Maggie
Improving the existing relationships is indeed a continued goal, I think Mark’s remarks refer to new relationships (currently outside of ICANN recognition). We need to clarify this.
I have mixed views over the expansion of the SSAC, although recognition that on some particular security aspects ISP involvement would be helpful is potentially a good move.
Regards
Tony
-----Original
Message-----
From:
maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com [mailto:maggie.mansourkia@verizon.com]
Sent: 14 July 2006 14:57
To: Holmes,AR,Tony,CXM R
Cc: greg_ruth@yahoo.com;
ispcp@icann.org; mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com;
olivier.muron@orange-ft.com; owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org; yukari@nic.ad.jp
Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft
Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry
I hope to send comments soon. I did want to check
the group's pulse on the notion that no changes are necessary in the
relationships with other groups? It seems to me that ICANN could benefit
in working better (perhaps more formally?) with the IETF and other more
"grown up" type groups? And do we think a larger SSAC to
include ISP experts would be beneficial?
Magnolia
Mansourkia
Chief Privacy Counsel
Verizon Communications
703-351-3199 Voice
703-351-3653 Fax
202-744-3745 Mobile
|
tony.ar.holmes@bt.com 07/14/2006 09:44 AM |
|
Greg
I support your sentiments on the RS operations (I
also like 'tragic
attempt' but 'misguided' is far more diplomatic
though not so
explanatory, so suggest we make that change).
I hope more comments will be forthcoming from
others, or is Mark's draft
so good that it's supported in its totality?
If so - great job Mark!
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Ruth
Sent: 14 July 2006 14:35
To: mcfadden@21st-century-texts.com;
ispcp@icann.org;
olivier.muron@orange-ft.com; Yukari Takayama
Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US
Government ICANN MoU
Inquiry
Mark (et al),
I like your draft. We might replace
"tragic attempt" with
"misguided attempt" - although I can
think of other, more juicy
adjectives ;-)
If we would like to comment on the
unsatisfactory informality of
current arrangements with root server operators,
may I suggest
something like the following:
The current administration of the DNS root depends
on distributed and
redundant operation of the root name servers by a
dozen independent
organizations. Although this system's
performance has been acceptable
to date, it is remarkable that it is based
entirely on informal
agreements with the operators. This
threatens to undermine the
credibility of ICANN as a legitimate, responsible
custodian of the DNS.
The DNS has become vital to international
electronic communication and
commerce and the root is the lynchpin of the
entire system. Surely
more business-like arrangements are called for in
order to ensure the
stability and security of the DNS root in the future.
If ICANN is to
convince the international community that it is
competent and worthy of
the authority it bears, it must operate in a more
professional fashion.
Feel free to change this in any way you like to
make it fit into the
document. Comments?
Greg
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com