Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #764
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 29 2001         Volume 01 : Number 764

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

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:01:37 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

sorry, I think you  missed the mention of "security" in my post.  Data
escrow is only a part of the issues needing priority attention in ensuring
stability, security, and integrity in threat situations. 

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 6:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

On 03:12 29/09/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>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.

Sure, domain name protection is of the essence.

But is the escrow of bugged systems and tables the only system to protect 
us. I doubt it. Let be clear: would NSI be blown up, burnt or flooded, what 
would you make with the 24,000,000 DN data they have or not in a vault? You 
would need their system to be rebuilt in the same way, in the very hour.
- - millions of DN on hold? It would be worst that starting it anew? It would 
be thousands USRPs...
- - do you know that to register a name server IP you have to send a fax 
(anyone can fake) and wait for a week? Rebuilding the NSI Sytem would asj 
for months. As Roberto explained it, it would never happen as NSI or the 
world would have gone down before.

The best escrow is a title you can hold and show and a smart card you can 
use on every registry system. May be large businesses with legal staff and 
business enough may accept other solutions. May be individual or NonCom may 
accept temporary patches or loss of access. SMEs cannot: our live depends 
more an more on a tiny something undefined, not protected, not... this not 
... that, costing $9. Makes the life of our entreprises worth less than a 
pizza. This is not serious.

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
- --
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 18:48:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Registration data backup? (RE: [ga] We can't be against it?)

On 14:41 29/09/01, Marc Schneiders said:
>Jefsey
>Are you *sure* there is no decent backup system in place at NSI? I
>have no idea, but would be surprised if not.

Dear Marc,
yes. A backup system is to protect you in the unexpected.

1) we all experienced enough direct knowledge of NSI data to know that even 
if the Charlotte center was perfect, the simple continuation of the current 
operations under increased strain would not be appropriate. Before the 11th 
NSI had just hired people to manually assist to the transfers in a normal 
period.

2) even if all the possible situations has been taken into account, we know 
from direct knowledge as we both managing small TLDs the cost of TLD 
management. We know that $ 6 a piece does not permit much. NSI is to 
publish what they do: run a a search on "network solutions verisign backup 
protection security".

3) but the most important element is you. The best technical solution is 
worth only the way you use it. Security of a service to the public like TLD 
management public trust and informed behavior are of the essence. We know 
there is no public information nor attempt at winning our trust on the matter.

Also, whatever remaining trust has been killed - I am afraid - by Stuart 
Lynn. His emphasis on security at the next meeting is a major security 
failure. He shows that he does not trust the way it works now; he shows 
that whatever will be done it will be in hurry and in confusion, he shows 
that Internet security is left to amateurish decisions, he furthers 
destabilize the ICANN and kills or delays some of its best security assets 
(TLD dissemination, @large relations, ccTLD organization).

The only hope I have is that all this debate will lead GAC to support 
ccTLDs in installing dependable root server systems in every country, 
require an ISO 9000 certification of all the Internet public structures 
(starting with an ICANN contained into its only mission), sponsor an 
international R&D effort for simple, reliable and secure Java based 
Internet access solutions and most of all will make sure that the IPv5 is 
far more seriously addressed.

This is what Mike Roberts calls my "wild plans" and what I mean when I ask 
the ICANN to get real.
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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:10:43 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Registration data backup? (RE: [ga] We can't be against it?)

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Are you *sure* there is no decent backup system in place at NSI? I
> have no idea, but would be surprised if not.
 
So would I. In fact, that were the case I'd be entirely amazed, completely
dumbfounded, ... (searching for stronger expression and not finding one).

However, 'backup' has several meanings, and I'm not sure they're all
covered.

One is the normal backup mechanisms any business applies to its critical 
data. This has a number of levels: RAID arrays, duplicate servers, backup
to removable media both on and off the primary sites, ... This is the one
I'm almost certain NSI are doing. They'd have to be insane or spectacularly
incompetent not to.

Methinks their ICANN contract should require this type of backup, along
with the full set of RFC 2870 root server admininstration standards, and
compliance should be audited. However, that's just good business practice
on ICANN's part; no big issues arise.

Question:
Do the contracts in fact require that and how is it audited?

Escrow, timely provision of data to an outside organisation, is a separate
question. Various people, notably Froomkin, have been rather pointedly
asking about this and getting no good answers.

Of course this question ties in to the whole issue of who owns the data
in DNS and whois. Auerbach has some good comment:
http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm
See the section on whois in the "What I would say ..." paper. I will
not go into those issues here.

Rick Wesson writes, in the "Net security's a losing battle" thread:

| As one who sat on the ICANN Escrow committee I can state that the
| committee did create a final draft that specified escrow formats
| and how escrow would be done. The document was forwarded to ICANN
| and I have no clue why they didn't implement it. All ICANN need to
| do is publish their requirements on escrow, and start up their 
| service, which they have had over 9 months to complete.

Qusetions:
Is this draft online? Where?
Will the draft be implemented? When and how? 
If not, why not and what is the alternative?

There are several additional questions -- overlapping both with both
NSI backup and with escrow, but by no means synonymous -- in the area
of disaster recovery, and more generally with system resiliency in the
face of failures or malice.

I cannot see that these are big issues, assuming that the root servers
are suitably geographically dispersed and that they are properly (RFC
2870) managed.

Questions:

Are root servers suitably dispersed? It appears not entirely so from
the map at:
http://www.wia.org/pub/rootserv.html
One in Japan, two in Western Europe, ten in the US.
Is that map out of date?

Should we not add at least one server each in Eastern Europe, mainland
Asia, South America and the Antipodes? This might save network overhead
as well as increasing resiliency against various failures.

A report on Y2K readiness of the root servers:
http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/y2k-statement.htm
had this text:

> Due to protocol limitations, the number of these machines is currently
> limited to 13, although efforts are underway to remove this limitation. 

Has that limitation been removed yet? If so, should we now add servers?
If not, can we get it removed? 

Are all the root servers well-managed? Do the ICANN contracts require
this and provide for auditing?

Are servers other than the root a concern? If so, are they an ICANN
concern? Clearly an accident or an attacker could do considerable
damage to the net without touching the root -- for example hitting
the zone servers for .uk, .jp or .org. Can and should ICANN require
RFC 2870 standards for administration of those?

Do the NSI-run TLDs such as .com live on servers separate from the
root servers? Should they?
- --
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 10:13:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

|> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 7:40 PM

|> 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.

Yes.

|> We might not be able to wrap our arms around a lot of 
|> topics, but the ones
|> that we can are fairly important.

Folks like me quit mentioning it because, being ignored gets kinda old, you
know?
- --
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 10:29:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 12

Just in case there is any doubt that this is a bottoms up consensus
originated
formal request.  I lend my poor and feeble voice to it on behalf of my
brothers
and sisters who happily allow me to write for them.  While Mr. Younger
is a
good and loyal representative of this body he tends to be more politick
than us
unsophisticated dotcommoners. Of course this is just a WOD*.

On behalf of dotcommoners I demand this time.  I also intend to forward
these
messages and an announcement of the meeting and Mr. Youngers' agenda to
each
and every news service I can find.  The background data builds a
wonderful
story of how us little people lose our rights as mega players jockey for
power
and money using catastrophe and necessity as the springboard for denial
of what
little we have.

Here is the unfolding of a classic story of the exclusive doctrines
creating
despair to a level which ultimately causes radicalism. These
totalitarianistic
actions by the BOD cause more harm to world stability than we yet know.

*"" {"WOD"} (Writing Of a Dotcommoner) = boring and humanistic to most
technical people.  based in self serving adaptations of such principals
as
declarations of independence. Also known as WithOut Dinero, ergo no
power.""

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Diane,
>
> In the letter that Stuart posted to the Council (cited below), he indicates
> that there is no reason that November 12 cannot still be made available to
> those constituencies ,SO's and other ICANN
> committees or task forces that want to hold meetings to consider other
> pressing items on their agendas.
>
> Please consider this a formal request from the GA to convene a six-hour
> session on Nov. 12.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> > Dear colleagues:
> >
> > As you know, ICANN announced two days ago that the annual ICANN
> > meeting would indeed occur on November 13-15 inclusive, and that the
> > meeting would focus on security and stability of the Internet's
> > naming and addressing systems.
> >
> > The original meeting, of course, was scheduled to start on November
> > 12, not November 13. There is no reason that November 12 cannot still
> > be made available to those constituencies ,SO's and other ICANN
> > committees or task forces that want to hold meetings to consider
> > other pressing items on their agendas. Apart from these agenda items,
> > such meetings might also be useful for shaping input on any items
> > that are on the Board agenda. You may recall from the announcement
> > that the Board may decide to take up items where "time is of the
> > essence".
> >
> > Making use of November 12 for these or other purposes would help to
> > ensure that we can all focus on the core security agenda the
> > following three days. Once the details of this core agenda are firmed
> > up, constituencies and SO's may also want to use the November 12
> > opportunity for advance consideration of the "security agenda". There
> > will, however, be times set aside during the three days of the
> > security focus for constituency and other meetings to address
> > specific security considerations.
> >
> > Any constituency, SO or other ICANN committee or task force wishing
> > to hold a meeting on November 12 should advise Dianne Schroeder so
> > that she can work with the unit involved to schedule meeting space.
> >
> > Stuart
> > --
> >
> > __________________
> > Stuart Lynn
> > President and CEO
> > ICANN
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > Tel: 310-823-9358
> > Fax: 310-823-8649
> > Email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sanjeev Goyal <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Afilias .Info

I think the Afilias is delayed a lot in declaring its first list of
Land rush and even failed in Declaring the exact dates when will the
declare the results it is not good on part of Afilias.

Now What will happen to 1st Oct.2001 's schedule open booking of .info
domains, Is it going to Postpone?

I think All registrars should clearify it to their clients as well as
the Afilias.

Sanjeev Goyal.

=====
LOVE ALL,HATE NONE.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:40:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Registration data backup? (RE: [ga] We can't be against it?)

Dear Leah,

You are too kind, using words like should and IMO really do not do justice.

Any failure of even the smallest ISP to have a colo is irresponsible at
best.  Certainly if a half baked-technically ignorant dope like myself
understands that, then any large firm which ignores it is almost criminal.

{where was the colo for NetSols domain policy list, I'll bet the feds could
find some sedition in there?}

Eric

L Gallegos wrote:

> Data escrow is not simply a good back up.  It is a third party
> location to ensure safety and availability in case of disaster.  It is a
> matter of contract.  Whether this is being done or not is the
> question and it is something that ICANN should ensure under its
> contract enforcement for .com/net/org, IMO.
>
> Leah
>
> On 29 Sep 2001, at 14:41, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > Jefsey
> >
> > Are you *sure* there is no decent backup system in place at NSI? I
> > have no idea, but would be surprised if not.
> >
> > --
> > [email-masked]
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, at 12:13 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > On 03:12 29/09/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Sure, domain name protection is of the essence.
> > >
> > > But is the escrow of bugged systems and tables the only system to
> > > protect us. I doubt it. Let be clear: would NSI be blown up, burnt
> > > or flooded, what would you make with the 24,000,000 DN data they
> > > have or not in a vault? You would need their system to be rebuilt in
> > > the same way, in the very hour. - millions of DN on hold? It would
> > > be worst that starting it anew? It would be thousands USRPs... - do
> > > you know that to register a name server IP you have to send a fax
> > > (anyone can fake) and wait for a week? Rebuilding the NSI Sytem
> > > would asj for months. As Roberto explained it, it would never happen
> > > as NSI or the world would have gone down before.
> > >
> > > The best escrow is a title you can hold and show and a smart card
> > > you can use on every registry system. May be large businesses with
> > > legal staff and business enough may accept other solutions. May be
> > > individual or NonCom may accept temporary patches or loss of access.
> > > SMEs cannot: our live depends more an more on a tiny something
> > > undefined, not protected, not... this not ... that, costing $9.
> > > Makes the life of our entreprises worth less than a pizza. This is
> > > not serious.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 13:48:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Review Task Force report

Dear Philip,

Having the reviewed the recommendations of the Review Task Force, I want to 
take a moment to thank you and your colleagues for all the hard work you have 
put into this document.  It must have taken a mighty effort to compress so 
much bullshit into so few words.

Best regards,
Danny

PS  Please advise the dates of the Public Comment period so that we may know 
exactly when you will next choose to ignore the community consensus.

- --
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 14:03:16 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 12

Consider this a formal request to return to the original agenda for 
the annual ICANN meeting at Marina del Ray.  If necessary, add to 
the agenda any security issues pertinent to ICANN and only those 
items that fall within its technical scope.  It is also a must that 
there be consultation with the GA of the DNSO regarding any 
security issues that may impact the community.

There is no need to relegate the critical issues pending within the 
ICANN framework to a single day of "pre-meetings" that will most 
assuredly not be addressed during the meetings from the 13th-
15th.  Unless ICANN intends to further delay all these issues, 
including the postponement of all TLD launches, it must maintain 
its originally stated agenda and deal with pending issues, however 
painful or embarrassing they may be.

Why should it surprise anyone that ICANN would use or misuse 
the NYC tragedy to further its own corporate interests?  Security 
issues within ICANN's scope are strictly technical in nature and 
involve only the root servers and escrow of registry data as defined 
by contract.  These issues are already addressed and need only 
an agenda addition - not the entire annual meeting to address.  

ICANN does not have included within its scope the software that 
deals with DNS and BIND is NOT the only application for DNS, and 
is not necessarily the best.  There are a myriad of security issues 
throughout the US and the world.  ICANN has only a very narrow 
responsibility in the security area for the internet.

This is certainly an attempt to hijack the annual meeting, as has 
been mentioned in other posts, to the detriment of the at-large and 
individual domain name holders, not to mention the ccTLDs and 
other TLD issues.

In fact, it is these issues which are of utmost importance to the 
community which must have a voice in whatever security solutions 
are designed.  

Will anyone be further surprised when ICANN permanently delays 
inclusion of the at-large in decision making and claims that it is not 
in the best interests of the community (for security reasons, of 
course) to not have the "masses" involved?  Big Brother grows 
stronger every day.

Wake up, stakeholders.  Don't lose sight of the issues that face us 
all.

Leah

On 29 Sep 2001, at 10:29, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Just in case there is any doubt that this is a bottoms up consensus
> originated formal request.  I lend my poor and feeble voice to it on
> behalf of my brothers and sisters who happily allow me to write for
> them.  While Mr. Younger is a good and loyal representative of this
> body he tends to be more politick than us unsophisticated
> dotcommoners. Of course this is just a WOD*.
> 
> On behalf of dotcommoners I demand this time.  I also intend to
> forward these messages and an announcement of the meeting and Mr.
> Youngers' agenda to each and every news service I can find.  The
> background data builds a wonderful story of how us little people lose
> our rights as mega players jockey for power and money using
> catastrophe and necessity as the springboard for denial of what little
> we have.
> 
> Here is the unfolding of a classic story of the exclusive doctrines
> creating despair to a level which ultimately causes radicalism. These
> totalitarianistic actions by the BOD cause more harm to world
> stability than we yet know.
> 
> *"" {"WOD"} (Writing Of a Dotcommoner) = boring and humanistic to most
> technical people.  based in self serving adaptations of such
> principals as declarations of independence. Also known as WithOut
> Dinero, ergo no power.""
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Dear Diane,
> >
> > In the letter that Stuart posted to the Council (cited below), he
> > indicates that there is no reason that November 12 cannot still be
> > made available to those constituencies ,SO's and other ICANN
> > committees or task forces that want to hold meetings to consider
> > other pressing items on their agendas.
> >
> > Please consider this a formal request from the GA to convene a
> > six-hour session on Nov. 12.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny Younger
> >
> > > Dear colleagues:
> > >
> > > As you know, ICANN announced two days ago that the annual ICANN
> > > meeting would indeed occur on November 13-15 inclusive, and that
> > > the meeting would focus on security and stability of the
> > > Internet's naming and addressing systems.
> > >
> > > The original meeting, of course, was scheduled to start on
> > > November 12, not November 13. There is no reason that November 12
> > > cannot still be made available to those constituencies ,SO's and
> > > other ICANN committees or task forces that want to hold meetings
> > > to consider other pressing items on their agendas. Apart from
> > > these agenda items, such meetings might also be useful for shaping
> > > input on any items that are on the Board agenda. You may recall
> > > from the announcement that the Board may decide to take up items
> > > where "time is of the essence".
> > >
> > > Making use of November 12 for these or other purposes would help
> > > to ensure that we can all focus on the core security agenda the
> > > following three days. Once the details of this core agenda are
> > > firmed up, constituencies and SO's may also want to use the
> > > November 12 opportunity for advance consideration of the "security
> > > agenda". There will, however, be times set aside during the three
> > > days of the security focus for constituency and other meetings to
> > > address specific security considerations.
> > >
> > > Any constituency, SO or other ICANN committee or task force
> > > wishing to hold a meeting on November 12 should advise Dianne
> > > Schroeder so that she can work with the unit involved to schedule
> > > meeting space.
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > > --
> > >
> > > __________________
> > > Stuart Lynn
> > > President and CEO
> > > ICANN
> > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > > Tel: 310-823-9358
> > > Fax: 310-823-8649
> > > 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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

Marilyn,

please define the context you wish to discuss security, and stability.
they are great wrds to be thrown around and I encourage real discussion on
just what you mean by stability.

Please enumerate which pieces of infrastructure you want to address, is it
the security of name servers? When you think of security what issue are
you conserned about being secured?

please be specific as possable.

thanks,

- -rick

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>
> sorry, I think you  missed the mention of "security" in my post.  Data
> escrow is only a part of the issues needing priority attention in ensuring
> stability, security, and integrity in threat situations.
>
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 6:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?
>
>
> On 03:12 29/09/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
> >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.
>
> Sure, domain name protection is of the essence.
>
> But is the escrow of bugged systems and tables the only system to protect
> us. I doubt it. Let be clear: would NSI be blown up, burnt or flooded, what
> would you make with the 24,000,000 DN data they have or not in a vault? You
> would need their system to be rebuilt in the same way, in the very hour.
> - millions of DN on hold? It would be worst that starting it anew? It would
> be thousands USRPs...
> - do you know that to register a name server IP you have to send a fax
> (anyone can fake) and wait for a week? Rebuilding the NSI Sytem would asj
> for months. As Roberto explained it, it would never happen as NSI or the
> world would have gone down before.
>
> The best escrow is a title you can hold and show and a smart card you can
> use on every registry system. May be large businesses with legal staff and
> business enough may accept other solutions. May be individual or NonCom may
> accept temporary patches or loss of access. SMEs cannot: our live depends
> more an more on a tiny something undefined, not protected, not... this not
> ... that, costing $9. Makes the life of our entreprises worth less than a
> pizza. This is not serious.
>
> 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
> --
> 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: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 14:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

How does one guard against all sorts of mission creep, with ICANN
exploiting a situation to justify new and broader powers?   It's own
role in network security should be very limited, it would seem to me.
Jamie

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>
> sorry, I think you  missed the mention of "security" in my post.  Data
> escrow is only a part of the issues needing priority attention in ensuring
> stability, security, and integrity in threat situations.
>
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 6:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] We can't be against it?
>
>
> On 03:12 29/09/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
> >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.
>
> Sure, domain name protection is of the essence.
>
> But is the escrow of bugged systems and tables the only system to protect
> us. I doubt it. Let be clear: would NSI be blown up, burnt or flooded, what
> would you make with the 24,000,000 DN data they have or not in a vault? You
> would need their system to be rebuilt in the same way, in the very hour.
> - millions of DN on hold? It would be worst that starting it anew? It would
> be thousands USRPs...
> - do you know that to register a name server IP you have to send a fax
> (anyone can fake) and wait for a week? Rebuilding the NSI Sytem would asj
> for months. As Roberto explained it, it would never happen as NSI or the
> world would have gone down before.
>
> The best escrow is a title you can hold and show and a smart card you can
> use on every registry system. May be large businesses with legal staff and
> business enough may accept other solutions. May be individual or NonCom may
> accept temporary patches or loss of access. SMEs cannot: our live depends
> more an more on a tiny something undefined, not protected, not... this not
> ... that, costing $9. Makes the life of our entreprises worth less than a
> pizza. This is not serious.
>
> 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
> --
> 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
>
>

- -- 
- --------------------------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org
[email-masked], v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 06:33:34 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:48:03 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>Dear Philip,
>
>Having the reviewed the recommendations of the Review Task Force, I want to 
>take a moment to thank you and your colleagues for all the hard work you have 
>put into this document.  It must have taken a mighty effort to compress so 
>much bullshit into so few words.

Remind us never to appoint Danny as middle east peace negotiator :-)

DPF
- --
[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 10:02:36 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Rick,

You make some great points. I am actually quite pleased (and surprised) to
hear that the escrow specification is so well developed. If that's the case,
let's push to get it out of the way. As far as registrar stability goes, I
agree that it's not likely that the Internet would fall apart. In fact, a
backhoe is more likely to disrupt packet connectivity than an airplane
falling out of the sky. This does not change the fact that, without an
escrow program, the title that registrants hold to their registrations is
tenuous - VGRS doesn't store much data.

I am not a cheerleader for this revised agenda. I am however optimistic that
ICANN can grow up and away from the dynamics that you describe below and
expand the scope of discussion to include some of the more esoteric
conditions that you mention. For instance, you might want to take this
opportunity to lobby some of the marketing people (that will inevitably show
up) to convince them of the importance of properly configured zones. Some of
them might get the picture, some might not, but it sounds like the perfect
entree' into exposing their back-office staff to the more important issues
that you are concerned about. I for one would completely support increased
and more formal technical and operational coordination between registrars
(and other stakeholders) - this might provide the opportunity for a first
step towards that. If a more technical ICANN is required, let's not lament
the fact that it isn't currently, let's make sure that it is tomorrow.  And,
if it can't be, let's embrace that fact for the record and start work on
increasing the involvement and visibility of the relevant technical bodies
like the IETF within ICANN circles so that we can properly get on with our
other business.

What I am trying to get at is that we have two choices when it comes to this
agenda. We can criticize it for being inappropriate for any number of
reasons, or, my preference, we can try and take a big picture view and wrap
our heads around how we might better our situation in the midst of it.

- -rwr

[PS - when we grab that beer in LA, make sure that I tell you the story
about how my old boss made the tech support department, one-by-one, stand
over an open trench in the rain in shifts while the phone company spliced
thousands of pairs leading into our NOC....]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick H Wesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

>
> Ross,
>
> As one who sat on the ICANN Escrow committee I can state that the
> committee did create a final draft that specified escrow formats and how
> escrow would be done. The document was forwarded to ICANN and I have no
> clue why they didn't implement it. All ICANN need to do is publish their
> requirements on escrow, and start up their service, which they have had
> over 9 months to complete.
>
> Also if a registrar was to be "taken out," some service certainly would be
> disrupted but we would deal, I'm sure VGRS, as the other registries have
> too, a well defined disaster recovery plan. I believe such was required in
> their Registry proposal.
>
> Do you know each root server does not answer queries for at lease two
> hours twice a day? I am sure the impact of an outage would be less than
> what the financial industry felt when the WTC towers were demolished. I
> also suggest you read up on what happens when a backhoe severs a
> fiber, they happen all the time, some huge ones that will cut out large
> chunks of the net and one rarely hears about it.
>
> finally I wish we could focus on the real ICANN issues instead of this
FUD.
> Using fear to create an environment where our attention is directed away
> from what our attention should be focused on only makes me wonder why we
> shouldn't be discussing the issues that ICANN is more equipped to discuss.
>
> I feel like ICANN does not want to deal with its important naming issues
> in the US, as there will be no meetings in the USA next year. I also feel
> ICANN, its staff, and the constituencies are illequiped to discuss
> security or stability with over 78% of .COM zones misconfigured [1]
>
> ICANN just doesn't draw the folks that work on the issues of stability and
> security, so I can's see any value coming out of a meeting dedicated in
> its entirety to discussing such.
>
> As for topics we can wrap our arms around, now would be an excellent time
> to enumerate just what "security and stability of the naming and
> addressing systems and of their operational implementation globally"  [2]
> means, because this just sounds like FUD to me.
>
> to me 'security and stability of the naming system' means DNSSEC and
> 'security and stability of the addressing systems' means IPSEC and IPv6
> and '... of their operational implementation globally' leads me to think
> about coordination.  I just can't fathom how what is usually a marketing
> and personal networking oppertunity can be billed as anything close to a
> NDSS [3] confrence.
>
> -rick
>
>
> [1] http://www.miceandmen.com/6000/61_recent_survey.html
> [2] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26sep01.htm
>     5th paragraph.
> [3] http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/02/index.shtml
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #764
************************