the panix hijacking and icann's transfer policy

[Milton Mueller]

Ideally, (i.e., the way things should work according to our charter)
NCUC's policy committee, which consists of our elected GNSO Council
members, should take the initiative here. If they can draft something -
even just a list of bullet points - and send it to the list the rest of
us can take it from there.

>>> Frannie Wellings <wellings at EPIC.ORG> 1/18/2005 4:43:35 PM >>>
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:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-12jan05.htm

How do we want to go about this?

Best,

Frannie

At 4:18 PM -0500 1/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Marc:
>Not quite sure whether a TLD wouild have helped panix yet, but I do
>know that your analysis of Verisign and DNSSEC is not correct. The
>reason DNSSEC cannot be implemented for .com is because there are so
>many (tens of millions) of domain names in it. The processing
>requirements of DNSSEC applied to that scale is a major problem.
>
>But the root zone, which contains TLD, does not now and never will
>contain millions of records.
>
>>>>  Marc Schneiders <marc at schneiders.org> 1/18/2005 2:29:29 PM >>>
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, at 12:04 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>>  This incident underscores one of the reasons why ICANN should have
a
>>  policy of regularly adding TLDs to make them available for those
who
>>  need and can operate them.
>
>Though I agree about adding more TLDs, I don't see how it helps in
>hijacking domains.
>
>>  Businesses and noncommercial services that depend entirely on a
>domain
>>  name may want to have the option of owning, rather than "renting,"
>their
>>  domain in order to increase security.
>
>Maybe we can learn something from the trade mark people here as
>regards ownership of something that can also become defunct, if you
>don't use it?
>
>>  According to my imperfect
>>  understanding, it is easier to implement DNSSEC at the TLD level
than
>at
>>  the SLD level.
>
>I have little understanding of DNSSEC too. I do understand enough
>about it, I think, to know that it would not have helped panix.com.
>Also the implementation is most difficult precisely at the TLD level.
>An engineer from VeriSign is the one who has time and again pointed
>out (on IETF mailing lists, when I still had time to read them) that
>the present protocol is impossible for a zone the size of .com. It
>would take ages and a very, very powerful machine to sign it.
>
>Marc Schneiders


--

~~~
Frannie Wellings
Policy Fellow, the Electronic Privacy Information Center   ~
http://www.epic.org
Director, The Public Voice    ~   http://www.thepublicvoice.org

1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C.  20009
USA

wellings at epic.org

+1 202 483 1140 x 107 (telephone)
+1 202 483 1248 (fax)
~~~