the panix hijacking and icann's transfer policy

[Marc Schneiders]

Since I don't believe in this move, as I explained, I suggest one of
the other two council reps take this up. It is hard to draft a text
you do not believe in. I will not block anything, but I really cannot
lead the action. I hope you understand, thx.

Marc

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, at 15:00 [=GMT-0500], Frannie Wellings wrote:

> In the interest of getting things moving here, can the GNSO Council
> members start drafting something?  Even bullet points as Milton
> suggested?  Or if you have already started, can you let the list know?
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Best to all,
>
> Frannie
>
>
> >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)
> >~~~
>
>
> --
>
> ~~~
> 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)
> ~~~
>