Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #771
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, October 3 2001          Volume 01 : Number 771

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:29:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

Please let us take one issue at a time.  It is, I know many peoples' understanding
that the GA is not a separate entity from ICON.  That at this point the GA cannot
raise funds for itself.  Therefor your little disingenuous statement clipped below
is really very very wrong.

"M. Start Lynn" wrote:

> Comments on a reply to Danny, please.
>
> Tx
> Stuart
> ________________
> DRAFT
> Dear Danny:
>
> Thank you for your note.
>
> As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would eb welcome to meet
> at the conference hotel on November 12. There will not be meeting
> space available on November 13, although of course the GA can meet at
> some other location.

In other words we will not pay for it but you can do it even though you cannot
legally pay for it.  Icann will not endorse the GA.  Will not recognize it but
they can have a club meeting in the same town as ICANN.

This is not right,
Eric

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:58:25 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Finally I have been shamed,

Danny taking into consideration my wild and seemingly unyielding dotcommoner views
and absent too many objections from my constituency.  I offer my very limited
service.  You tell me what research you want done and I will do it and document it
and give you our perspective upon it to do with what you will.  The level of
transparency is up to you.

I will begin with a political analysis of how, publicly, the Staff has related
it's position.  {OOPS I'm done they just do it subversively, after all they are
only J&D} Just kidding ;>}).

I am serious, I can at least gather data for your perusal.

Sincerely,
Eric

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Danny is struggling for the survival of the GA.
> > Please don't make things even more difficult to him.
>
> Thank you for your message Roberto, it sums up my feeling on the matter.
> If those that choose to expend their energy in attacking
> everything/everyone that doesn't meet their narrow view of "right" spent
> 1/10th of that energy being constructive I imagine the GA would be a much
> more effective entity.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                  "There should be warning labels for politicians."
>                             --  Derek Smalls
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:59:32 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NextDraft {10.2.01} Nato Follows the Trail

Now you are rocking bro,

Thank you and good luck.  This is top notch.  I only wish it were
hourly.  By increasing the fine news services that cover tech news and
bring more to the forefront we will crush the great divide as though it
did not exist.  Within the GA we need more coverage in order to bring
the voice of the small to a point where it is heard by the large.

Sincerely,
Eric

NextDraft wrote:

>
> EXTRA . . . EXTRA . . . and then some
> =========================================
> NextDraft
> --> by Dave Pell + 10.2.01 + Tuesday
> =========================================
>
o THE FRONT SECTION ... Nato Follows the Trail
>
* IN OTHER NEWS ... Fed Cuts Rates Again
>
* GETTING THE PICTURE ... Car Salesmen Face New Economy
>
* THE COLUMN ... Much Ado, Then Nothing
>
* DAVENETICS TECH ... The Bigger They Are...
>
* POP CULTURE ... Reality Shows Face Reality
>
* ETC, ETC ... Cop a Plea, Take a Hike
>
>
>
>
> NOTE: Today is the first day I am including tech news
> (from my other newsletter, Davenetics, now merged with
> NextDraft). For NextDraft readers, that means a new
> section focused on technology. For Davenetics subs, it means
> an entirely new experience. As always, subscription
> management tools are at the bottom of every newsletter.
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 19:22:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

Mr. Lynn have your resigned from CEO?

Here is my second installment on your hateful political attack on my dotcommoners;

You state below "no ironclad blah blah blah"

Where most of us come from a man can give his word and not cop out on some best
efforts shenanigans.  Ya you can promise to quit if reasonable accommodation are
not met and you can set them forth, {see Lee Ioccoca and Ted Turner}

Your Corporate hide behind corporate skirt is sickening but expected.  Be a man
and do what is right or shut up and ask Vint to speak for the corp.   Remember you
are talking to members here ( which is the same as stockholders = stakeholders)
unless you want to adopt Esther and Mikes point of view.

Either you are with the GA or against it, what shall it be?

Sincerely,
Eric

"M. Stuart Lynn" wrote:

>
> Dear Danny:
>
> Thank you for your note.
>
> The operative part of the bylaws is the deadline of the 2002 Annual
> Meeting. That is operative because of the expiration of terms of current
> directors. My sense is that the Board intends to make every effort to
> meet that deadline, even if it cannot act on the ALSC report until
> Accra in March. I repeat the phrase 'every effort". Until a final
> decision, however, is made, there can be no ironclad guarantees,
> because the content of that decision is unknown. For me to say that
> no slippage will occur would be foolish -- neither I nor the Board
> have the power to make such an ironclad guarantee (regardless of what
> happens in November). Perhaps the Board may have to take some special
> action to extend the deadline a few months. I do not want that to
> happen, but it may.

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:56:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > One of the 5 testbed Registrars raised the problem that EU policy prevented
> > confidential business data to be exported to the US, and proposed a trusted
> > third party in Europe, at least for data belonging to European Registrars.
>
> My understanding is that, at least for personal data, European privacy law
> makes it illegal to export data to a country without adequate (by European
> legal definition) privacy measures in place. For example, a European branch
> of a US-based bank cannot legally send such data to a US head office.
>
> Last I heard, the US had proposed a 'compromise' involving some 'safe harbour'
> provisions and Europe had rejected it. Is my information out of date?

  No your information is not our of date as stated.  However after Sept. 11th
I doubt that under certain circumstances these rules would apply.

>
>
> And does any of that apply to corporate data?

  Yes.

>
>
> > The proposal was vetoed: escrow data had to reside in the US.
>
> > Since nobody (neither ICANN nor the Registrars) had any intention to let
> > this high-visibility operation sink due to this "detail", the question was
> > "forgotten".
>
> > Obviously, if somebody wants ro re-vamp the issue, the problem will still
> > remain: EU will oppose any attempt to keep escrow data of European companies
> > (Registries or Registrars) outside Europe, and USG will attempt to force
> > ICANN to have them in the US, and we will very likely stall again.
>
> There was an escrow committee which generated recommendations. How did
> they handle this problem?
>

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: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:00:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, October 02, 2001, 11:48:25 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is doing
> > something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not rather an
> > Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
>
> Probably because most of us think the absence to be a good thing.

  The absence of any stakeholder and participant here should not
be thought of as a good thing.  Such a thought is disgusting and
shows a certain lack of good breeding and proper decorum...

>
>
> To be clear, my assumption would be that both would be replaced
> simultaneously.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>

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: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:39:48 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is doing 
>something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not rather an 
>Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?

Roberto and Danny,

Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the 
provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has 
actually been placed on the NC agenda.
I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.

All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if* it 
ever would be needed.

Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I keep 
encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to help him 
bringing order in the chaos.

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:14:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please let us take one issue at a time.

  There is very much very very wrong with Mr Lynn's comments in his
"Memo".  I will be addressing some of them from our members
as more responses come in and post a statement in response
sometime tomorrow.  However, we must all be able to address
much more than one thing at a time in these difficult and tragic
times.  In other words, learn immediately how to chew gum and
walk at the same time, or risk becoming a liability to not only the
stakeholders, but to all humanity....

> It is, I know many peoples' understanding
> that the GA is not a separate entity from ICON.  That at this point the GA cannot
> raise funds for itself.  Therefor your little disingenuous statement clipped below
> is really very very wrong.

  Indeed Mr Lynn is quite wrong and disgustingly disruptive, as well as
inconsiderate of the GA.  The comment you note for Mr. Lynn shows
plainly and rationally dismissing of the DNSO GA much Mike Roberts
paper posted to the ALSC and this forum was towards along with a number
of Mr. Roberts comments.  One wonders if these two fellows are not
collaborating or joined at the hip.

>
>
> "M. Start Lynn" wrote:
>
> > Comments on a reply to Danny, please.
> >
> > Tx
> > Stuart
> > ________________
> > DRAFT
> > Dear Danny:
> >
> > Thank you for your note.
> >
> > As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would eb welcome to meet
> > at the conference hotel on November 12. There will not be meeting
> > space available on November 13, although of course the GA can meet at
> > some other location.
>
> In other words we will not pay for it but you can do it even though you cannot
> legally pay for it.  Icann will not endorse the GA.  Will not recognize it but
> they can have a club meeting in the same town as ICANN.
>
> This is not right,
> Eric
>

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: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:02:28 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Joop wrote:

>
>All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if* it
>ever would be needed.

Understood.
Maybe something to bring to the [ga-rules].

>
>Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I keep
>encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to help him
>bringing order in the chaos.

I am sorry to hear that.
I apologise for having thought that there might have been other reasons.
I hope Patrick will be healthy and participative soon.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:11:12 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] We can't be against it?

William,

>
>Sounds like the the EU needs to pass an exemption regarding domain
>registration information, or it may force ICANN not to accredit
>European companies as registrars.
>

Reality shows things are different: there are already many ICANN-accredited 
Registrars.
IMHO, there is really no justification for the request of having all escrow 
data in the US: it is obvious that EU data will be equally safe in Europe - 
this is just a political point.
Anyway, the matter is being examined by the Registrars, will be discussed by 
NC that will hopefully make a recommandation to the Board, and will be one 
of the items of the security-focused agenda in MdR.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:24:55 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is doing
> >something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not rather an
> >Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
>
> Roberto and Danny,
>
> Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the
> provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has
> actually been placed on the NC agenda.

  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
ability to do so should they so choose.

>
> I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.

  Nor do I.  As far as I know WXW and Peter seem to be the only'
ones thus far the seem to desire to.

>
>
> All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if* it
> ever would be needed.

 Such procedures must be decided by majority vote by the GA members.
Thus far motions put forth for such procedures have been refused a ballot
by the GA secretariat.  Therefore such procedures of this nature do not
exist and are likely not to in the near term.  However, lack of such
procedures
is a minor issue at present as there are MUCH more pressing issues
that the GA and the DNSO need to address.

>
>
> Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I keep
> encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to help him
> bringing order in the chaos.

  There is not chaos that I can see at the moment to address, Joop.  If
you believe there is, please state clearly and concisely what the nature of
your perception of "The Chaos" is.  Failing to do so, leaves great
doubt in your perception...

  Appointment of Chairs for the now rarely used "Sub-Lists" which have
plainly shown to divide rather than to assist in policy making within the
GA, is an improper approach to such determination.  Should such
a determination be necessary, a VOTE by the GA members is
the proper procedure to affect such a solution...

>
>
>

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: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:42:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: DNS security issues Policy statement by the DNSO/GA to:Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William,
>
> >
> >Sounds like the the EU needs to pass an exemption regarding domain
> >registration information, or it may force ICANN not to accredit
> >European companies as registrars.
> >
>
> Reality shows things are different: there are already many ICANN-accredited
> Registrars.
> IMHO, there is really no justification for the request of having all escrow
> data in the US: it is obvious that EU data will be equally safe in Europe -
> this is just a political point.

  Agreed.

  However the escrow of Registrar data is a minor exposure issue in the
overall DNS security picture.  More important is the RRP data, the
Registry data, the Root server's, and than the many various Name servers
to prevent attacks by spirituous means from terrorists that may find or
already notice the current weakness of no DNSSEC implementations
or weak ones on this important data that the ICANN BoD and staff
have been well aware of for more than a year now and failed to
address or start taking input to come up with methods of addressing
until after Sept. 11th.  I find that lack of leadership irresponsible
in the extreme.

>
> Anyway, the matter is being examined by the Registrars, will be discussed by
> NC that will hopefully make a recommandation to the Board, and will be one
> of the items of the security-focused agenda in MdR.

  We here on the DNSO GA should be crafting that recommendation along
with the other constituencies by which the NC may take to the BoD at
least by now!  And indeed the MDR meeting need not be security-focused
so as to send the message to potential terrorists that they have won a
moral victory.  Rather the security issue(s) should be addressed as
a priority, but not as an overwhelming focus.  Other just as important
issues also need to be on the agenda with equal time as much a possible
for each.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
> --

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: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:48:15 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Memo to Stuart Lynn

Thank you for this opportunity Stuart,

My comments are interspersed below and irrelevent text is snipped with the
remainder being formatted for clarity;

|> From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:28 AM
|> 
|> Comments on a reply to Danny, please.

|> ________________
|> DRAFT

|> As I have pointed out to you earlier, the GA would eb 
|> welcome to meet at the conference hotel on November 12. 
|> There will not be meeting space available on November 13,
|> although of course the GA can meet at some other location.
|> 
|> I know you mean well by your note. However, I think it is based on 
|> some serious misconceptions. The first is that the security meeting 
|> is intended to "hijack" the agenda to the detriment of the At Large 
|> consideration is entirely misplaced. 

Be that as it may, the fact that the relevency of "internet security" wrt
ICANN is tenuous at best (I tend to view things optimistically), leads one
to think of all sorts of neferious reasons why this single issue should push
out other current business. I am not one of those but, IMHO this new
emphasis is misplaced. Is ICANN suddenly going to find a cure for future
Nimda wyrms? Will they put in place systems that will find wyrm authors?
Will they legislate anything to enforce/improve some sort of
security/quality vigilance, in Redmond? I think not.

|> Security of the Internet is a serious matter and must
|> be considered as a matter of urgency and priority, 
|> more than ever. 

Yes, all of us must view security more seriously. A view that I have been
espousing for years. We must also carefully discern the difference between
security and privacy. Having one doesn't mean we have to forego the other.
Recent rhetoric, from Washington DC, indicates that this may become a
serious issue. Newt Gingrich stated, and I agree with him, that the 11Sep01
event was intended to drive us into a police-state mentality. If that
occurs, the terrorists will have won their final objective (after economic
and social disruption comes political disruption).

|> These are times that require thoughtful responses. And
|> there is no question  that every organizational agenda 
|> across most of the world has been seriously affected by the horrible 
|> events of September 11.

Personally, I try to hold to the view that "nothing that can adequately be
explained by stupidity, can be malicious, most of the time". As I said, I'm
an optimist. This new security emphasis  is out of scope for the ICANN. The
clause quoted recently is a part of a catch-all section that broadens ICANN
reach, in untoward events. The practical reality is that ICANN has no
relevance with regard to  security concerns. The bottom-line is that there
is nothing that the ICANN can do, with regards to security, that isn't
already being done, period.

I've stated it earlier this week, but please allow me to reiterate here;

First, with regards to the DNS system;

<quote>
The current system is actually quite good and it's all IP-based, not by
name. If and only if, you build to run a RFC2870 compliant server, which all
zone server operators should at least consider. Your primary zone servers
become non-recursive vaults. You should have at least two and those two
should be the ONLY ones in the name server registration at the InternNIC and
in the root zone file. Your DNS resolvers should be at another IP address
and should be the only ones referenced in your zone files. Updates should
only be allowed from known IP addresses. TCP Wrappers should protect ALL
systems from connecting to strangers, via hosts.allow and BIND access
control lists (ACL). Do not take zone updates except from known systems and
do not allow zone transfers, except to known systems. Allow queries from
anyone. Only use BIND, under *nix, for public facing DNS servers. Even
MS-DNS, as implemented under Win2K Active Directory, allows this level of
control (although I would never use it to implement a zone server). Most
routers are secured similarly.

Now, as to the threat of sniffing, Most modern networks are almost pure
switched, sniffers (including SNORT) don't work very well here or anywhere
else. The perpetrator would have to actually get on the WAN port(s), for a
man-in-the-middle attack. co-opting a insecure host, doesn't buy you much
these days, especially on another switched subnet (you don't even see the
broadcast packets).
</quote>

[I might add that all root zone files, that MHSC publishes, are distributed
using military-grade enciphered tunnels (VPNs), implemented via SSH, rather
than the normal zone transfer mechanism of BIND. IOW, the probability of
interception is quite low.]

and in a later message, with regards to business resumption, I went on to
state;

<quote>
NSI does what every other largish corporation does, they have a disaster
recovery plan, usually called business resumption plan, by most IT managers.
This includes off-site backups. I don't think that this is anywhere near the
issue that many have thought it to be. I would guess that Tucows also has
one. Even lil old' MHSC has one (bunch of 2.2GB magneto-optical disks in a
SF Bay Area Wells Fargo Safety Deposit box, with duplicates in Colorado
Springs). 

A larger issue is the capital loss of the servers themselves. However, I
know of at least 25 other current root zone capable servers that are online
right now, with 100Mbps 100baseT bandwidth, a very large backbone colo
space, that could pick up the slack in less than 30 minutes notice. I have
root access on all of them. All are RFC 2870 compliant and I just finished
upgrading their root zone files. Some of them have been operational for
three years and the ORSC has a bunch more. Operationally, the Internet is
well covered.
</quote>

The point is, in summary, that even without DNSSEC, the DNS system is
reasonably secure and a reasonable business resumption audit of registrars
will cover data robustness and reliability of business continuation. I know
of no corporation, among all my past and current clients, that does not have
an active business resumption plan, at the very least. Most of MHSC clients
require greater than 99.99% uptimes and thus, business continuation is a
priority with them (not simple business resumption, I am using specific
technical terms here).

I might point out that the primary pitch for root-level zone servers, in
MHSC client facilities, is security and business continuation. I wont go
into the technical pitch here, but suffice it to say that a LAN suddenly cut
off from the internet will instantly cease operations if they have to use
external name resolution sources. This is true, even for internal name
resolution. Ergo, business continuation plans must include a currently
functional root level zone server cluster. Extreme cases include COM and NET
as well. Restricting distribution of root-zone file will instantly obsolete
all business continuation plans. In short, it will worsen the security
scenarios, rather than improve them, by a substantial margin. It will also
increase the load on the existing root servers, by an equally substantial
margin.

I might also point out that the cache-poisoning hole, that Kashpureff used,
has been well and truly welded shut, many years ago. There is now no danger
of cache-poisoning if the zone server operator follows RFC2870. All MHSC
zone servers (root and otherwise) and most ORSC root servers are RFC2870
compliant.

The sole remaining issues (those of software and data escrow) are those that
Roberto and others have surfaced and which have already been long answered.
Activating those plans should take no more than 30 minutes of the board's
time. Pull the trigger and be done with it, unless someone wants a
"grandstand" opportunity (stupidity vs. maliciousness).

In conclusion, there are no security issues, that ICANN can approach, that
deserve a majority of time at any ICANN quarterly business meeting.
Refocusing the November meeting on security issues is a mis-placed waste of
ICANN resources. This is regardless of whatever else is being pushed aside
(ALSC or otherwise). If ICANN BoD needs an internet operation primer then
they should do so off-line and in private and not waste everyone else's time
and expense, by being educated in public. MHSC will be glad to provide the
required education, at MHSC standard rates (if anyone from ICANN calls,
please allow a few moments whilst I recover from the shock of receiving such
a call).

|> I hope the foregoing helps you and those to whom you listen in your 
|> deliberations. Although I am sure the Names Council may want 
|> to think about how to allocate the time on November 12, I am sure you 
|> can hold a productive meeting of the GA at that time. You would 
|> also have the opportunity of inviting the ALSC to present its 
|> final conclusions to the GA if you wish.
|> 
|> I am sure the foregoing is of no consequence to those relative few 
|> who choose to see some sort of evil conspiracy in every 
|> ICANN action. 
|> So be it.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:52:36 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

|> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:19 PM
|> 
|> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
|> 
|> > Danny is struggling for the survival of the GA.
|> > Please don't make things even more difficult to him.
|> 
|> Thank you for your message Roberto, it sums up my feeling on 
|> the matter.
|> If those that choose to expend their energy in attacking
|> everything/everyone that doesn't meet their narrow view of 
|> "right" spent
|> 1/10th of that energy being constructive I imagine the GA 
|> would be a much
|> more effective entity.

I was considering a "me too" and since you have, I will add mine.
- --
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, 3 Oct 2001 08:31:20 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report

Jeff, et all.

The reason that the item is on the NC agenda is that someone in the GA
submitted it to the intake committee.

Speaking for myself, when the item comes up, I would recommend sending
it back to the GA, where it belongs.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:25 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is 
> >doing something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not 
> >rather an Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
>
> Roberto and Danny,
>
> Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the 
> provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has 
> actually been placed on the NC agenda.

  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
ability to do so should they so choose.

>
> I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.

  Nor do I.  As far as I know WXW and Peter seem to be the only' ones
thus far the seem to desire to.

>
>
> All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if* 
> it ever would be needed.

 Such procedures must be decided by majority vote by the GA members.
Thus far motions put forth for such procedures have been refused a
ballot by the GA secretariat.  Therefore such procedures of this nature
do not exist and are likely not to in the near term.  However, lack of
such procedures is a minor issue at present as there are MUCH more
pressing issues that the GA and the DNSO need to address.

>
>
> Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I 
> keep encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to 
> help him bringing order in the chaos.

  There is not chaos that I can see at the moment to address, Joop.  If
you believe there is, please state clearly and concisely what the nature
of your perception of "The Chaos" is.  Failing to do so, leaves great
doubt in your perception...

  Appointment of Chairs for the now rarely used "Sub-Lists" which have
plainly shown to divide rather than to assist in policy making within
the GA, is an improper approach to such determination.  Should such a
determination be necessary, a VOTE by the GA members is the proper
procedure to affect such a solution...

>
>
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #771
************************