- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Notice: Another DNS security hole recognized
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

All, As if one was not enough, eh! Well like I have been harping on, here is another that has finally been recognized that has been around for awhile as well... Seems that the ISC hasn't fixed or reported this one either... >:( Here also is a new tool for users or admins. to check with: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy 08.31.22 CVE: CVE-2008-1447 Platform: Cross Platform Title: Multiple Vendor DNS Protocol Insufficient Transaction ID Randomization DNS Spoofing Description: Multiple vendors' implementations of the DNS protocol are exposed to a DNS-spoofing issue because the software fails to securely implement random values when performing DNS queries. Microsoft Windows DNS Clients and Servers, ISC BIND 8 and 9, and multiple Cisco IOS releases are affected. Ref: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/494716 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

Number of Recipients to Mailing Lists
by At-Large Staff July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

Dear All: In keeping with a request from the Chair of the ALAC, responding to many community requests, the total number of recipients of emails to the At-Large lists has been limited to five per email. This is by way of helping to reduce crossposting and of multiple copies of the same message being received by recipients who are at the same time direct recipients of a message and mailing list members. If you receive a bounce from the mailing lists, and you are subscribed and routinely are able to send emails to that list, please look at the number of recipients the message had. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Re: [At-Large] IMPORTANT: Upcoming Mailing List Changes - affects this list
by Annette Muehlberg July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dear ALAC members, I do remember the discussion on trying to improve our mailing lists by making several changes as listed below, but not the one mentioned in point three, that on the alac announce list, staff will have a right to post messages, but not all alac members, instead a "to-be-designated" group of members of the ALAC. This does not make sense to me. I understand, that we have to be careful, not to mix the content of the lists, to make them more effective, but I think it should definitely open to at least all ALAC members. best annette Staff and to-be-designated members of the ALAC > (including the ALAC Executive Committee of the Chair, Vice-Chairs, and > Rapporteur) will be able to post to it > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Gesendet: 30.07.08 08:02:22 > An: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > CC: EMWD Support <support(a)emwd.com> > Betreff: [At-Large] IMPORTANT: Upcoming Mailing List Changes - affects this list > Dear ALAC List members: > > A number of changes are being made to the worldwide ALAC list > infrastructure, as decided upon by the ALAC at its most recent > teleconference. > > These changes are intended to improve the transparency of ALAC¹s work and > improve the quality of communications at the global level for the whole > At-Large community. > > 1. This list, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, will effectively be renamed to > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. The list will no longer be a combination > of the working public list of the ALAC and also the worldwide discussion > list. It will simply be the worldwide discussion list. As at present, anyone > may subscribe to it, and any subscriber may post to it. > 2. A new list, called alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, will be created. It will > be read/write for ALAC members, RALO secretariats, and ALAC liaisons and > read-only for everyone else. This will be the main working list of ALAC. > Anyone may subscribe to it. > 3. A new list, alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, is being set up now. > This list will be for community announcements which are relevant to the > entire worldwide community. Staff and to-be-designated members of the ALAC > (including the ALAC Executive Committee of the Chair, Vice-Chairs, and > Rapporteur) will be able to post to it. > > When will this take place? > > The changes to this list will take place Friday morning Eastern Time (UTC > 5). The transition should not take long; further information will be > forthcoming. > > Other Important Facts: > > 1. If you are subscribed to the ALAC list at the time of the change, you > will be subscribed to the At-Large list once it is created. All of the > current ALAC list archives will also be available, as they are being renamed > along with the list and its configuration. > 2. If you are subscribed to the ALAC list, you will also be subscribed to > the ALAC and ALAC-Announce lists once they are completed of course you can > unsubscribe yourself whenever you wish. > 3. All Authorised ALS representatives will be subscribed to the > ALAC-Announce list once the changeover is complete. This will make it much > easier for community leaders and staff to reach every ALS representative > with one email. Any discussion which you wish to have on what you receive > would need to be redirected to one of the RALO lists, or the global > discussion-only list, as you think relevant. > > Please let us know if you have any concerns or questions. We hope you will > find that these are helpful, and in particular that they help to ensure that > you are able to follow the business of the community more effectively than > may have been the case as a subscriber to this list. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)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 > --

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [ga] The NTIA Public Comment
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Danny and all, Thanks Danny! As a side note, I thought the more important and relevant parts of this public comment were as follows: We note that the PSC papers touch on several of the key areas listed above, including long term stability, accountability, responsiveness and stakeholder participation. However, ensuring continued private sector leadership, increased contract compliance and enhanced competition are minimally addressed, if at all, in the Transition Action Plan. The Department believes that these issues require affirmative and concrete actions on ICANNs part, as it seeks to increase the confidence of the ICANN community in its structure, policy and decision-making processes, and, ultimately, its long term stability. In addition, as the PSC papers refer to a root-zone transition agreement the Department believes it is important for its views to be on the record. First, it is important to note that the IANA functions contract was not part of the JPA mid-term review and the Department views these as two discrete instruments. As the community is aware, the IANA functions contract covers the performance of a series of currently interdependent technical functions that enable the continued efficient operation of the Internet, including processing requests to change the authoritative root zone file. Implementation of changes to the authoritative root zone file are performed by VeriSign under the terms of a separate agreement with the Department. Danny Younger wrote: > > [excerpt] "The Department believes strongly that it is important to clarify that we are not in discussions with either party to change the respective roles of the Department, ICANN or VeriSign regarding the management of the authoritative root zone file, nor do we have any plans to undertake such discussions. Consistent with public statements made by the United States government starting in 2000 and reinforced by the 2005 U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, the Department, while open to operational efficiency measures that address governments legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, has no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN as suggested in the PSC documents." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > 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

Improvements to atlarge.icann.org
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dear All: I'm happy to inform you of several new features available at http://atlarge.icann.org: Forums! There is still some 'tweaking' going on, but there are now active forums on the site. In fact, if you look at the front page, you will see, continuously updated, the latest postings to the At-Large forums, which are linked to the community mailing lists. This means that you may review the mailing lists online via the forums - and you can also create a login account and post to them. Any posts you make will go back to the mailing list recipients. As I said, this is still being completely tested so if you have any issues please let us know. If you have a user account on the public participation website of ICANN, you can login to the At-Large website using the same login ID and password; if you do not have an account yet, you can create one via the login option at the top of the listing of forums. News Aggregator. You will see a menu option on the Navigation sidebar called 'News Aggregator'. If you select this you'll find a selection of news items related to technology. These are all brought in by RSS feed - if you can think of any other RSS-enabled news sources we should include, send us an email and let us know. NOTE: None of the news items you find in the news aggregator are ICANN sources; ICANN has no responsibility for the accuracy or anything else about the information the news aggregator provides. We hope you like these new features. Many thanks to Marc Salvatierra and his team who are responsible for the ICANN websites for their hard work on the site. They are part of the continuous improvements being made to the atlarge online site. More soon! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

IMPORTANT: Upcoming Mailing List Changes - affects this list
by At-Large Staff July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dear ALAC List members: A number of changes are being made to the worldwide ALAC list infrastructure, as decided upon by the ALAC at its most recent teleconference. These changes are intended to improve the transparency of ALAC¹s work and improve the quality of communications at the global level for the whole At-Large community. 1. This list, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, will effectively be renamed to at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. The list will no longer be a combination of the working public list of the ALAC and also the worldwide discussion list. It will simply be the worldwide discussion list. As at present, anyone may subscribe to it, and any subscriber may post to it. 2. A new list, called alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, will be created. It will be read/write for ALAC members, RALO secretariats, and ALAC liaisons and read-only for everyone else. This will be the main working list of ALAC. Anyone may subscribe to it. 3. A new list, alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, is being set up now. This list will be for community announcements which are relevant to the entire worldwide community. Staff and to-be-designated members of the ALAC (including the ALAC Executive Committee of the Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Rapporteur) will be able to post to it. When will this take place? The changes to this list will take place Friday morning Eastern Time (UTC 5). The transition should not take long; further information will be forthcoming. Other Important Facts: 1. If you are subscribed to the ALAC list at the time of the change, you will be subscribed to the At-Large list once it is created. All of the current ALAC list archives will also be available, as they are being renamed along with the list and its configuration. 2. If you are subscribed to the ALAC list, you will also be subscribed to the ALAC and ALAC-Announce lists once they are completed of course you can unsubscribe yourself whenever you wish. 3. All Authorised ALS representatives will be subscribed to the ALAC-Announce list once the changeover is complete. This will make it much easier for community leaders and staff to reach every ALS representative with one email. Any discussion which you wish to have on what you receive would need to be redirected to one of the RALO lists, or the global discussion-only list, as you think relevant. Please let us know if you have any concerns or questions. We hope you will find that these are helpful, and in particular that they help to ensure that you are able to follow the business of the community more effectively than may have been the case as a subscriber to this list. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Report to the ICANN Board ofDirectorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dominik and all, Well as you know Dominik, you have my phone number by which to contact me. And my Address is registered in the federal registry for all to access should they choose to do so. I cannot receive Darlenes posts as I and all our members in order to protect themselves must block gov.nu.ca which is the DN of her Email address. See: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=gov.nu.ca&token=2700a… For instance especially see: "FAIL: Open DNS servers ERROR: One or more of your nameservers reports that it is an open DNS server. This usually means that anyone in the world can query it for domains it is not authoritative for (it is possible that the DNS server advertises that it does recursive lookups when it does not, but that shouldn't happen). This can cause an excessive load on your DNS server. Also, it is strongly discouraged to have a DNS server be both authoritative for your domain and be recursive (even if it is not open), due to the potential for cache poisoning (with no recursion, there is no cache, and it is impossible to poison it). Also, the bad guys could use your DNS server as part of an attack, by forging their IP address. Problem record(s) are: Server 216.108.1.1 reports that it will do recursive lookups. [test] Server 216.108.1.2 reports that it will do recursive lookups. [test] See this page for info on closing open DNS servers." And: "FAIL Missing (stealth) nameservers FAIL: You have one or more missing (stealth) nameservers. The following nameserver(s) are listed (at your nameservers) as nameservers for your domain, but are not listed at the parent nameservers (therefore, they may or may not get used, depending on whether your DNS servers return them in the authority section for other requests, per RFC2181 5.4.1). You need to make sure that these stealth nameservers are working; if they are not responding, you may have serious problems! The DNSreport will not query these servers, so you need to be very careful that they are working properly." And further still see: "FAIL Stealth NS record leakage Your DNS servers leak stealth information in non-NS requests: Stealth nameservers are leaked [ns3.internorth.net.] This can cause some serious problems (especially if there is a TTL discrepancy). If you must have stealth NS records (NS records listed at the authoritative DNS servers, but not the parent DNS servers), you should make sure that your DNS server does not leak the stealth NS records in response to other queries. ns3.internorth.net. This is listed as an ERROR because there are some cases where nasty problems can occur (if the TTLs vary from the NS records at the root servers and the NS records point to your own domain, for example)." And to top it off, gov.nu.ca DN has no abuse or postmaster Email addresses a significant violation of IETF standard! >:( And BTW, I have absolutely no interest in being sly in any manner, as such behavior is dishonorable and deceiving intentionally. I have always found such behavior very disgusting! >:( As such I am very saddened and sorry to read Darlene's amateurish and seemingly adolescent display in using false claims and name calling as a means to enhance her very faulty argument accordingly. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Indeed, an interesting curriculum vitae :-)) > A sly fellow that Jeff... > > I responded to Jeff's view I'd found interesting, no matter whoever is > behind the identity. > > Dominik > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:52 PM > To: Dominik Filipp; ALAC NA Discuss > Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of > Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > Dominik, > > Why do you continue to feed the troll? > > http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08030.html > > D > > Darlene A. Thompson > Community Access Program Administrator > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > Phone: (867) 975-5631 > Fax: (867) 975-5610 > E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik > Filipp > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 12:46 PM > To: ALAC NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of > Directorsfrom WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > Jeff, > > You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in > the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation > might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties > should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other > reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. > Williams > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM > To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG > onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dominik and all, Exactly my broader point, Dominik! What's much more important is that non-registrant users and independent registrants still have no voice or vote. The capture to which I alluded to and you plainly stated, remains. As such, the ecommerce aspects of economic prosperity will be so limited. Such a limit will be significant and solely or mostly in the hands of large commercial special interest groups. That's not a healthy economic paradigm. It is also a precursor to further fraud and abuse on a huge international scale. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Jeff, > > You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in > the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation > might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties > should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other > reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. > Williams > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM > To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG > onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > 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] [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