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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

John,

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
>
[snip]
>
> > ...and that security and data escrow are a priority, and should become even
> > more so.
>
> ICANN is supposed to have safekeeping registration data, and they are not
> doing it.  If a registrar goes down the tubes, the only thing NSI has is the
> nameserver data.  This is a massive security hole, and the only thing ICANN
> has done along these lines is to file an intent-to-use trademark application
> for a service they still aren't providing.

yes, they even created a specification for doing registrar data escrow;
however the spec was never passed back to the registrars and registrars
have never been requested to escrow their data, even though some have
asked to.

> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ICANN firmly agrees that most of the name space
> should remain vulnerable to any registrar who decides to go nuts and submit a
> large number of falsified registrar transfer requests...

I don't think this is accurate, registrars have been working hard on the
transfer issue and just completed their first consensus document. We are
taking a vote on the document to see if we agree that it should go to the
NC.

-rick


--
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