Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

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

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

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

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

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG

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