Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #839
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, November 9 2001           Volume 01 : Number 839

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

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:43:45 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Please fill-in UDRP Questionnaire

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

Please find below the url for the UDRP Review Questionnaire.
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
Please complete the questionnaire online and "submit" at the end. 
Your participation is much appreciated.
Thank you

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:02:56 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

|> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:02 AM

|> Of course, the problem you are trying to describe has nothing at all 
|> to do with attachments "as such": It's more about inappropriate 
|> interpretation of attachments in implementations, and about users 
|> who carelessly execute every program sent to them.  This leads, in 
|> turn, to software trying to second-guess malware, with all evil side 
|> effects this may have.

That was a secondary side-issue that only came up because Peter was using
NAV, which only checks the email wrapper and not the actual payload. I now
have three trusted sources which confirmed that the payload was, in fact,
absent. I might further point out that only one of them was what I consider
an ally, another is a political opponent, and the third is undetermined.
But, all three are well-known systems adminstrators that presently run their
own systems. If anything, this indicates the fallacious methods used by
Norton Anti-Virus and their validity (Not!). Symantec has been chastised for
this before and their marketing department has posted some babble in defense
of their methods. This doesn't make them technically correct.

|> The problem is also (and, one may say, even more so) about using and 
|> being used to inappropriate data formats when transferring data. 
|> Word documents can contain macros, which can basically control a 
|> windows PC. That's a problem in any circumstance where such 
|> documents cross trust boundaries - be it, possibly, on local 
|> networks, be it on the web, or be it via e-mail. That is, making 
|> word documents available for download is in no way better than 
|> attaching them to e-mail messages.

I beg to differ. Whilst I agree about the inappropriateness of using Word
DOC files for general information distro. My reasons are quite different. A
virus-scanned word DOC file, on a known and trusted web-site, is quite safe
and not inherently evil, IMHO. However, for a lot of other reasons, I prefer
to convert such documents to PDF. This is especially true with collaborative
docs that have revision tracking turned on. From a user prespective, this
also increases the trust and PDF files, prior to Acrobat5, do not contain
any macros.

|> The same argument does, of course, apply to any "active" content 
|> being spread on the net, including even HTML when clients on the 
|> receiving end are configured without paying attention to trust 
|> boundaries.  (With windows, you should possibly have another look at 
|> your Security Zones settings, and make sure that e-mail content is 
|> considered to come from some zone which has sufficiently paranoid 
|> security settings.)

The problem is the completion or spread, of the distro. Many sites strip all
attachments from non-internal sources. I am not advocating that approach
myself (I prefer a more targeted approach). However, I am aware of many
sites that practice such methods. In such an environment, a document sent in
DOC format will not reach all of the intended recipients. That was, in fact,
my main point.

|> This means that any data formats having "active" components are 
|> totally inappropriate when publishing information which is supposed 
|> to cross trust boundaries.  If you want to publish or spread large 
|> documents, use plain text (which is sufficient for most things), or 
|> use HTML or PDF (and hope that your correspondents either don't know 
|> about the possible dangers, or are using sufficiently safe viewers).

The ethics behind your last perenthetical statement bothers me (I'll leave
the rest unsaid). However, for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with
security, and in spite of the fact that my Outlook/Exchange system processes
HTML quite well, I never send HTML mail and would prefer not to receive it.
I certainly avoid replying to it because quotations are such a PITA.

|> Concerning Peter de Blanc's "complaint" about Roeland's message, and 
|> the news item about f-prot being integrated with listserv which was 
|> forwarded by Danny: Filtering viruses and worms at mailing list 
|> distribution points is pointless, and a cosmetic "solution" _at_ 
|> _best_.  Because, either users rely on software which isn't 
|> susceptible to the worms and viruses generally distributed - in this 
|> case, filtering is unnecessary.  Or they are using software which is 
|> susceptible.  

I might agree with not scanning the list message attachments before they go
out to the list, on a posting controlled list. However, I most certainly do
NOT agree with placing unfiltered content on a public web-site. The address
"[email-masked]" is available to anyone in an unfiltered fashion. There
are many word DOC files in that archive. I would wager that none of them are
even filtered for LUV-BUG macro virii. IMHO, they should be filtered.

|> In this case, they are acting irresponsibly when not 
|> using local filtering solutions anyways.  

A lot of folks reference "responsibility" in this context. The context
domain is so large that it is really irrelevent. MHSC end-users shouldn't
have to run client-side filters and they don't. Responsibility isn't the
issue here. Such filters are run on MHSC sendmail and MS-Exchange mail hubs,
before they ever see the message. Even then, some sites aren't filtered at
all. Rather, they are completely prevented from connecting in the first
place (vadmin.com, junhoo.com, etc). There are also a few /24's that aren't
even allowed past our routers, let alone into our mail hubs. 

End-users have neither the authority or training for that level of
filtering. Frankly, I would prefer business folks to continue doing what
they are paid to do and leave filtering to those that are getting paid to do
it. There are both division of labor and aggregate labor costing issues
here. Also, client-side filtering sometimes/often conflicts with local
server filters, resulting in total mail-delivery failures. Thereby, causing
more workload in the SysAdm department.

|> In this case, central scanning will possibly delay infection (and 
|> learning of an important lesson) a bit - but such users will 
|> eventually be hit directly. That effect is nothing worth spending 
|> any money or effort for.

I disagree that teaching end-users such lessons, in such a manner, is
cost/beneficial.

|> Thus, scanning for malware at list servers only helps to reduce 
|> bandwidth consumption (a bit), and it does of course help to cover 
|> up the fact that quite a few virus-scanning gateways are of so poor 
|> quality that they aren't even able to properly determine where to 
|> send an error message.

Quality is an issue of that organization. Poor quality sites tend to lose
viewership.

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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:04:13 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

On 2001-11-08 13:02:56 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>That was a secondary side-issue that only came up because Peter 
>was using NAV, which only checks the email wrapper and not the 
>actual payload. I now have three trusted sources which confirmed 
>that the payload was, in fact, absent.

I suppose you should check your sources, since what you spread was 
quite clearly an infectuous Sircam binary...  (Bad enough, it's no 
longer available in the public list archive.)

Let's look at your message with ID 
      <[email-masked]> 
in more detail.

It contained a 268288-byte attachment named "Flight crews rely on 
passengers to stop trouble.doc.com" (note the extension).  As I said 
before, this attachment did, in turn, contain a word document at 
offset 137216 (0x21800).  So the question is whether the first 
100+kB of that attachment Sircam code or not.

For comparison, I'll take a different Sircam message I received from 
a person unknown to me, quite some time ago, named Deloitte.doc.lnk. 
I assume that this is a genuine instance of Sircam.

As a first test, I extract the tail of the document, skipping the 
first 137216 bytes, using dd:

	$ dd if=Deloitte.doc.lnk bs=1 skip=137216 of=d.doc

d.doc turns out to be a valid word document.

Next, I extract the first 137216 bytes from both files:

	$ dd if=Flight<...>.doc.com bs=137216 count=1 of=sircam-flight
	$ dd if=Deloitte.doc.lnk bs=137216 count=1 of=sircam-dloitte

Then, let's produce some hex dumps...

	$ od -xa sircam-deloitte > sircam-deloitte.hx
	$ od -xa sircam-flight > sircam-flight.hx

... and compare these:

	$ diff -u sircam-deloitte.hx sircam-flight.hx

The difference (diff output is available upon request) consists of 
e-mail address and host name strings.  For the sake of comparison, 
I've then done the same to yet another Sircam copy which arrived 
here quite some time ago, and, indeed, the same areas of the binary 
(plus some more toggled bits) differ between these.

Concluding, I'm quite sure that you did indeed spread the sircam 
binary you received, bit by bit.  Whatever you mean by NAV detecting 
an "e-mail wrapper" instead of the actual payload - you're on the 
wrong track in this case.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:53:14 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.

DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.

We are here to deal with issues of domain names.

We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
protection than the other.

Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
is not misleading servers?

UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.

How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.

Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
problems is not related.

If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.

Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
personality helping participation.  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
is not it.

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: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:29:56 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Report on the NC Transfers Task Force activities

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 11/6/01 12:43 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Whereas Verisign appears concerned that domain name holders may not be
> > adequately represented in these discussions, if there is an organization that
> > represents such interests that would like to forward a representative to this
> > task force, please let me know and I will bring such interest to the
> > attention of the Interim Chair.
> > --
> 
> 
> Danny,
> 
> As all in community knows, the organization that represents the interests of
> Individual Domain Name Holders at this time is the IDNO,
> http://www.idno.org, it's purpose and mission being ratified in it's Charter
> in September 2000 as:-
> 

JDNO is in no condition to even come close to saying it represents those
interests. maybe someday it will develop something akin to the
cohesiveness that existed prior to the polar wars precipitated by  joop's
'optical illusion', but it's nothing more than an email list in complete
disarray at this time.

There are actually other organizations as well - such as ADOR/DOC which is
located at http://www.ador-doc.org - that don't have such disharmonious
atrophe at their very core. Organizations which actually have a charter
and incorporation - able to act and engage in business activity and enter
into contractual obligations. Things, if I'm not mistaken, that the JDNO
can't.

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 20:56:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Eric and all assembly members,

  Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention Eric.  So let us
do a little review in conjunction with interspersed responses to
your commentary.  (See more below)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.

  Yes.  So more below

>
>
> DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
>
> Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.
>
> We are here to deal with issues of domain names.

  Indeed we do.  But also the DNS in general as well.  As such
virus concerns with posts to this forum are VERY relevant to
it's participants as well as viruses that effect the DNS and Root server
structure(s).

>
>
> We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
> protection than the other.

  If in doing so provides additional information regarding name server,
root server, and overall DNS security specific to viruses we need
and should be discussing it.  If you do not understand the lingo, than
perhaps you need to bone up.

>
>
> Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
> is not misleading servers?

  Many of us do of course.  But some viruses can effect and has effected
the resolution of those domain names.

>
>
> UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.
>
> How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.
>
> Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
> problems is not related.

  Untrue.  It is quite importantly related to DNS and Domain Name
issues.  In fact it is an issue in and of itself.

>
>
> If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.

  Forget about what?  Please try to be more specific Eric.

>
>
> Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
> chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
> personality helping participation.

  I haven't noticed it.  In fact the contrary seems to be more accurate.

>  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
> is not it.

  Perhaps and than again perhaps not.  If you have issues that you feel are
more interesting ot others of this forum, please initiate a thread/topic/subject
line for them.

>
>
> 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

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: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 20:07:08 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I beg to differ. Whilst I agree about the inappropriateness of using Word
> DOC files for general information distro. My reasons are quite different. A

If I'm not mistaken, Roeland is going way back to when many of us served
on the IDNO initial Steering committee where we found that plain text was
the only common denominator among the abilities of just about everyone,
including people in developing nations that may only have access to an IBM
5150 running MS DOS 3.3 and a Ventel 2400bps half-card modem, etc...

Further, and although those days are gone forever, I believe we also took
the official position in the IDNO (before it was a JDNO) that NSI should
continue to accept templates and register domains pending timely payment
by such methods as bank draft (check).

The reasoning behind this was that a poor dirt farmer in Bangladesh might
desire to register a domain for him/herself, but might not command the
prowess that a credit card holder would. If the old system of accepting
the templates and invoicing the registrant had not been retired, then this
poor dirt farmer from Bangladesh wouldn't have to wonder for a month and a
half that the domain he/she sent in the check for (and was available when
he/she did remit such payment) if someone else had registered the domain
out from under him/her in the meantime.

That's:

1.) One good reason not to disseminate information via a proprietary
format without also publishing it in an almost universal format and...

2.) Another instance where ICANN, right from the beginning sought to
trounce on the rights of the individual domain registrant (even the
potential registrants).

FYI, I believe that ADNS still provides this service for it's domain
registrants (http://www.adns.net). 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:42:28 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Update on NC Transfers Task Force activities

1.  The Interim Chair of the Transfers TF has been notified that Joanna Lane 
seeks to participate:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00030.html  

2.  Marilyn Cade has posted a draft resolution on transfers:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00003.doc

3.  My objection to this resolution as written has also been posted:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00036.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 22:20:44 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Sorry big Guy but your opinion is skewed.  Take your techno talk else where and read
what this list is for.
This ignorance is what has totally incapacitated  the GA.

OTOH wow are all these guys smart, between them they cannot agree on one single
virus, it's origin or how to prevent it.  Sorry Jeff but three or four guys arguing
about where a virus came from and the best way to prevent it's spread is a list
killer, the virus became human.  And you are becoming typhoid Mary.

Peace
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention Eric.  So let us
> do a little review in conjunction with interspersed responses to
> your commentary.  (See more below)
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.
>
>   Yes.  So more below
>
> >
> >
> > DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
> >
> > Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.
> >
> > We are here to deal with issues of domain names.
>
>   Indeed we do.  But also the DNS in general as well.  As such
> virus concerns with posts to this forum are VERY relevant to
> it's participants as well as viruses that effect the DNS and Root server
> structure(s).
>
> >
> >
> > We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
> > protection than the other.
>
>   If in doing so provides additional information regarding name server,
> root server, and overall DNS security specific to viruses we need
> and should be discussing it.  If you do not understand the lingo, than
> perhaps you need to bone up.
>
> >
> >
> > Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
> > is not misleading servers?
>
>   Many of us do of course.  But some viruses can effect and has effected
> the resolution of those domain names.
>
> >
> >
> > UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.
> >
> > How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.
> >
> > Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
> > problems is not related.
>
>   Untrue.  It is quite importantly related to DNS and Domain Name
> issues.  In fact it is an issue in and of itself.
>
> >
> >
> > If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.
>
>   Forget about what?  Please try to be more specific Eric.
>
> >
> >
> > Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
> > chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
> > personality helping participation.
>
>   I haven't noticed it.  In fact the contrary seems to be more accurate.
>
> >  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
> > is not it.
>
>   Perhaps and than again perhaps not.  If you have issues that you feel are
> more interesting ot others of this forum, please initiate a thread/topic/subject
> line for them.
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> 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-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: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 22:54:13 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Efforts well made

>From California,

Great State in the Land of the Free and the Brave.

Good Night and God Bless all travelers to our fair place.

We must never forget how fortunate we are to argue about making the
world a better place.

I wish all those who take the time to come here good speed in your
journey and that you find welcome open arms upon your arrival.

Without all of your countrys' support and support from within this great
nation we would not be about to embark on this upcoming meeting.

We must never forget that we are warriors for communication, open and
free and that by our efforts the world remains a little more peaceful
because of communication.

Let us agree to disagree but keep the dialogue open for through our
openness and sharing we all understand a little more about each other
and make the world a little better.

In the long run, security is about understanding and lack of hate, let
us work toward those goals.

Eric
dotcommoner
GodBless
- --
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, 9 Nov 2001 07:56:04 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA  agenda MdR 2001 11 12 

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011112.GAmdr-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

DNSO General Assembly Marina del Rey Meeting on 12 November 2001 - agenda

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

8 November 2001

From Danny Younger, GA Chair

Date, time and webcast
   1. The DNSO General Assembly meeting in Marina del Rey will be
      held on Monday 12 November 2001 at 20:00 LA time

      [ 23.00 New York, 13:00 Japan/Korea next day, 15:00 Hobart next day]
      [ For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ ]

      Please visit http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/schedule.htm for
      details about all ICANN meetings (schedules, agendas, meeting
      rooms, hotels, visas, etc).

   2. The GA will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
      [email-masked]

      Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001
      as usual. You will find on Berkman site all information about
      technical requirements.

      In summary a 28.8 Kbps connection is required for access to
      live and archived streaming media feeds (56K or faster preferred).
      The necessary software is the RealPlayer version 5.0 or later
      (version G2 or later preferred) or the Microsoft Windows Media
      Player (version 6.4 or later).

Agenda

   1. Opening comments by the Chair

   2. Comments by the Secretariat

   3. Invited Speakers:

      David Herndon, new.net -- "Representation and Process"
      Ken Hansen, Neustar -- "US ccTLD"
      Registrars Constituency -- "Transfers Issue"
      Bradley Thornton, PacificRoot --"TLDA Position Paper"
      Peter de Blanc, ccTLD Constituency -- "Progress towards a ccSO"
      Individual Domain Name Owners -- "Progress report"
      At large Study Committee -- "Final Report"

   4. Open Microphone

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

                Information from:© DNSO GA Chair's

- --
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, 09 Nov 2001 02:28:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Patrick, Roeland and all assembly members,

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ. Whilst I agree about the inappropriateness of using Word
> > DOC files for general information distro. My reasons are quite different. A
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Roeland is going way back to when many of us served
> on the IDNO initial Steering committee where we found that plain text was
> the only common denominator among the abilities of just about everyone,
> including people in developing nations that may only have access to an IBM
> 5150 running MS DOS 3.3 and a Ventel 2400bps half-card modem, etc...
>
> Further, and although those days are gone forever, I believe we also took
> the official position in the IDNO (before it was a JDNO) that NSI should
> continue to accept templates and register domains pending timely payment
> by such methods as bank draft (check).
>
> The reasoning behind this was that a poor dirt farmer in Bangladesh might
> desire to register a domain for him/herself, but might not command the
> prowess that a credit card holder would. If the old system of accepting
> the templates and invoicing the registrant had not been retired, then this
> poor dirt farmer from Bangladesh wouldn't have to wonder for a month and a
> half that the domain he/she sent in the check for (and was available when
> he/she did remit such payment) if someone else had registered the domain
> out from under him/her in the meantime.

  It is not just the poor dirt farmer in Bangladesh the such a situation effects.

I have a cousin in NYC area for instance, quite wealthy, that doesn't
use a credit card, never had one, and furthermore never borrowed
a dime in his 78 yrs.  Now even if he wanted to, under the current
ICANN Policy he cannot register a Domain Name with an ICANN
"Accredited" registry.  I find that rather appalling.  And my cousin
is not the only in the USA that is being blocked or restricted from
doing so either.  Many Jewish people don't use credit cards, never
have and never will.  Should they also be disenfranchised by such
a stupid policy?  No, I think not.  However the ICANN BoD
and staff in their infinite supposed wisdom do think so.  Again
appalling!  :(

>
>
> That's:
>
> 1.) One good reason not to disseminate information via a proprietary
> format without also publishing it in an almost universal format and...
>
> 2.) Another instance where ICANN, right from the beginning sought to
> trounce on the rights of the individual domain registrant (even the
> potential registrants).
>
> FYI, I believe that ADNS still provides this service for it's domain
> registrants (http://www.adns.net).
>
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Chief Technology Officer
> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
> http://www.PacificRoot.com
> http://www.JointTech.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

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, 09 Nov 2001 02:41:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reliability of the Internet - the silent battle - part 2

Eric and all assembly members,

  Nice try Eric my ignorant friend, but no cigar.  You comments
not only are not reasonable but miss the mark entirely. They (Your remarks)
kinda remind me of Nevel Chamberlin just after he arrived back
in england after chatting with Hitler.  Thank god Churchill replaced
him in short order, eh?  >;)  But to some I suppose ignorance is
bliss, until they get bitten, that's when the screaming usually starts.

  So What Roeland, myself and a couple of others are discussing
on this proper forum has great relevance and has been helpful to
some, including myself, so as to be better prepared just in case
al Queada decides to devise a virus along the same lines specifically
to attack Root Servers, Name Servers, and/or Registry/Registrar
Databases.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Sorry big Guy but your opinion is skewed.  Take your techno talk else where and read
> what this list is for.
> This ignorance is what has totally incapacitated  the GA.
>
> OTOH wow are all these guys smart, between them they cannot agree on one single
> virus, it's origin or how to prevent it.  Sorry Jeff but three or four guys arguing
> about where a virus came from and the best way to prevent it's spread is a list
> killer, the virus became human.  And you are becoming typhoid Mary.
>
> Peace
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Perhaps you haven't been paying close attention Eric.  So let us
> > do a little review in conjunction with interspersed responses to
> > your commentary.  (See more below)
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Could someone relate why this is relevant to this list.
> >
> >   Yes.  So more below
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
> > >
> > > Look at the charters and at the NC papers and the GA formation docs.
> > >
> > > We are here to deal with issues of domain names.
> >
> >   Indeed we do.  But also the DNS in general as well.  As such
> > virus concerns with posts to this forum are VERY relevant to
> > it's participants as well as viruses that effect the DNS and Root server
> > structure(s).
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > We are not here to talk about how each one of you is better at virus
> > > protection than the other.
> >
> >   If in doing so provides additional information regarding name server,
> > root server, and overall DNS security specific to viruses we need
> > and should be discussing it.  If you do not understand the lingo, than
> > perhaps you need to bone up.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do any of you have a dotBIZ or a dotINFO or dotUS that resolves correctly and
> > > is not misleading servers?
> >
> >   Many of us do of course.  But some viruses can effect and has effected
> > the resolution of those domain names.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > UDRP that is DNSO - GA related.
> > >
> > > How we are represented for DNSO purposes is related.
> > >
> > > Your technical analysis of how each of you can better deal and phrase virus
> > > problems is not related.
> >
> >   Untrue.  It is quite importantly related to DNS and Domain Name
> > issues.  In fact it is an issue in and of itself.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you pull a "it's the security of the net gig" forget about it.
> >
> >   Forget about what?  Please try to be more specific Eric.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone can go and watch participation on this list and see when technical
> > > chatter like this comes up it hurts particpation, as opposed to flame wars on
> > > personality helping participation.
> >
> >   I haven't noticed it.  In fact the contrary seems to be more accurate.
> >
> > >  Certainly there is a middle ground and this
> > > is not it.
> >
> >   Perhaps and than again perhaps not.  If you have issues that you feel are
> > more interesting ot others of this forum, please initiate a thread/topic/subject
> > line for them.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > 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-full" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #839
************************