July 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSO Council Restructuring
by Alan Greenberg July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

I am replying purely to the At-Large list, because I presume that anyone on the ALAC list is also here. A few comments are embedded below. Alan At 29/07/2008 12:47 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >If I had to make the decision, This is the line that captures the entire issue over the last months. It is easy for anyone person to make a reasoned and informed decision in support of what he/she believes is in the best interests of ICANN. It is an awful lot more difficult to find a solution that all parties can live with, and certainly impossible to find a solution that all parties feel is optimal. >I would have to endorse the Avri Doria's >statement. The bicameral council idea is some neat footworks but I cannot >find anywhere reference to a "conference committee" that would be necessary >to "iron out" differences that would (shall?) emerge from both houses in >order to report a "consensus" position to the ICANN Board. So the complexity >imposed doesn't appear to get you further along the path to consensus in a >shorter time! Not sure what "conference committee" you are referring to. There are indeed some issues to be addressed in the proposals sent to the Board, but (in my mind), they are likely fixable. >A question as to rationale. As I understand it, a call for an Issues Report >is the pre-requisite to the PDP. Why then would (or should?) the voting >threshold requirements be different? I don't really understand the question. An issues report is the first step on a GNSO PDP. You ask why should/would the voting thresholds be different. Different from what? >The statements of the Registry & NCUC representatives certainly peaked my >interest. They seem more about personal animus than not. The 10 or so hours of conference calls and 550 e-mail messages should be online soon. With sufficient spare time, you can judge for yourself. ;-) >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl >Langdon-Orr >Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:06 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: 'ALAC internal list' >Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on >GNSO Council Restructuring > >At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our >representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to >have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. > > > >Please see our Wiki page >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a >link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also >under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a >note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep >statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) >as an ALAC Statement to the Board. > > > >ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a >formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next >24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement >will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording >your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote >against the proposal or 3. Abstain. > > > >More in the next 24hrs. > > > >CLO > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists. >icann.org > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Apple Still Has Not Patched the DNS Hole
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

All, As an example to another thread and for Joe's edification. An article up at TidBITS on http://db.tidbits.com/article/9706 Apple's unexplained failure to patch the DNS vulnerability that we have been http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/25/1334254&tid=172 discussing for a http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/21/2212227&tid=172 few weeks now. "Apple uses the popular Internet Systems Consortium BIND DNS server which was one of the first tools patched, but Apple has yet to include the fixed version in Mac OS X Server, despite being notified of vulnerability details early in the process and being informed of the coordinated patch release date. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSO Council Restructuring
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. More in the next 24hrs. CLO

4 5

Take 2 - Notice of COMPLETION of GNSO Improvements Council Structure Proposal ad hoc Working Group - Report to the ICANN Board
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

It has been pointed out to me that my earlier posts to these lists, on this topic, were rather obscure in describing what was required of the ALAC to do, now, with regards to this WG Report, and the proposed ALAC Community Statement. Here is an attempt at something more easily understood / in a better form. Sorry for any confusion caused... CLO COMPLETION of GNSO Improvements Council Structure Proposal ad hoc Working Group - Report to the ICANN Board On 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) GNSO Review Working Group, with the exception of the BGC's recommendation regarding GNSO Council restructuring. The Board asked the GNSO to convene a small working group on Council restructuring -consisting of one representative from the current NomCom appointees to the GNSO Council, one member from each GNSO constituency and one member from each liaison-appointing advisory committee (including, of course, the ALAC). The Board directed that the group: "should reach consensus and submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later than 25 July 2008 for consideration by the ICANN Board as soon as possible." (see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13, http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm> - _Toc76113182 for the complete text.) The ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, Alan Greenberg, was nominated to represent ALAC on the working group. An ad-hoc supporting committee of the ALAC was formed in order to help Alan represent ALAC during the deliberations of the working group. The members of the ad-hoc committee are: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Sebastien Bachollet, Vanda Scartezini, and Izumi Aizu. The working group on GNSO council restructuring began its work on 4 July 2008 and has deliberated exhaustively during seven conference call meetings and via email from that date, through midnight on 25 July and into the next day in an effort to develop a consensus recommendation for Board consideration. The ad-hoc supporting committee of the ALAC worked closely with Alan during this period. A copy of the Report of the working group can be found here. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee Appended to it are statements from each of the members on behalf of the community they represent, including a statement from Alan Greenberg on behalf of the ALAC. Next Steps Since the Board of Directors of ICANN is to begin its discussions on the output of the working group at its meeting on Thursday 31st July, and the ALAC Executive Committee believes that it is important that the Board have a clear statement from the ALAC on these issues, it is the intention of the Chair of ALAC to ask the ALAC to approve a Statement to be transmitted to the Board as an official Advisory Committee statement. To this end, a draft Statement, drawn heavily from the statement of Alan on behalf of the ALAC annexed to the report will be available on or before 1200 UTC 30th July 2008. As soon as it is available a vote will commence, running as required for seven days, to allow ALAC Members to vote to approve, not approve, or abstain on the draft Statement. In order to be prepared for the vote, ALAC Members are asked to carefully consider urgently: * The report of the working group; * The statement of Alan on behalf of the ALAC in the report above * When posted the Draft Statement. Please use the Comments option on this page to have your questions answered or comments considered for inclusion in the proposed ALAC Statement, or to otherwise comment on the matter at hand.

1 0

FYI: FCC Commissioner Urges, Don't Regulate the Internet
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

All, As has been my and our members contention for years, it's good and heartening to read a well reasoned and considered bit on whom should be managing Internet resources. However I believe that Comcast got it's just reward. Yet the pulling of the plug on Usenet is not reasonable as cleaning it up can and should be doable. However the Usenet groups that promote Child Porn should be shut down immediately! Such action does not predicate or require that ALL of Usenet have it's proverbial plug pulled... Yet recent events and lack of precipitous action on the part of ICANN and the IANA regarding DNS, has given many of our members to be yet again reconsider that perhaps some USG regulation on DNS and IP address management, is needed. Such management should come from professional Technical folks, not social science bureaucrats and/or activists of various bents. See: http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html Brett Glass writes "In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/27/AR200807270… makes a case against government regulation of the Internet, opining that 'engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems.' With state governments pressuring ISPs to http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/17/2243210&tid=95 pull the plug on Usenet, and a proposal now in play for a http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/080124-tk.html censored public Internet, McDowell may have a very good point." McDowell is one of the two FCC commissioners who did not vote with the majority to http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/27/1257237&tid=230 punish Comcast for their BitTorrent throttling. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

FYI: ABA Judges Get an Earful About RIAA Litigations
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

All, This should send a more significant message to the RIAA and as far as ICANN is concerned, the IPC a message that if the IPC is wise, will assist it in revoking the RIAA's membership, or council them in a harsh but necessary manner... Councilor Beckerman, and outstanding legal mind, has framed the situation in a reasonable and appropriate manner. One can only hope that ICANN's Bod and staff will take the hint... Lets also hope it gives the GNSO council the proper perspective in respect to the GNSO review report recently released and amend that report accordingly. http://beckermanlegal.com/ NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "I was afforded the opportunity to write for a slightly different audience the judges who belong to the http://www.abanet.org/jd/home.html Judicial Division of the American Bar Association. I was invited by the http://www.abanet.org/jd/publications/jjournal/ The Judges Journal, their quarterly publication, to do a piece on the RIAA litigations for the ABA's Summer 2008 'Equal Access to Justice' issue. What I came up with was ' http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/aba-judges-journal-ar… Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations,' in which I describe the unfairness of these cases and make 15 suggestions as to how the courts could level the playing field. I'm hoping the judges mod my article '+5 Insightful,' but I'd settle for '+3 Informative. ' Here is the http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefen… actual article (PDF). (If anyone out there can send me a decent HTML version of it, I'll run that one up the flagpole as well.)" Wired is http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/riaa-critic-bec.html helping to spread the word on Ray's article. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Cheryl, > > After having read the last WG output at > > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ > committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd > f > > it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows > (Attachment A) > > ------------------------------ > 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted > parties/constituencies, 2 parties > in each house > > House 1 - Contracted party house consists > of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies > House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists > of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) > parties/constituencies > > that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively. > > The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are > considered) > > House 1 > Registries - 3 members > Registrars - 3 members > > House 2 > Commercial - 5 members > Non-commercial - 5 members > > and also > > Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. > Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. > ------------------------------ > > Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl? > > If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to. > > Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO > Council parties? > > Thanks > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl > Langdon-Orr > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: 'ALAC internal list' > Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on > GNSOCouncil Restructuring > > At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our > representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire > to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. > > > > Please see our Wiki page > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find > a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and > also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the > report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our > sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an > expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. > > > > ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for > a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the > next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this > statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose > of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC > Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. > > > > More in the next 24hrs. > > > > CLO > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [ga] Root-Servers missing: g.root-servers.net andk.root-servers.net
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

Kim and all There are two statements you state are facts that the evidence does not bare out. 1.) G & K root servers were down or unreachable for a short period of time "Prior" to the complaint. I have that data confirming such. 2.) The person to which you refer to in the attacks routed through the IANA was Dr. Joe Baptista, and he is essentially correct and was very explicit as to what, how, and why such attacks occasionally occur. The data of such has also been preserved and can be verified. The data in *your attachment* is *not relevant* to the attacks which Dr. Joe explicitly articulated very clearly and briefly. But it is not really relevant to further belabor this incident, as it was not a significant incident of concern, but may be one possible or likely reference if future incidents of a similar nature occur at some unknown future date. Kim Davies wrote: > In the interests of bringing some facts into this thread, I hope this clarifies: > > * neither the G or K root are operated by ICANN or IANA; > > * neither was offline in the last few days prior to the complaint; > > * the original person who observed problems with the K root spoke with the K root operator on another list and the issue was identified as likely local to the observer's network, not to the root server; > > * as for the claim that "the US Military like the Canadian military complex often gets attacks routed through the IANA", I have no idea what this means. Perhaps the complainant could explain precisely that they mean. > > Attached is a graph of the responsiveness of all 13 root servers for the last 48 hours, as tested from 69 testing points around the world. If it was predominantly offline it would show as a solid red bar. As you can see one such event occured for G root, but that was at 1600 GMT on Monday, after this thread had started. By looking at that in more detail detail on the second graph, we can see it was still up and answering, but was problematic reaching it from many test sites. (If it was offline it will be universally red all the way down the graph) > > kim > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

FWD again: Re: [ga] Apple Still Has Not Patched the DNS Hole
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

Patrick and all, Sorry Patrick, but the security hole in DNS/Bind has been known for years. And ISC knew it was because I and several people told and demonstrated many times of this hole in DNS/Bind back in 2000. Why wasn't it addressed by ISC than? So Dan wasn't the first by a long shot in making this and other security holes in DNS known. We fixed it in our DNS shortly after we confirmed it back in 2000. We named our product BindPlus and is being used currently by WISE providers sense 2001. Incompatance of this sort and magnitude should never be taken lightly and in my professional opinion, cannot be tolorated at all! For further refrence to what I am contending review the archives at: http://www.dnso.org/mailinglists.html In case some are missing due to creative editing, I still have three archived copies. Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > All, > > > > As an example to another thread and for Joe's edification. > > > > An article up at TidBITS on http://db.tidbits.com/article/9706 > > Apple's unexplained failure to patch the DNS vulnerability that we have > > been http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/25/1334254&tid=172 > > discussing for a > > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/21/2212227&tid=172 > > few weeks now. "Apple uses the popular Internet Systems > > Consortium BIND DNS server which was one of the first tools patched, > > but Apple has yet to include the fixed version in Mac OS X Server, > > despite > > being notified of vulnerability details early in the process and being > > informed of the coordinated patch release date. > > > Sometimes, it may be wise to wait: > > "The group responsible for maintaining the internet's most popular > domain name software BIND has admitted it caused problems by > fast-tracking a security patch designed to fix the widescale DNS flaw > discovered by researcher Dan Kaminsky this month." > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/DNS-patch-causes-BIND-blunder/0,1… > > Patrick Vande Walle > > -- > Patrick Vande Walle > Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

ALAC Review - Final Report
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

Unless I missed it, there has not been an announcement on these lists regarding the publication of the ALAC Review Final Report released last Friday. It can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jul08-en.htm. There is a 7-week consultation period ending on September 12. Alan

1 0