Wilful disregard? Was Danny's: Re: [ga] Pigheadedness

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny, Stuart, and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I have changed the subject line of this post in my response here
so as to lesson the "emotiveness" of Danny's original subject line
in hopes that a more productive exchange can be achieved.

  Indeed Danny's question (See below) is of relevance in a number
of aspects.  Some of those aspects are obvious, or should be, others
may not be so obvious.

  Danny refers to: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ and possibly,
http://www.icann.org/presentations/crocker-bucharest-27jun02.pps
in his question as to the recommendations he and the Bucharest Communiqué of the
ccTLD Managers suggested.  Yet these suggested recommendations have yet to
be vetted to the Stakeholder/user community.  Why has this not occurred?

  In you letter which Danny kindly provided the UL for below, you Stuart
state: "Considering that this examination has until now tended to be done
by the IANA only when a TLD    nameserver is being transferred to a
new operating site, we believe it is appropriate to ask the Committee
on Security and Stability (SAC) to look into the matter and to develop
a longer-term recommendation as to what would be the most sound
technical practices to follow to promote better DNS    stability; and
to provide an interim recommendation while the broader issues are
being explored. Since    this, however, involves domain names, we
would want to inquire whether the DNSO concurs with this
approach before asking the SAC to undertake this analysis."

  As this situation does involve Domain Names and the registrants of
those Domain names as well as the users indirectly of those domain names,
would it not be necessary as a matter of transparency that they as
stakeholders should play an important role in deciding what long term
approach or practice to be made as policy?

And further  you state Stuart...

"Historically, the goal of the practice has been to improve the quality
of data in the DNS. Pursuing the RFC 1591 policy that the IANA
should make checks to verify nameserver "operational status and
database accuracy", the IANA follows the practice of obtaining
and technically reviewing TLD zone files as part of the technical
checks it performs when nameserver changes are requested.
Although checks for the most severe database misconfigurations
can be performed by other means, many less severe errors have
 been detected through this review. The ordinary result of finding
one or more of these less severe errors is to proceed with the
root-zone change, to alert the ccTLD manager of the error,
and to request that it be remedied."

  Isn't it true, that APNIC is undergoing a ICANN generated project
to re-wright RFC1591?  ( I noticed that the announcement on this recently
disappeared from the APNIC.NET web site )...
Could you elaborate on this event a bit Stuart or Vint?



DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Stuart and Vint,
>
> Thank you for conveying the impression that the ICANN Board is being
> responsive to the concerns of the community by way of the message you posted
> to the Names Council on the development of policy regarding nameserver
> updates, posted at:
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep02.
>
> htm
>
> I have noted that you have not declared your intent to immediately resolve
> the problem at hand, and have instead proposed the stalling tactic of
> claiming a need to explore the broader issues while awaiting an interim
> recommendation from the Committee on Security and Stability and/or from the
> DNSO Name Council before you authorize the IANA to update the name servers as
> requested.
>
> You have already been advised by respected and concerned members of the
> technical community that your refusal to implement these changes constitutes
> a threat to the stability of the Internet (both in recent messages and
> through the unanimous Bucharest Communique of the ccTLD Managers).
>
> As you have not demonstrated any harm or inordinately grave risk associated
> with making these name server updates, why not end this infantile standoff
> and make the requested changes immediately?  We can all debate these other
> matters at a later point when ICANN ceases to threaten the stability of ths:e
> Internet through its willful inaction.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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