<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Whether it be BIND or any other DNS software the short answer is -
    yes. Any DNS software can be programmed to return any result under
    any sort of conditions. It's just software that accepts a query and
    returns a response. The response can be anything. Currently it is
    programmed to obey bind rules - but it doesn't have to. You can put
    in any kind of rules you want to get any result or no response you
    want. <br>
    <br>
    Technically there is nothing that can't be done. It's all about
    policy and agreement. DNS can do anything.<br>
    <br>
    On 11/20/2011 9:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2058D5C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
        medium)">
      <style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h2
        {mso-style-priority:9;
        mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
        mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:18.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.Heading2Char
        {mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
        mso-style-priority:9;
        mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
        font-family:"Cambria","serif";
        color:#4F81BD;
        font-weight:bold;}
span.apple-style-span
        {mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-tab-span
        {mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Courier New";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
            New";color:#1F497D">Does anyone on this list know more
            about the way BIND is being amended to allow the “rewriting”
            of DNS answers? Jorge? Timothe?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
            New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
          0in 0in 4.0pt">
          <div>
            <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
              1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
              <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
                  NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
                  <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Drake<br>
                  <b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 20, 2011 10:22 AM<br>
                  <b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
                  <b>Subject:</b> [NCSG-Discuss] beyond take down<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            </div>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
          <h2><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Hi</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          <h2><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">As discussed
                on our call the other night, some of the key
                developments from a global public interest standpoint go
                beyond GNSO & ICANN policies but we might still
                consider whether there's grounds for useful NC
                engagement…</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">& BTW Monika quotes Wendy in the
              below...<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <h2><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-the-core-of-the-internet/print/"><span
                  style="font-weight:normal">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-the-core-of-the-internet/print/</span></a><br>
              <br>
              Filtering and Blocking Closer To The Core Of The Internet?<br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">By Monika
                Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch on 20/11/2011 @
                1:00 pm</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          <h2 style="margin-bottom:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">With
                protests against draft US legislation like the Stop
                Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act ongoing
                and the European Parliament voting on 17 November for a
                resolution to request that the United States should be
                “refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP
                addresses or domain names,” politicians are talking a
                lot about technology for the internet domain name
                system. But at the same time, engineers are getting more
                political and are intensively discussing technology
                providing the tools for blocking – by governments and
                private parties.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">For the
                community that cares for the functioning of the domain
                name system (DNS), it came as a shock when Paul Vixie,
                founder of the Internet Software Consortium (ISC), said
                that the BIND software would allow the filtering out
                of sites with a bad “reputation” – like listed malware
                sites – and also the “rewriting” of DNS answers –
                manipulating what people get to see when asking for
                domain names.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Vixie is a
                guru of the DNS and one of the authors of the letter by
                well-known experts against DNS blocking in the Protect
                IP Act. But he is perhaps best-known for being the
                father of BIND, which has for a decade been the
                open source tool that makes the DNS work.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">More
                Filter-Friendly DNS Software</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Jim Reid,
                one of the chairs of the DNS working group at the
                Réseaux IP Europeéns, said during a recent debate
                about principles that he was “rather saddened” by ISC’s
                decision to allow the rewriting. “We’re giving the bad
                guys tools,” Reid warned.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">The
                rewriting – which sends back a “lie” upon a request to
                the DNS from someone looking for a website – “also
                sends a rather nasty message saying it’s okay to do this
                kind of thing.“ What is worse from the engineers’
                standpoint with the rewriting is that it breaks new
                measures to secure the DNS, because the “lies” are
                detected and dropped without users knowing what
                happened.</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">The “lying”
                is currently happening for domains seized by the US
                government agency ICE (US Immigration and Customs
                Enforcement), some of them legal in their country of
                origin, like the Spanish <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://RojaDirecta.com">RojaDirecta.com</a>, (a
                case discussed intensively by the experts). When typing
                <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://RojaDirecta.com">RojaDirecta.com</a>,
                users do not get to that site, but to a warning/blocking
                site by the ICE.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">It is this
                kind of case that has stirred up debate in the European
                Parliament, pushed by the European Digital
                Right initiative (EDRi). “By this you render a site and
                the data inaccessible without having any court order in
                the site owner’s country,” said Joe McNamee, who fought
                for the declaration now officially included in the
                Parliament’s resolution on the upcoming European
                Union-US Summit of 28 November 2011.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">The text of
                the Parliament resolution is here [1].</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Under the
                topic “Freedom and Security,” the declaration stresses
                the need “to protect the integrity of the
                global internet and freedom of communication by
                refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP
                addresses or domain names.”</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">SOPA,
                McNamee warned, would be so broad that “it could be
                interpreted in a way that would mean that no
                online resource in the global internet would be outside
                US jurisdiction.”</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Of those who
                provide users with domain names – with the so-called DNS
                registrars closer to the user and the
                user’s jurisdictions – it is the registry companies who
                manage the central database for zones like .com (for
                example) who are an easy target when it comes to
                take-downs. They keep the record of who every .com
                domain name is delegated to and inform those looking for
                a site where to go. So they can from a top spot in the
                DNS hierarchy point to a “wrong” location.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">What makes
                things difficult is that many large registries, like
                VeriSign (registry for .com and .net) which changed the <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://rojadirecta.com">rojadirecta.com</a>
                record, are located in the United States and while
                offering services globally in name, they in fact
                are bound by US law.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Registries –
                Target for Take-Downs</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">VeriSign
                recently tried to get a new registry policy acknowledged
                by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
                and Numbers (ICANN), the DNS technical oversight body,
                which would have allowed the dot com and .dot net
                registry (VeriSign) “to comply with any applicable court
                orders, laws, government rules or requirements, requests
                of law enforcement or other governmental or
                quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution
                process.” After a first wave of protests, the company
                backed off and withdrew the test for the time being.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Matt
                Pounsett from Afilias, the registry for .info and some
                other TLDs, explained the dilemma. While the
                registries certainly like people to see the correct
                DNS-answers that they send, “there are cases where even
                we participate in things like that, particularly domain
                take-down.“ Many take-downs were made when it was found
                out “that a particular domain is being used in a way
                that violates acceptable use.”</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Registry
                operators and a software providers like ISC underline
                that the fight against malware mainly drives
                their interventions. BIND’s filtering function will help
                the manager of a local domain to protect his network.
                Customers are pushing, for example, for options like
                rewriting, said Joao Damas, a developer at ISC.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">The
                rewriting not only allows ICE to lead people to their
                website instead of Rojadirecta’s, it also allows
                commercial companies to attract traffic to their search
                engine with recommendations and paid ads. Some big
                telecommunications providers, for example, lure users to
                their search site every time they mistype a domain name
                or simply look for something that does not exist.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">“If we do
                not do offer functionalities like the rewriting in our
                BIND software, we will drive them away from BIND,”
                said Damas. BIND’s new “reputation policy zone” function
                allows people to have names checked against lists of
                alleged bad actors, known spammers or
                malware-distributers, and in case of a match do not
                display the respective sites.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">More Private
                Filtering</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">But what
                about the governance of increased private manipulation
                and also filtering that is enabled by better
                tools, asked Peter Koch, a DNS expert at Denic, the
                registry for the .de. country code TLD of Germany. “When
                we talk about a near real-time facility that would
                enable certain groups to influence resolvers to block or
                rewrite resolution data,” Koch warned, collateral damage
                and even liability issues could arise. The more
                sceptical engineers also warn that such interventions
                could make the deployment of secure DNS on the last mile
                to the user very difficult. As they, including Vixie,
                have worked for a decade to implement this kind of
                security, they oppose it from an architectural
                standpoint.</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Civil
                liberty advocates like McNamee or Wendy Seltzer,
                co-founder of the project Chilling Effects, point to the
                difficulties for victims of the varieties of filtering
                possibilities to push back. Why can a DMCA (US Digital
                Millennium Copyright Act [2]) request from a private
                party lead to Google even filtering a part of the
                rojadirecta website included in the Spanish version and
                housed under .es, the country code TLD of Spain – as
                actually happened?</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">“Today the
                biggest problem is there’s too many things happening not
                based on legislation,” said Patrik Fältström, chair of
                the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of the
                ICANN. Fältström belongs to the engineers hoping that
                fixing the political code might be the first necessary
                step to solve the problems. Only then would the next
                step be addressed, Fältström said, in addressing
                conflicting national legislations. A mega-size example
                is coming with regard to this problem: the introduction
                of new TLDs as approved by ICANN.</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Could ICANN
                approve a domain name that is illegal in one
                jurisdiction? asked Fältström. Several jurisdictions
                have announced they would otherwise block complete TLDs,
                with new top level domains like .gay being only one
                example not being welcome everywhere in the world. Or
                should controversial new address zones be blocked at the
                outset by ICANN?</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">If the
                registries are close to the core, the root zone that
                lists existing TLDs (like .com, .net, .ch) and future
                ones could be seen as one core spot of the global
                internet.</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">With the new
                contract for the managing of this root function, the
                Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract, the
                US administration seems to have put itself in a
                difficult spot. The contract has been performed by
                the ICANN so far, and the US National Telecommunications
                and Information Administration oversees the work.
                The difficult spot for NTIA is that they will for every
                new TLD check if ICANN’s procedure for approving a new
                TLD has been supportive of the “global public interest”.
                What will the US do about potential knocks at their door
                from those who do not like to have a .gay or a .sex? It
                will be a difficult filtering function, close to the
                core.</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br>
              <br>
            </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Related
                Articles:</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          <div>
            <h2><span class="apple-tab-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">         
                </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">• IP
                  Enforcement Permeates ICANN, US Internet Policy [3]</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          </div>
          <div>
            <h2><span class="apple-tab-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">         
                </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">• US Gets
                  Threatening Over ICANN’s New Internet Domain Plan [4]</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          </div>
          <div>
            <h2><span class="apple-tab-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">         
                </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                  style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">• ICANN
                  Board Approval Opens Internet To Many New Domains [5]</span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
          </div>
          <h2 style="margin-bottom:.25in"><span class="apple-style-span"><span
                style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal">Categories:
                Access to Knowledge,Enforcement,English,Features,Human
                Rights,Information and Communications Technology/
                Broadcasting,IP
                Policies,Language,Themes,Trademarks/Geographical
                Indications/Domains,United Nations,US Policy,Venues</span></span><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt;font-weight:normal"><br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">Article printed from
                Intellectual Property Watch: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog</a></span><br>
              <br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">URL to article: <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-the-core-of-the-internet/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-the-core-of-the-internet/</a></span><br>
              <br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">URLs in this post:</span><br>
              <br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">[1] resolution is here: <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0510&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2011-0577">http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0510&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2011-0577</a></span><br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">[2] Digital Millennium
                Copyright Act: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act</a></span><br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">[3] IP Enforcement
                Permeates ICANN, US Internet Policy: <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/13/ip-enforcement-permeates-icann-us-internet-policy/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/13/ip-enforcement-permeates-icann-us-internet-policy/</a></span><br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">[4] US Gets Threatening
                Over ICANN’s New Internet Domain Plan: <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/05/06/us-gets-threatening-over-icann%e2%80%99s-new-internet-domain-plan/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/05/06/us-gets-threatening-over-icann%e2%80%99s-new-internet-domain-plan/</a></span><br>
              <span class="apple-style-span">[5] ICANN Board Approval
                Opens Internet To Many New Domains: <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/06/20/icann-board-approves-long-awaited-plan-for-new-internet-domains/">http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/06/20/icann-board-approves-long-awaited-plan-for-new-internet-domains/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></h2>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>