Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Is this ICANN escrow committee document on line please?  URL?

I agree, by the way, that the vagueness of ICANN's announcement is very
insulting.  It gives us nothing to work with, and no way to tell if there
is something there, or this is a hijack to prevent the critical mass of
opposition from attending LA, as the Annual Meeting (and US location) are
most likely to draw people not on expense accounts.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 
> Ross,
> 
> As one who sat on the ICANN Escrow committee I can state that the
> committee did create a final draft that specified escrow formats and how
> escrow would be done. The document was forwarded to ICANN and I have no
> clue why they didn't implement it. All ICANN need to do is publish their
> requirements on escrow, and start up their service, which they have had
> over 9 months to complete.
> 
> Also if a registrar was to be "taken out," some service certainly would be
> disrupted but we would deal, I'm sure VGRS, as the other registries have
> too, a well defined disaster recovery plan. I believe such was required in
> their Registry proposal.
> 
> Do you know each root server does not answer queries for at lease two
> hours twice a day? I am sure the impact of an outage would be less than
> what the financial industry felt when the WTC towers were demolished. I
> also suggest you read up on what happens when a backhoe severs a
> fiber, they happen all the time, some huge ones that will cut out large
> chunks of the net and one rarely hears about it.
> 
> finally I wish we could focus on the real ICANN issues instead of this FUD.
> Using fear to create an environment where our attention is directed away
> from what our attention should be focused on only makes me wonder why we
> shouldn't be discussing the issues that ICANN is more equipped to discuss.
> 
> I feel like ICANN does not want to deal with its important naming issues
> in the US, as there will be no meetings in the USA next year. I also feel
> ICANN, its staff, and the constituencies are illequiped to discuss
> security or stability with over 78% of .COM zones misconfigured [1]
> 
> ICANN just doesn't draw the folks that work on the issues of stability and
> security, so I can's see any value coming out of a meeting dedicated in
> its entirety to discussing such.
> 
> As for topics we can wrap our arms around, now would be an excellent time
> to enumerate just what "security and stability of the naming and
> addressing systems and of their operational implementation globally"  [2]
> means, because this just sounds like FUD to me.
> 
> to me 'security and stability of the naming system' means DNSSEC and
> 'security and stability of the addressing systems' means IPSEC and IPv6
> and '... of their operational implementation globally' leads me to think
> about coordination.  I just can't fathom how what is usually a marketing
> and personal networking oppertunity can be billed as anything close to a
> NDSS [3] confrence.
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.miceandmen.com/6000/61_recent_survey.html
> [2] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26sep01.htm
>     5th paragraph.
> [3] http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/02/index.shtml
> 
> 
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > > I have no argument with the concepts. I just think the ICANN board meeting
> > is
> > > simply an inappropriate forum to discuss the issues.  I would think IETF
> > risks
> > > being a waaaaaaay better place. The net has existed for years with its
> > 'dirty
> > > little secrets' surving on the basis that those with sufficient knowledge
> > could
> > > do damage in one way or another (like kashpuref did) but chose not to out
> > of
> > > some form or reverence or spirit of cooperation.
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Did you know that if NSI-Registrar was put out of business in a permanent,
> > WTC sense (god forbid), that there are currently no defined process for
> > recreating the service records for some 16 million or so registrants? I'd
> > say that fact alone makes ICANN an appropriate forum to discuss the issue.
> > We might not be able to wrap our arms around a lot of topics, but the ones
> > that we can are fairly important.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> > Tucows Inc.
> > t. 416.538.5492
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the 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
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

--
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