- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey
by JFC Morfin Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

At 08:49 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote: >Many of his recent comments have been relevant to the internet >community, but not to the issues of ICANN. Would you mean there would be a difference ? jfc PS. I had actually two reasons to question Beau : - to understand if he was genuine when asking what non-American really think about ICANN the biaised way he did (most do not mind the USG, they mind the "stakholder"'s dominance). As several others, for 8 years, I try to understand who "Jeff Willians" really _are_, what is exactly their role and the wheight they carry in the Internet community, who pays and inform them, who support or use them. This is why I am always interested in the activists who are serious about Jeff Williams, resurecting them once they have been dealt with, and being unnecessarily rude (a way increase the attention). - to help ALAC to get real. If their mechanic cannot cope with "Jeff Williams" there is a bug or a civilization issue : who is to be the reference - the mechanic or the person. This is very important : if ALAC choses to protect instead of improve the mechanic while the WSIS consensus (including the USA) said that the Information Society had to be "people centered, à charactère humain, centrada en la persona", then we definitly know on which side people are to be. Let get real. If ALAC wants to be/stay as a stable community helper, it must able to survive scores of Jeff Williams, from 200 national ALAC communities in 250 languages. This means considering a similar approach to ISOC which consider an adequate relational tool. It must also consider an adequate structural architecture. The whole ICANN problem everyone can observe through the IIC issue is the one that the French GAC VP asked Peter Dungate Trush : - you say that ICANN's structure adequately survived the last 10 years and has just to be consolidated. - some do not think it was adequate. - how do you know that a centralized American English ASCII oriented structure would be adequate to a Multilingual distributed Internet. If ALAC wants to really help ICANN, it must first to become "Jeff Williams Proof" in English, then in French, in Chinese, and in 250 national languages (ISO 3166) and then in 30.000 geolingual environments (ISO 639-6 - LS640).

1 0

Moderation of Jeff Williams
by At-Large Staff Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

Dear List Members: On Tuesday 5th August, Jeff Williams was notified by the Chair of the ALAC that further off-topic postings such as that entitled ³How to carjack a top Google exec, according to Google² would result in his posting privileges on the public At-Large list being revoked, for a time to be decided by the ALAC. Since that notification, further off-topic postings have been sent, and as a consequence we have been asked to suspend his posting privileges. He will continue to receive messages from the list, however, posts sent to the list will be bounced back to him automatically. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 4

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams
by JFC Morfin Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

At 21:06 08/08/2008, Brendler, Beau wrote: >This message makes no sense in English or in French. Don't you also >operate under the alias of Louis Bleriot as well? Setting up filters >and deleting messages from my mailbox hinders productivity. and 4 days before : >"ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, but most >participants agree that important work remains to increase >institutional confidence through implementing effective processes >that will enable: long term stability; accountability; >responsiveness; continued private sector leadership, stakeholder >participation; increased contract compliance; and enhanced competition." > >I would be interested to hear what others think, especially those >outside the U.S. who have an understandable desire to see ICANN out >from under U.S. Gov't oversight. I suspected it was a troll and checked the source :-) jfc

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams
by JFC Morfin Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

At 15:34 08/08/2008, Brendler, Beau wrote: >I'd like to make a motion that the suspension be permanent, on the >basis that similar warnings/suspensions have been issued many times >before and ignored, and that the poster has long been known to the >ICANN community as a disruptive presence. Dear Beau, I am afraid that on such a basis many would think the first to be permanently suspended should be ... ICANN. It happens that this is precisely the theme of this year as this may be the case on Sept 1st, 2009. Don't you think it could be more productive for all of us, including Jeff Williams, to debate this point, as the NTIA does. Another discussion priority could be : why france@large has not yet received the readable terms answer promised by the Staff, what prevents it to engage into any reconsideration procedure. J'ai peur que sur cette base beaucoup ne pensent que la première à devoir être suspendue de façon permanente devrait être ... l'ICANN. Il appert que ce soit précisément le thème de cette année puisque cela peut être le cas au 1er septembre 2009. Ne pensez-vous qu'il nous serait à tous plus productif, y compris à Jeff Williams, de débattre de ce point, comme le fait le NTIA. Une autre priorité de discussion pourrait être : pourquoi france@large n'a-elle toujous pas reçu la réponse en termes lisibles promise par le Staff, lui interdisant tout appel. jfc

1 0

test
by at-large-content＠box.atlarge.icann.org Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

test from forum mail conduit ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

1 0

Registrar Accreditation Agreement Revistions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

The comment period for the RAA revisions closed on Aug 4. All comments can be seen at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/ There are some very thoughtful and relevant contributions. In specific, I draw your attention to one by the US Dept. of Commerce at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00061.html. Note that for some unknown reason, some of the attachments have had their filetype changes from .doc or .pdf to .bin, so it may take some extra effort to open them. They seem safe to open if you use the correct application program. Alan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Rogue pharmacy sites -- outrageous
by Danny Younger Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

Re: What provisions in the revised RAA address this sort of issue from a consumer perspective? The provisions are not in the revised RAA, but rather in the orginal RAA: 3.7.8 In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy. This is an enforcement issue under the current contract. The report indicates that registrars were notified through the WDRPS of inaccuracies, that registrars investigated the claim of inaccuracy and elected to suspend the domain names, that they then notified ICANN of their enforcement action, and thereafter made the decision to lift the domain suspension without the inaccuracy having been corrected. If this report is correct, I am of the view that such action, a failure to take reasonable steps to actually correct the inaccuracy, constitutes a material breach of contract. Let's see whether ICANN will take action under its contract, or if it will continue to coddle its registrars.

1 0

More Registrar Malfeasance Reported
by Danny Younger Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

KnujOn has found at least 19 rogue pharmacy domains, sponsored through DIRECT INFORMATION PVT LTD D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM (PDR) back in operation with the same content and at the same nameserver after being reported to ICANN by the Registrar as “suspended.” The nameserver is also sponsored by PDR and is itself an unlicensed pharmacy site. This is an example of a practice we have seen all too frequently where Internet companies will remove sites temporarily for reported policy violations only to restore them shortly afterwards. DIRECT INFO/PDR was rated the 9th Worst Registrar by KnujOn in terms of sponsoring spam sites previously. Clearly the consumer is not being protected by the current system. Full report here: http://www.knujon.com/news.html#08052008

1 0

ICANN disaster recover according to eWeek
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

FYI: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/ICANN-Plans-For-Disaster-A-Registry-Failu… - Evan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] What are ICANN and VeriSign doing regarding CERT Advisory #800113 / DNS Cache Poisoning?
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

Joe and all, First, IMO, Joe is correct that DNSSEC will not save or fix any problems that are software related to DNS/BIND or client interfaces that are OS specific but were based upon what was known about Bind at the time of their creation. Second, Burnsteins DNS/BIND is only ONE version of DNS/BIND that is very secure. Our BindPlus is also very secure as well, no reported security problems reported in 49 months, and never a serious security hole found or reported sense it's release. Third, I respectfully disagree that ICANN can't do anything. They could have done allot over 6 years ago, and scoffed at anyone other than Paul Vixies Bind 8 at that time. That was a mistake, and many knew it but were silent publically. Forth, Joe is right, that with a little software Eng. forsight and expermintation most of the DNS/BIND security Holes are fixable and customizably so. What is missing is that there are very few GOOD software Eng., and even fewer that have an in depth understanding of DNS. Fifth, it is huge security problems like this that are bound to occur as long as social Eng. are making software decisions or managment decisions that are grounded in security and/or software. That's a leadership problem, and in this instance it is a ICANN leadership problem. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > Just to followup, ICANN sent out a news release earlier: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06aug > 8-en.htm > > It's a step in the right direction, to help educate folks. > However, > there's no true "fix", as the protocol itself is broken. A > move towards > DNSSEC or other secure DNS would be the only appropriate > long-term > solution. > > > There is nothing wrong with the protocol. Its the software thats the > issue. And this is easy to fix. I've run some tests and with a > little DNS magic you can make you DNS very secure. > > Another big help would be to update your software including any NAT > devices. > > The whole DNSSEC thing is another red herring in the making. > > Also there is nothing ICANN nor anyone else can do about this. The > world is running a lot of insecure servers. BIND has always been > buggy and true to form it will continue to be buggy. Have you any > idea how many buggy systems are out there. i.e. almost all of them. > Unless of course your running burnsteins DNS which already fixed this > problem a long time ago. > > It bother me that people who have no idea what the technical issues > are get so easily baited by this issue. George - let go the ICANN red > herring. Its just another smoke screen. > > The real issue here is what sort of out reach programs is ICANN > involved in to get people to upgrade and fix their buggy dns servers. > DNSSEC is not going to save them. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > > > If there's ever a cyber 9/11, as Lessig discussed at: > > http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/05/220229 > > widespread DNS cache poisoning might be one of the root > causes. > > I'd like to hear from VeriSign as to whether they're > planning to > implement DNSSEC or a secure DNS alternative for .com/net, > as PIR > intends for .org. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > --- George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > ICANN and VeriSign have been oddly quiet over the entire > DNS cache > > poisoning issue: > > > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/ > > > > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/195225&tid=172 > > > > > PIR has a pending proposal to implement DNSSEC for .org: > > > > http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ > > > > Is that something that VeriSign has plans to accelerate > for the > > important .com and .net registries, in order to prevent a > long-term > > meltdown in DNS confidence/trust should DNS cache > poisoning become > > widespread in August and beyond? > > > > No need for a "formal" press release, but I think the > community > > deserves to know that people are working on the long-term > solution to > > this problem, and making it a higher priority relative to > other > > lesser > > issues. > > > > Point #14 in the latest policy newsletter appears to be > the only > > "hint" > > that a few people are working on things: > > > > http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/update-jul08.htm#14 > > > > Hopefully something will happen before Cairo, as by then > there might > > be > > widespread disruptions to the internet. Perhaps the Board > might want > > to > > consider an early special meeting this week or next: > > > > http://www.icann.org/minutes/ > > > > instead of waiting until July 31st, in conjunction with > the SSAC. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > 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