentrate on these kind of
> damages, that are less likely to create horror for their acts, and therefore
> less likely to create a consensus front against them.
> Our Net has been built and is being operated in a way that will survive well
> nuclear attacks, but less well electronic sabotage.
> Somebody has asked in this forum what would have happened if a root server
> would have been located in lower Manhattan (or, for this purpose, even in
> the Twin Towers). The answer is, IMHO, "Nothing, the other 12 would have
> been more than sufficient". In fact, the Net would have suffered under
> (physical) attack to half a dozen of roots at the same time much less than
> what it suffered under Kashpureff's electronic attack few years ago.
>
> I do believe that it is a responsible answer from ICANN to address these
> issues before the terrorists find out how they can attack the DNS and
> jeopardize its functioning, creating billions of damage to the western
> economy. The big problem is, IMHO, that a lot of people see the DNS as a
> milk cow, and are very little motivated to deploy secure procedures (more
> costly and requiring higher expertise) if they see this as a risk for their
> profits. Therefore the only way to progress on this is to include security
> requirements in the contracts ICANN has with the different parties
> (Registries and accredited Registrars).
>
> I am saddened by the delay that this may have on other issues, on which I am
> contributing and I would see progressing (like the AtLarge), but I am also
> looking forward to see an open debate on security, as a vital subject for
> the survival of the Net as we know it today.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> (Sandy's excellent post cut for bandwidth)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:42:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

But what, in your view, is there to discuss about this?  I thought ICANN
has long has the obligation and power to create a backup - that's the
"escrow" it's supposed to run.  AFAIK, it just hasn't bothered.  Too busy
explaining why an at-large membership is a danger to the internet?  No
policy changes are required here, just staff action to implement
long-existing policy.  Or am I missing something?

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> Did you know that if NSI-Registrar was put out of business in a permanent,
> WTC sense (god forbid), that there are currently no defined process for
> recreating the service records for some 16 million or so registrants? I'd
> say that fact alone makes ICANN an appropriate forum to discuss the issue.
> We might not be able to wrap our arms around a lot of topics, but the ones
> that we can are fairly important.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 very hot and 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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 23:00:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Security

There has been a fair amount of discussion on this list and elsewhere 
regarding the upcoming Marina del Rey agenda.   I would remind you that as an 
organization, we are committed to abiding by the principles articulated in 
the White Paper:

"...the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS 
management system. Security and reliability of the DNS are important aspects 
of stability, and as a new DNS management system is introduced, a 
comprehensive security strategy should be developed."  

In light of the recent tragic events, it is entirely appropriate for our 
Chief Executive Officer to focus our collective efforts toward 
security-related issues.   That is his prerogative and duty.  Doubtless there 
are significant considerations that prompted his decision to depart from the 
usual format.  As further announcements will be forthcoming next week, and as 
input has been requested (Please send any comments or questions to 
[email-masked]), I would ask this assembly to forward their thoughts and 
concerns accordingly.   

Please remember that under our Bylaws, "The President will be the Chief 
Executive Officer (CEO) of the Corporation in charge of all of its activities 
and business."  Many of us may not agree with his decision, but in this 
instance, it is his decision to make.   

- --
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:55:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Security - Some disinformation and helpful comments from the Chair...

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> There has been a fair amount of discussion on this list and elsewhere
> regarding the upcoming Marina del Rey agenda.   I would remind you that as an
> organization, we are committed to abiding by the principles articulated in
> the White Paper:
>
> "...the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS
> management system. Security and reliability of the DNS are important aspects
> of stability, and as a new DNS management system is introduced, a
> comprehensive security strategy should be developed."

  Indeed, quite right here Danny.  And it is long overdue that the ICANN
BOD, staff and the stakeholders get busy together in getting all the
aspects of stability and security of the DNS in shape.

>
>
> In light of the recent tragic events, it is entirely appropriate for our
> Chief Executive Officer to focus our collective efforts toward
> security-related issues.   That is his prerogative and duty.

  Indeed it is, and Stuart Lynn's predecessor, Mike Roberts, this
responsibility, although frequently called for action upon on many
occasions in the not too distant past (Last summer), has been
terribly and disgustingly neglected to the point of we now
need quick and decisive but thoughtful action.  To our members
and their Name servers as well as their Domain Names, this
is a stark example of poor management in the extreme.

  Therefore, we are suggesting that the DNSO GA formulate
a list of "Major Hitters" with respect to security needs for the
various areas within the DNS and the Root Server structure
as well as registries, and registrar databases.

>  Doubtless there
> are significant considerations that prompted his decision to depart from the
> usual format.

  Yes there certainly are!  It is commonly called post negligence
syndrome or incompatancy before the fact.  None the less a change
in the agenda for the next ICANN meeting in MDR is certainly not
called for and is only playing into the hands of the terrorists as well
as creating fear unnecessarily amongst stakeholders and the
internet community.

>  As further announcements will be forthcoming next week, and as
> input has been requested (Please send any comments or questions to
> [email-masked]), I would ask this assembly to forward their thoughts and
> concerns accordingly.
>
> Please remember that under our Bylaws, "The President will be the Chief
> Executive Officer (CEO) of the Corporation in charge of all of its activities
> and business."  Many of us may not agree with his decision, but in this
> instance, it is his decision to make.

  Incorrect.  The white paper clearly states that such decisions should be
reached by consensus by all of the stakeholders or the internet community.

  In the future Danny, please try to be more accurate when making such
comments.  Thank you for your cooperation in advance...

>
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:39:30 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

> I have no argument with the concepts. I just think the ICANN board meeting
is
> simply an inappropriate forum to discuss the issues.  I would think IETF
risks
> being a waaaaaaay better place. The net has existed for years with its
'dirty
> little secrets' surving on the basis that those with sufficient knowledge
could
> do damage in one way or another (like kashpuref did) but chose not to out
of
> some form or reverence or spirit of cooperation.

Dan,

Did you know that if NSI-Registrar was put out of business in a permanent,
WTC sense (god forbid), that there are currently no defined process for
recreating the service records for some 16 million or so registrants? I'd
say that fact alone makes ICANN an appropriate forum to discuss the issue.
We might not be able to wrap our arms around a lot of topics, but the ones
that we can are fairly important.

Thanks,

- -rwr

Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492

- --
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:35:32 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

>  No
> policy changes are required here, just staff action to implement
> long-existing policy.  Or am I missing something?

AFAIK, the only policy concerning escrow essentially states its a good thing
and Registrars have to do it when ICANN figures out what the policy and
processes are. My interpretation might be off, but I'm at least convinced
enough to place a small wager on it.

Now don't get me wrong here, there are other pressing issues that need to be
dealt with, but an examination of the stability of our corner of the
Internet isn't such a bad thing. However, other issues need to move forward
as well.

- -rwr

- --
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 12:12:33 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] icann-sme ML for SME excutive managers

Dear Jeff and Patrick,
I am sorry about the misunderstanding. I only meant the icann-sme list is 
organized through the he tiny world@wide fondation providing the small 
initial funding for the coming site. This way the owner is not an 
individual what will ease the transfer to the incorporated structure we may 
decide together.

The list is open to every SME executive: there is only an unformal check 
that you really own/run a business by your own. Only because the forum is 
on SME mangement, interest, protection etc... by concerned decision tarkers 
and because we want to investigate how to SMEs must be represented winthin 
the Internet governance.

Just send a mail to [email-masked].

Jefsey

On 21:29 28/09/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Jefsey,
>
>   Does this group and you post mean that to join one has to be
>sponsored?  If so are you a member?  And would you possibly sponsor me
>as I would be interested?
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > FYI any SME executive manager on this list may
> > want to join the [email-masked]
> > discussion list. This list sponsored by the world@wide
> > foundation intends to be an open forum on the SME
> > matters.
> >
> > Its first target is to contribute to the SME
> > Consultative Committee delayed election (as per
> > the DNSO/BC rules) and to share into the
> > writing of a DNSO/BC position paper on the
> > Internet Security issues.
> >
> > However, this ML is not dedicated to the DNSO/BC
> > only. One of its target is to permit SMEs to review
> > their representation needs and possibilities through
> > the DNSO/BC or through an SME Constituency.
> >
> > Among the topics we would like to address:
> > - position link oriented working procedure
> > - consensus management efficient tool
> > - governance Membership and @large associations
> > - a title for the domain name
> > - value added domain name management to be
> >    discussed with Registries
> > - ISO 9001 agreement for Registries
> > - DNS innovation and business opportunities
> > - Domain Name definition, Efficient DRP;
> >    new forms of domain names
> > - international local operation support
> > - EDI and Internet
> > - IPv6
> > - relations with SME administrations
> > - proposition of an Internet Company status
> > - creation of an International structural venture
> >    financing Foundation
> > etc...
> >
> > To subscribe send a mail to:
> > -  [email-masked]
> >
> > Membership is to be sponsored by one of the
> > existing Members. The target is to male sure
> > there is no Membership creep.
> >
> > I thank you for your attention.
> > Jefsey Morfin
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>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 #762
************************