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

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Rick H Wesson wrote in two recent messages:
---
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]
...
[1] http://www.miceandmen.com/6000/61_recent_survey.html
---

---
If registrars could effect the functionality of zones under .COM then I
might expect them to do some of the things you enumerate below. the
problem is that 78% of all .COM delegations are in some way misconfigured.

I don't understand why a resources mostly utilized for speculative
purposes should become secured, and if most domains are screwed up in some
way what makes you think the resonsible party for the domain is competent
to implement any of your suggested security features?
---


How true.

I cannot believe my eyes to see someone is eventually writing
about Mice and Men reports, and pointing out how bad the situation is.

Furthermore adding that anyway, nobody cares, because it is
"mostly utilized for speculative purposes".

Yes, indeed.

It explains extremelly well many problems we have.

On the one hand, the new open gTLD are like a game, like a lottery,
on which the world patrimony in words (used in real life to describe
our world) is sold out to the speculators during "sunrise".
On the other, the real companies and people, who feel the words
have meaning and sense, and that there is a reality behind.

Is ICANN a technical coordination body taking care about quality of network ?
Or is ICANN rather running a casino of "sunrise" games ?

Elisabeth Porteneuve

--
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