FW: FW: Revised Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service
Whereas, on September 15, 2003, VeriSign Registry introduced a wild card registry service into .com and .net zones that creates a registry-synthesized address record in response to look ups of domain names that are not present in the zone. This registry service changes the routing of traffic by directing traffic that would have otherwise resulted in a 'no domain' notification to the "sender" to a VeriSign operated web site with search results and links to paid > advertisements.
Whereas the IAB commentary published its architectural Concerns on the
use of DNS wildcards on 19 September 2003.
Whereas VeriSign Registry on 21 September 2003, responded to Paul Twomey, President and CEO, ICANN, acknowledging ICANN's advisory and declining to suspend the service until they (VeriSign) has an opportunity to collect and review available data.
Whereas the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, 22 September
2003,has published its recommendations regarding VeriSign's Introduction of Wild Card Response to Uninstantiated Domains within COM and NET on the ICANN web site at www.icann.org
Therefore, the gNSO Council:
Supports ICANN's actions to 1) monitor community reaction and experiences with the new registry service 2) request advice from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee and from the IAB on the impact of change introduced by the registry service of VeriSign 3) encourages broad participation by the community in the upcoming meeting hosted by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee [>
Pledges to 1) work cooperatively to ensure full opportunity to fully understand the service, its implications for the DNS, and any implications for the need for Policy development within the scope of the gNSO.
Bruce and all, I think that in Carthage we should spend some minutes discussing better ways of managing votes on resolutions. Amending resolutions on the fly over the phone makes understanding the final picture very difficult. Indeed, if we do have net access we always can see modified versions (but we still should be able to find a ways to wathc the amendments being introduced. Unfortunately not everybody can have mail/web access during teleconfs. So we also need to revisit the written procedure for voting. I dont think that we should require a confirmation by subsequent teleconf. Perhaps this is so for the legal Board of a California corporation, but the GNSO is an adivsory policy body, and whould enjoiy more flexibility. Amadeu
I would very much like to support Amadeu on this. Especially for non english natives a written document ensures a clear understanding of the implications a resolution might have. Best, tom Am 25.09.2003 schrieb Amadeu Abril i Abril:
Bruce and all,
I think that in Carthage we should spend some minutes discussing better ways of managing votes on resolutions. Amending resolutions on the fly over the phone makes understanding the final picture very difficult. Indeed, if we do have net access we always can see modified versions (but we still should be able to find a ways to wathc the amendments being introduced. Unfortunately not everybody can have mail/web access during teleconfs. So we also need to revisit the written procedure for voting. I dont think that we should require a confirmation by subsequent teleconf. Perhaps this is so for the legal Board of a California corporation, but the GNSO is an adivsory policy body, and whould enjoiy more flexibility.
Amadeu
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
I do agree - an quick e-mail vote process on policy issues would be most useful.
participants (4)
-
Amadeu Abril i Abril -
Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP -
Philip Sheppard -
Thomas Keller