<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] the panix hijacking and icann's
transfe</title></head><body>
<div>I understand Marc is hesitant, but I really think NCUC should
issue a statement/submit comments about this. ICANN is
requesting comments on the transfer policy due February 1.
See:<font face="Lucida Grande" size="-3" color="#000000">
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-12jan05.htm</font></div
>
<div><br></div>
<div>How do we want to go about this? </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Frannie</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 4:18 PM -0500 1/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Marc:<br>
Not quite sure whether a TLD wouild have helped panix yet, but I
do<br>
know that your analysis of Verisign and DNSSEC is not correct. The<br>
reason DNSSEC cannot be implemented for .com is because there are
so<br>
many (tens of millions) of domain names in it. The processing<br>
requirements of DNSSEC applied to that scale is a major problem.<br>
<br>
But the root zone, which contains TLD, does not now and never will<br>
contain millions of records.<br>
<br>
>>> Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> 1/18/2005
2:29:29 PM >>><br>
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, at 12:04 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:<br>
<br>
> This incident underscores one of the reasons why ICANN should
have a<br>
> policy of regularly adding TLDs to make them available for those
who<br>
> need and can operate them.<br>
<br>
Though I agree about adding more TLDs, I don't see how it helps in<br>
hijacking domains.<br>
<br>
> Businesses and noncommercial services that depend entirely on
a<br>
domain<br>
> name may want to have the option of owning, rather than
"renting,"<br>
their<br>
> domain in order to increase security.<br>
<br>
Maybe we can learn something from the trade mark people here as<br>
regards ownership of something that can also become defunct, if
you<br>
don't use it?<br>
<br>
> According to my imperfect<br>
> understanding, it is easier to implement DNSSEC at the TLD level
than<br>
at<br>
> the SLD level.<br>
<br>
I have little understanding of DNSSEC too. I do understand enough<br>
about it, I think, to know that it would not have helped
panix.com.<br>
Also the implementation is most difficult precisely at the TLD
level.<br>
An engineer from VeriSign is the one who has time and again
pointed<br>
out (on IETF mailing lists, when I still had time to read them)
that<br>
the present protocol is impossible for a zone the size of .com. It<br>
would take ages and a very, very powerful machine to sign it.<br>
<br>
Marc Schneiders</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><br>
~~~<br>
Frannie Wellings<br>
Policy Fellow, the Electronic Privacy Information Center
~ http://www.epic.org<br>
Director, The Public Voice ~
http://www.thepublicvoice.org<br>
<br>
1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200<br>
Washington, D.C. 20009<br>
USA<br>
<br>
wellings@epic.org<br>
<br>
+1 202 483 1140 x 107 (telephone)<br>
+1 202 483 1248 (fax)<br>
~~~</div>
</body>
</html>