Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #929
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, December 16 2001          Volume 01 : Number 929

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 09:50:22 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Particular People

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Process;
>
> If the purpose for us following the process is to exclude people,
> then there is something wrong with the process.
>
> If the purpose for us following the process is to guarantee
> rights of inclusiveness then it is wrong not to follow the process.
>
> TR made it clear that he could only participate under the terms
> which were in existence when he volunteered.  So we argued
> about changing the terms during the middle of the process.  I
> do not care about the terms that were changed but I have to agree
> changing the process in mid stream is no process at all.
>
> Now clearly WXW was just arguing the matter out of hatred for
> Danny, Jeff and I.  But by and large the argument was over
> proper process.
>
> There are people who cannot participate meaningfully on an open
> forum WG, like apparently TR.  For them a strict TF is a good
> methodology, but not if they have to engage in team work with
> people with different views. That's fine it is good he told us.
>
> While the GA could never be called a "tolerant forum", I for one
> have never felt excluded or that the process denies me a right to
> total inclusion.  The only exclusion practiced here is of the people
> who do not care for what ever reason to be abused on a list.
> That's fine also, unless we follow our process and invoke monitors.
>
> As Alexander points out here the problem is when selective enforcement
> is
> exercised.
>
> If we do not enforce the list rules except against Jeff and I and we
> don't enforce the election to TF rules except against Jeff and I that
> seems rather odd. I am just saying that "if that were the case".
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > [I still encourage people to endorse the letter to the
> > Chair -- http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03694.html]
> >
> > Danny,
> >
> > I'm afraid you are mixing the meanings of *participating*
> > and *representing* to a point where you think you are
> > advocating inclusiveness but instead are misrepresenting
> > what the GA wants.
> >
> > We agree that minorities have to be protected. They
> > should have the right to participate, including
> > meaningful chances to be heard, elected etc. And I think
> > the chances of such minorities -- even "one-person
> > minorities" -- of getting heard are quite big on the GA
> > list (unless they grossly violate the list rules).
> >
> > Is there a dominating majority advocating a single
> > opinion in the GA? Methinks not. We have people who are
> > highly critical of ICANN and want it to be replaced
> > for a variety of reasons. We have people who think
> > ICANN is the lesser evil and want to improve it,
> > under certain conditions. Others see ICANN as victim
> > of unjustified attacks. Some emphasize the U.S. aspect,
> > others the international aspect. Additionally, there
> > are people focussing on technical, social, political
> > or economic issues. The GA is probably the most
> > heterogenous of all parts of ICANN (except At Large
> > which is today only visible in its choice of directors).
> >
> > While everyone has the right to participate (provided
> > he or she respects acceptable rules), nobody has the
> > right to represent the GA unless properly elected. This
> > is *not* a form of discrimination. I'm offended to be
> > implicitly compared to people denying "a voice" to women,
> > blacks and homosexuals. I'm not denying anyone a *voice*.
> > I *am* denying all three candidates an automatic right to
> > *representation*, because that makes a difference!
> >
> > You prefer Working Groups to Task Forces -- fine and
> > agreed. But as long as there are TF seats to be filled
> > by the GA, the GA should select the representatives
> > and not the GA Chair by making midway changes to the vote.
> > If the other two candidates had been e.g. Kent Crispin
> > and Dave Crocker and you had still stuck to your
> > automatic representation by virtue of candidacy and
> > sent them to the Task Force, I would certainly have had
> > respect for your consequent application of that approach.
> > But I would still think that it was wrong.
> >
> > Regards,
> > /// Alexander (last posting on this topic)

- --
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, 15 Dec 2001 10:58:04 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IANA

After rereading this report I searched for Telegraph.
(I found a lot of interesting things but could not find an agency
that still regulates the telegraph industry.)

http://www.iana.org/reports/coop-report-13dec01.htm

  * * The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA) is responsible
for various administrative functions associated with management of the
Internet's domain-name system root zone, including reviewing the
appropriateness of various contemplated changes to the content of the
root zone and preparing reports on those changes. This report gives the
findings and conclusions of the IANA on the establishment
of the .coop top-level domain (TLD).**

I would suggest these guys seriously consider changing their mission
statement or go the way of the Telegraph Authority.  ("the" root zone)

Isn't there already "a" .coop, tld on "a" root zone.  This is like an
Authority to regulate the TV station or the radio station.  Their
mission
does not even recognize operating ccTLDs.

Sincerely,
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: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 14:10:09 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

On 15 Dec 2001, at 11:37, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > Transfer to another registry would involve a lot more
> > than it does now because of title, which would have to be recognized
> > internationally.  It would no longer be a service.
> 
> ? I wasn't aware that names could be tranferred between registries. Can
> you elaborate?
> 

This was something to which I responded from Jefsey's post.  I don't 
know of any way to "transfer" a name from registry to registry.  Jefsey's
idea seemed to be that domain names would be recognized 
internationally in
all registries.  I disagree.  Having title in one registry would not confer
title in others - even duplicates.

> >
> > There is also the issue of duplicate TLDs and therefore duplicate
> > domain names.  Since ICANN has determined that they have the right to
> > duplicate them, and it is now becoming common practice, several people
> > could have rights to identical domains.
> 
> 
> erm. There are no duplicates Leah. computer.biz.icann is inherently
> different that computers.biz.pacroot. There can only be one name per root
> with the same attributes in the same way that two pieces of matter cannot
> occupy the same space. Please don't short-circuit your roots by
> interconnecting them. This breaks things. For anyone that might be
> interest in more of my views on this subject, you might want to check out
> the piece that Tim Denton & I wrote on the subject. It still needs some
> polish, but the basics are there..."A Case For Predictable Driving" -
> http://www.byte.org/predictable-rules-denton-rader-171001.pdf

I disagree here also only because there are inherent problems with 
protocols.  Email is a real problem with a duplicate TLD registry.  Other
problems with confusion (which domain will resolve in which root?) are 
also
an issue.  

It is not a matter of interconnecting roots, but maintaining unique names
in the name space that includes all roots.  Roots don't have to carry all
TLDs, but those they do carry should not duplicate those in other roots. 
We now have a situation where duplications are rampant and we have to 
deal
with it.

> 
> >
> > Before anyone says that the so-called alt.TLDs are not legitimate and
> > the ICANN TLD is the legitimate registry, check the recent Arizona
> > court decision transferring three domains from one registrant to
> > another within the ARNI .biz registry that is operated by The
> > PacificRoot.  The court order says "all registries, all roots, all
> > registrars." Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340
> 
> "No cases were found for the name CV2001-018340."
> 

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/newdocket/docketformmain.asp

Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340

I had no problem finding it, but to get the actual documents, you have to
send for them and it costs $$.  They are not online.

This is the information available on the website:

Case Number: CV2001-018340 Judge: STEINLE 
Plantiff: ELITE ENTERPRISES LLC Case Type: CIVIL 
Defendant: ARUN PRASAD Filing Date: 10/19/2001 
Defendant DOB:  
Location: CENTRAL PHOENIX 
P# Name Rel S BarID Attorney 
001  ELITE ENTERPRISES LLC  PLA N 006464  PETER STROJNIK  
002  ARUN PRASAD  DEF M PRO PER   
003  TRUST DEED INVESTMENT LLC  PLA N 006464  PETER 
STROJNIK  
Filing Date Description Docket Date 
12/07/2001 JUDGMENT P1-2 
 JUDGMENT: NOTICE OF FILING AND ENTRY PROVIDED TO THE 
PARTIES  
 2 PGS  
11/07/2001 STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT 11/21/2001 6464 P3 
11/01/2001 AMENDED COMPLAINT 11/05/2001 6464 P1,3 
 FIRST  
10/19/2001 CERT ARBITRATION-NOT SUBJECT 10/23/2001 6464 P1 
10/19/2001 COMPLAINT 10/23/2001 6464 P1 PD 

Leah

> Do you have any other pointers? The search engine at the Arizona Superior
> Court didn't help much as the above text indicates.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> -rwr

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

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:21:41 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:28:53PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> A fairly obvious and strightforward one would be to require PGP-signing of
> all transactions.

A typical answer from a techie.  :-)

You have invested the time and energy necessary to learn how to use PGP;
most other humans have not.  There are subtle pitfalls in using PGP (and
indeed, any PKI so far in deployment) that are traps for the unwary, and
it actually takes a non-trivial amount of technical sophistication to
understand this.  All things considered, the time and effort coming up
to speed on PGP is in fact substantial -- on the order of person-days,
at least.  Summing that over all domain holders, the cost of your
proposed solution is prohibitive. 

PGP has never made it as a *mainstream* solution for anything, and
probably never will -- it remains a tool for techies.  Until there
is a PKI that operates well on a global basis, no PKI-based solution 
will really be useful.

And even more -- the big problems are not the technology; the big
problems are the human problems of identification in the first place. 
This all interacts with privacy and other concerns; it will be a long
time before it is all sorted out. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 15 Dec 2001 16:46:39 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain Transfers

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:28:53PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >
> > A fairly obvious and strightforward one would be to require PGP-signing of
> > all transactions.
> 
> A typical answer from a techie.  :-)

I'll plead "guilty as charged" on that. I do have some technical background
and I'd expect many people with similar knowledge of available technology
to come up with the same answer. I almost didn't post because using PGP
seemed too obvious to mention.

That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
 
> You have invested the time and energy necessary to learn how to use PGP;
> most other humans have not.

No, but quite a few have. A quick check on the servers shows keys for
several people at icann.org, a couple of dozen including a corporate
key at nsi.net, a few for Kent Crispin, ...

There are a variety of reasons for others to consider using PGP. Quite a
few people need at least one of encryption (privacy) or authentication on
at least some of their messages. If anyone wants more detail on that, mail
me off-list and I'll forward a copy of a message suggesting PGP use that
I sent to a bunch of my less-techie friends.

Also, there are some fairly good point-and-click interfaces on some versions.

> There are subtle pitfalls in using PGP (and
> indeed, any PKI so far in deployment) that are traps for the unwary, and
> it actually takes a non-trivial amount of technical sophistication to
> understand this.

Yes, indeed. However, to some extent any security or authentication
technology, electronic or otherwise, requires careful use and management
to be effective.

> All things considered, the time and effort coming up
> to speed on PGP is in fact substantial -- on the order of person-days,
> at least.  Summing that over all domain holders, the cost of your
> proposed solution is prohibitive.

It's certainly not free, either in time or in money, but I haven't seen
anyone prpose a solution that's cheaper and as effective.
 
> PGP has never made it as a *mainstream* solution for anything, and
> probably never will -- it remains a tool for techies.  Until there
> is a PKI that operates well on a global basis, no PKI-based solution
> will really be useful.

We could debate whether the PGP "Web of Trust" -- in which any user
can sign any key and it's up to the message recipient to decide from
the signatures available whether to trust a key -- is actually a PKI.

I'd say yes, but "PKI" usually means something much more hierarchical
in which some Central Authority signs keys for Lesser Authorities and
so on. Mere Users cannot sign keys at all, only messages.

However, presumably both registries and registrars have a few techies
on staff, as would most customer organisations that need to manage
their own transfers. So the specific model I proposed -- registries
sign keys for the regitrars and optionally registrars sign keys for
customer administrators -- looks feasible. 
  
> And even more -- the big problems are not the technology; the big
> problems are the human problems of identification in the first place.
> This all interacts with privacy and other concerns; it will be a long
> time before it is all sorted out.

My point is that I think PGP solves the technical part of the problem
neatly. However, I agree completely that the technology is the easy
part.
- --
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, 16 Dec 2001 10:51:34 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (fwd) [nc-str] Structure - Past, Present and Future

Below is a post from me to the Structure Taskforce.  I would welcome
feedback, support, dissent, suggestions about the post (and specific
apsects of it) and if there is a clear consensus or feeling on issues
I will report these back also.  I realise this is difficult as certain
aspects of recommendations are far from detailed.

DPF

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:44:51 +1300, DPF <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Firstly apologies in advance for the lack of brevity but I wish to
>explore in some detail the problems I have with both our current
>structure and how the ALSC recommendations will work with that, and
>finally some suggestions.
>
>In *theory* the structure of ICANN is excellent.  A three way split
>between domain names organisations, IP addresses organisations and
>protocols organisations balanced by at large users.  Each SO gets
>three board members and the at large nine.
>
>The concept has always been that the grunty policy work will be done
>in a consensus seeking manner in each SO and the Board process would
>be not quite a rubber stamp but merely a check the proposal is not
>repugnant and has followed proper process.
>
>The reality though has been massively different.  In our own area of
>the DNSO there has been almost no useful input into domain name
>policy.  The Board adopted its own variation of the UDRP, the Names
>Council was pretty much ignored on the Verisign variation issues, the
>DNSO was told that even stuff such as changing the rules so there is a
>registry/registrar split in *.com is not a policy issue for the DNSO,
>the GAC gets listened to more than the DNSO on policy about domain
>name exclusion etc.  This list is not to beat up on anyone but to
>recognise that the status quo is not working at all well, at least in
>some eyes.  The Board and the staff are deciding domain name policy to
>the near exclusion of the DNSO as a formal body.
>
>This has caused me to relook at the ICANN structure and how the board
>is comprised.  The first issue which strikes me is why do the three
>current SOs have equal votes on the Board?  It appears to date 95% of
>Board time and decisions have been taken up by domain name issues,
>around 4% by Internet addressing issues and maybe 1% by protocol
>issues.  It appears to me that the DNSO is seriously under represented
>on the Board and this could well contribute to why the Board feels
>able to ignore the DNSO on so many issues.
>
>Now looking at the DNSO itself one has seven constituencies each with
>equal representation and one has to ask why are they equal?  There is
>no logical reason to conclude that these seven constituencies fairly
>balance out each other and represent the full range of stake holders.
>Apart from the obvious missing individual registrants constituency,
>there are many other constituencies you could have.
>
>The Business Constituency is about to tighten its rules.  That raises
>the possibility that there is room for another business aligned
>constituency.  There is IMO an excellent case for gTLD registries to
>be split into sponsored and non sponsored as their interests can be
>very very different.  Going the other way one can make the case that
>the Business, IP and ISP constituencies are all the same group of
>people and should be collapsed into one.  In fact of the three current
>NC reps from the BC, one works for a leading Intellectual Property
>Organisation and the other two for businesses which are or own large
>ISPs.  This is not an attempt to suggest any wrong-doing but merely to
>highlight that one could credibly have anywhere from four to 12
>constituencies and just giving them each three votes on the NC is not
>necessarily logical.   
>
>Lastly we have the GA.  I believe we have a chicken and egg situation
>here.  The GA has absolutely no power to do anything.  Now many will
>says neither should it because (in their view) it is dominated by a
>few individuals who are seen as anti-ICANN or worse.
>
>Can I put forward a view that if one did two things - both give the GA
>some authority and also had a registrants constituency then the GA
>would have a reasonable chance of returning to what I hope was its
>purpose - a place where people from all constituencies could gather to
>discuss and even come to consensus on issues.  The GA should be the
>place in theory where the Registrars, Registrants and Registries talk
>about issues such as transfers etc.
>
>There is no incentive at the moment for the GA to work or for people
>from constituencies to participate in it.  If you have an individual
>registrants constituency much of the present debate could well
>transfer to within that constituency and if for example one adopted a
>bicameral approach and required policy to be adopted by both the NC
>and the GA this would be a large incentive for people to make the GA
>work.  
>
>Anyway now onto the issues raised more directly by the ALSC and ccSO
>proposals.
>
>The first and massive issue for the DNSO is do we fight to keep the
>DNSO as the official main source of policy advice to the Board on
>domain name issues or do we recognise this is not even the case at
>present and become one of a number of competing voices on domain name
>issues.
>
>Setting up an ALSO raises the potential for the Board to be able to
>choose between competing advice and marginalise the DNSO even more.
>However in the absence of individual registrants being represented
>within the DNSO then I have to say that this is something to be
>supported.  If the DNSO wishes to remain the official source of domain
>name policy advice it needs to be fully representative.  
>
>Note I support at large members remaining regardless and retaining the
>right to elect half the Board.  It is whether they should formally
>constitute a SO which provides direct policy advice to the Board which
>is the issue for me.
>
>A ccSO raises in my opinion (Note conflict of interest I am on the
>Council of a ccTLD manager) far fewer issues because a fairly neat
>dividing line can be drawn between gTLD issues and ccTLD issues.  Very
>few ccTLD issues can be dealt with globally - they tend to be local
>solutions to local problems and I believe a ccSO is an effective way
>of dealing with these.  However some in the GA are strongly against a
>ccSO and unlike the debate on at large board numbers in the GA (which
>clearly favours nine from my observations), I can not detect at this
>stage whether there is either clear support for or against a ccSO.  I
>believe proposed bylaws for an ccSO will need to be viewed before
>asking the GA to vote.
>
>My thinking is that ICANN needs to fundamentally decide whether it is
>abandoning its model of distinct semi-autonomous SOs with no policy
>overlap, or to recognise the reality that power is with the Board (and
>staff) and then focus on how that Board should be comprised.
>
>There is a recurring issue about massive influence by ICANN staff.  My
>observation is that this is not unique to ICANN but happens in almost
>all voluntary organisation.  What is different about ICANN though is
>that the staff basically service the Board only and not the SOs.  If
>one really wants the SOs more involved in policy areas one would need
>to either develop your own staffing base (beyond admin) or have ICANN
>treat SOs as fundamental parts of ICANN and have them directly service
>SOs.  For example Louis Touton just made some useful observations on
>the .org issue.  Wouldn't it have been more useful though if a staff
>member had been assigned to work with the Taskforce so these issues
>could have been considered as part of their work?  
>
>I know of few other organisations where staff only service the Board
>and not what is in effect sub-committees of the Board (SOs are at the
>end of the day glorified sub-committees of ICANN).
>
>Having got my introductory comments out of the way (yes Virginia there
>is an end to this), I'll comment on Philip's evaluation.  There has
>been little substantive comment to it on the GA list but I will post a
>copy of this post there which may generate some.
>
>EFFICACY OF POLICY MAKING WITHIN DNSO
>
>I agree that an IDNH constituency is preferable if policy making stays
>within the DNSO.  In fact there is a need for both - an IDNH to have
>an effective voice within the DNSO on domain name issues and an ALSO
>which would concern itself with wider ICANN issues.  It is not
>necessarily a case of one or the other but preferably both - with well
>defined areas of responsibility.
>
>If the DNSO becomes a providers SO and the ALSO a users SO I agree
>with Philip that there will be a very high overlap of issues.  Note
>however that while the DNSO remains without an IDNH constituency this
>will be seen by many as a positive thing.  If the DNSO becomes truly
>representative of all stake holders then it would be less desirable.
>
>Philip correctly identifies that there is no mechanism for cross-SO
>communication.  If an ALSO is set up as recommended then I suggest
>there will be some sort of need for an ICANN General Assembly which
>SOs can get together and talk.  This need not be identical to the DNSO
>GA but it is possible that an ICANN GA could replace the DNSO GA if
>domain name issues are no longer the theoretical exclusive preserve of
>the DNSO.
>
>EFFICACY OF POLICY MAKING WITHIN ICANN
>
>Philip identifies the possibility of the Board receiving contradictory
>advice from different SOs.  I agree this is likely but as the DNSO
>already has such small influence (as a formal body, some individuals
>are very influential) on domain name issues the actual difference may
>be little.  As I said previously the DNSO needs to sharpen its act up
>if it wants to retain the preserve of domain name policy.
>
>It is also a good thing that the ALSO will allow individuals input
>into any issues arising out of the ASO and PSO.  While there are not
>many of these issues, there is also no effective way for individual's
>to have a direct say on these issues except through public forums.
>
>I disagree with Phillip's evaluation that the real test of
>individuals' interest in an at large SO will be when members are asked
>to pay because it all depends on what the fee is.  I can not see an
>ALSO functioning for less than US$200,000 as it has to cover the costs
>of staffing, website, online voting, organisation to have any chance
>of being able to compete with other SOs in having input into Board
>issues.
>
>Now that is asking 2,000 members to pay US$100 each.  Well of course
>heaps are not going to.  If the ALSO is asked to self-fund itself it
>will never amount to more than a larger version of the GA and will be
>doomed to ineffectiveness.
>
>What is needed IMO is a partnership between ICANN and an ALSO.  First
>of all one has to recognise that individuals will always be at a
>massive disadvantage compared to businesses when it comes to funding
>an organisation.  100 businesses paying $1,000 each (for example) is
>far easier to organise than 10,000 individuals paying $10 each.
>
>A fee should be set for the ALSO in the US$5 - US$10 range.  This is
>enough that people will be showing some commitment to ICANN.  I can
>not see any alternative except ICANN itself fund surplus costs of the
>ALSO as an expense of democracy basically.  And yes this is registries
>and registrars and businesses subsidising individuals but I would
>suggest that said individuals directly or indirectly fund the
>registries, registrars and businesses :-)
>
>The last part of Philip's evaluation I also disagree with - strongly.
>The ALSO proposal does not in any way increase the at large
>representation from five to six.  It decreases it from nine to six.  
>
>
>Once again apologies for the length of the post.  Hopefully some
>issues for consideration and debate.
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527

- --
[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, 15 Dec 2001 20:59:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Judge punishes bad security - Food for thought..??

All assembly members,

  Today there has been some talk about security interests and concerns
again.  This has also been discussed in the recent past on the
ICANN ALSC list as well.  Here is a couple of articles of recent
events in this regard that the court systems are now beginning to
impose as it seems that ICANN and others can't seem to get
their act together on in doing..

Judges Punish Bad Security

 Two stories with a common theme.

The first involves the U.S. Department of Interior.  There's an ongoing
litigation between Native Americans and the U.S. Government regarding
mishandling of funds.  After seeing for himself how insecure the
Department's computers were, and that it was possible for someone to
alter
records and divert funds, a U.S. District Judge ordered the department
to
disconnect its computers from the Internet until its network is secured.

The second involves a couple of Web hosting companies.  One day, C.I.
Host
was hit with a denial-of-service attack.  They traced at least part of
the
attack to companies hosted by Exodus Communications.  C.I. Host filed an

injunction against Exodus, alleging that they committed or allowed a
third
party to commit a DOS attack.  A Texas judge issued a temporary
restraining
order against three of Exodus's customers, forcing them to disconnect
from
the Internet until they could prove that the vulnerabilities leading to
the
DOS attack had been fixed.

I like this kind of stuff.  It forces responsibility.  It tells
companies
that if they can't make their networks secure, they have no business
being
on the Internet.  It may be Draconian, but it gets the message across.

On the Internet, as on any connected system, security has a ripple
effect.  Your security depends on the actions of others, often of others

you can't control.  This is the moral of the widely reported distributed

denial-of-service attacks in February 2000: the security of the
computers
at eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, and CNN.com depended on the security of the
computers at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  If Eli
Lilly
has bad computer security, then your identity as a Prozac user may be
compromised.  If Microsoft can't keep your Passport data secure, then
your
online identify can be compromised.  It's hard enough making your own
computers secure; now you're expected to police the security of everyone

else's networks.

This is where the legal system can step in.  I like to see companies
told
that they have no business putting the security of others at risk.  If a

company's computers are so insecure that hackers routinely break in and
use
them as a launching pad for further attacks, get them off the Internet.
If
a company can't secure the personal information it is entrusted with,
why
should it be allowed to have that information?  If a company produces a
software product that compromises the security of thousands of users,
maybe
they should be prohibited from selling it.

I know there are more instances of this happening.  I've seen it, and
some
of my colleagues have too.  Counterpane acquired two customers recently,

both of whom needed us to improve their network's security within hours,
in
response to this sort of legal threat.  We came in and installed our
monitoring service, and they were able to convince a judge that they
should
not be turned off.  I see this as a trend that will increase, as
attacked
companies look around for someone to share fault with.

This kind of thing certainly won't solve our computer security problems,

but at least it will remind companies that they can't dodge
responsibility
forever.  The Internet is a vast commons, and the actions of one affect
the
security of us all.

Dept. of Interior story:
<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5100521,00.html>
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48980,00.html>

Exodus story:
<http://www.cio.com/archive/110101/court.html>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:06:27 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Saturday, Saturday, December 15, 2001, 11:10:09 AM, L Gallegos wrote:

> http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/newdocket/docketformmain.asp

> Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340

> I had no problem finding it, but to get the actual documents, you have to
> send for them and it costs $$.  They are not online.

> This is the information available on the website:

But again, this is a dispute that involved only the alt.root
namespace, which still doesn't assert any change in status for the
alt.root tlds.

All it means is that the law applies to tlds and domains in the
alt.root namespace just like they do in the ICANN Namespace.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 15 Dec 2001 19:08:30 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

Saturday, Saturday, December 15, 2001, 1:46:39 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

>> You have invested the time and energy necessary to learn how to use PGP;
>> most other humans have not.

> No, but quite a few have. A quick check on the servers shows keys for
> several people at icann.org, a couple of dozen including a corporate
> key at nsi.net, a few for Kent Crispin, ...

Again, a technically oriented group.

To expect end user registrants to do the same would create a real
barrier to domain registrations, for an increase in security that is
really above that which is really needed.  We really do not see a
domain security/hijacking problem on services where the domain
registration is secured by a website control panel username/password
combination on an SSL enabled webserver.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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, 15 Dec 2001 23:22:07 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] One more time

We have an obligation to our children and to the current users of the
Internet.

I know that TR and WXW do not want to hear my dribble but they can just
hit the delete button.

Some of you do not get it.  The efficacy of your comments and input here
are not measured by votes in the NC but are read and digested by many.

Of all the blogs and IcannWatches and other attempted forums; this one
here is actually watched and listened to.  The others are listened to
but they get their stuff from here. (oh do not get me wrong we all get
our stuff from them and they rock )   Don't think for a second that when
a post is beaten up and criticized that it is not noticed.

From what I understand, Mr. Evans just told a group of possible foreign
investors that the Internet was a means to increase understanding and
commerce.

When in MDR I asked your board to reassure the people that the net was
secure for thier purposes the bastards said no.

Ok so their sources are not, but ours are secure.

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: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:27:02 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALSC

Why don't people here care?

- --
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, 16 Dec 2001 02:31:52 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Domain Transfers

William,

All roots means all roots.  I did not say "except the USG root."  All 
registries and all registrars means just that as well.  There was no 
discrimination in the order.  It will take a further legal action to refute it.

Leah

On 15 Dec 2001, at 19:06, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, December 15, 2001, 11:10:09 AM, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> 
> > http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/newdocket/docketformmain.asp
> 
> > Arizona Superior Court: Case Number cv2001-018340
> 
> > I had no problem finding it, but to get the actual documents, you have to
> > send for them and it costs $$.  They are not online.
> 
> > This is the information available on the website:
> 
> But again, this is a dispute that involved only the alt.root
> namespace, which still doesn't assert any change in status for the
> alt.root tlds.
> 
> All it means is that the law applies to tlds and domains in the
> alt.root namespace just like they do in the ICANN Namespace.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
> 
> --
> 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, 15 Dec 2001 23:48:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC

Eric,

actually alot of folks on this list care; however the list is badly
mismanaged and there is no clear and coordinated effort to manage the
discussion on this list -- thus we do care, but careing on this list means
working on any other front as the GA is a lame entity, and until folks
decide to work together the GA will be a meaningless playground for the
masses.

If you want to make the GA into something elect a chair and cooperate with
them in developing a plan for the GA.

- -rick

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Why don't people here care?
>
> --
> 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 #929
************************