August 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation andauctioning model.
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Chris and all, Good point, good argument, and your conclusion is of course spot on. But Chris, some of these folks are dreamers. As such they seek the good nature of capitalists to support their rice/begging bowl of demands or desires. That's of course not how raw Capitalism works, and never has been. ICANN is gluten for more money as having more money equates to more power and influence. Remember, as I am sure you do, influence is always for sale, but rarely for free. This ALAC proposal is so weak as to be pitiful. The IPC and BC will see it in a New York second. Only DOC/NTIA can nix the ICANN new gTLD auction implimentation proposal. IMO and the opinion of our members, they should do so. But I doubt that they will. NameCritic wrote: > I like your thoughts about the funds going into an account to assist those > that cannot afford the high price ICANN wants for the creation of a new TLD. > How would you suggest the playing field be equal in terms of small business > owners vs. large corporations? Auctions favor the larger corporation or > anyone with more money. That has never been an equitable solution. Do you > believe that those who created TLDs in other roots with the intention of > being added to the ICANN root should have no preference given to them? With > domain names, first come, first serve was always the accepted method. The > new ICANN gTLD process ignores those who have already shown their > intentions, many for several years, in favor of whoever can pay the most > money. You really think this is fair? > > Chris McElroy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > To: <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 5:20 PM > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and > auctioning model. > > > Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction. > > > > The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of > > multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an > > agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" > > but there are plenty of other examples. > > > > The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, > > and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable > > path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming > > practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best > > for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever > > (the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too > > fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it > > would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly. > > > > Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web > > will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is > > your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. > > > > On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few > > high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has > > repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply > > wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of > > offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate > > caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, > > cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs. > > > > Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong > > statement about. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 09/08/2008 06:03 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > >>Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD > >>process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or > >>shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the > >>economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, > >>such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on > >>selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical > >>Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more > >>important > >>and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been > >>precisely stated by Vittorio: > >> > >>Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that > >>counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly > >>connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of > >>the > >>Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is > >>how > >>strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD > >>contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group > >>of > >>people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD > >>will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None > >>of > >>these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing > >>to > >>me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce > >>global > >>public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, > >>still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of > >>the > >>Internet itself lies. > >>Hong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle > >><patrick(a)vande-walle.eu > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > >> > > >> > ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > >> > regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > >> > contention. > >> > > >> > http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > >> > > >> > I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > >> > proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > >> > the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > >> > possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > >> > in such context. > >> > > >> > The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > >> > some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > >> > will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > >> > > >> > A public forum has been established at > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > >> > Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Patrick Vande Walle > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > At-Large mailing list > >> > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > > >> > > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >> > > >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > >>At-Large mailing list > >>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >> > >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation andauctioning model.
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Alan and all, I don't think it has a chance in hell! The ALAC and the NARALO's need to be self funding and should have been long before now. Than they could have argued from a point of strength. Instead as penniless themselves, they go begging. Such is a poor strategy and likely than not, a strategy of mostly failure. Alan Greenberg wrote: > It will not be easy regardless of any goodwill and the best of > intentions. But it seems like a reasonable goal. > > Alan > > At 11/08/2008 06:56 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >Hi Alan > >Coming from the developing world, I like your idea - but am not > >confident that it will happen. I hope ALAC will support such a > >proposal, and work to make it iron-clad, so that it cannot be easily > >circumvented, and so that the fund does not end up assisting > >registrars, registries, IP lawyers, etc. to get cheaper domains. > >Jacqueline > > > >Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> > >>On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few > >>high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has > >>repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply > >>wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs > >>of offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate > >>caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for > >>not-for-profits, cultural communities and developing countries > >>folks to acquire new gTLDs. > >> > >>Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong > >>statement about. > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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: [NA-Discuss] [ga] were all screwed - the only solution is obvious - smart ids dns
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Dr. Joe and all, I don't know if OpenDNS has what your suggesting deployed. But it is slowly becoming far more clear that ICANN is not fully deploying or implementing DNSSEC. I cannot for certain determine as to why, however. I can only suspect that ICANN doesn't have the horses, nor does the IANA any longer, to properly implement DNSSEC. Same for IPSEC, BTW. Further, selling DNSSEC to Registries, Registrars, and Registrants, as well as ISP/IAP's is not going well, nor for that matter is IPv6, thank god. One should also consider or actually recognize that IP registries are far more security vulnerable than the roots, DN registries and registrars, or registrants. But I would like to believe and certainly hope that the GAC recognizes how important DNS security is, and to some degree why it is so. Let's hope that the FCC and DOC/NTIA can hold ICANN properly and fully accountable as well as liable as critical economic health and governmental infrastructure is at stake. Right now though the ignorance of DNS security as a necessity is still wide spread. The touchy-feely social engenerring folks and their associated groups don't see this as a significant danger. When they get bit, maybe than they will. What's needed IMPO is that DNS needs a major re-write, especially Bind. Vixie could do it, Bernstine could do it, I have along with my execellent technical staff, done it, and there are a precious few others that could do it, none are that interested, as it is a significant task. For the Social Engenerring folks not to understand how important this is, is beyond reasonable thinking. ICANN, the IANA, and especially the IETF know better, so ICANN's SSAC not adaquately addressing this is simply not excusable, and they know it! However Dr. Joe, we're not all "screwed", as you so elequently put it, yet. >:) However seems that we are all exposed, as it were. >:( Joe Baptista wrote: > People, were all screwed thanks to this DNS vulnerability. It is > truly a monster in the making and we are being bamboozled into > thinking DNSSEC will save our sorry souls. And the ease of causing > damage to internet infrastructure is enormous. > > Every banking transaction, every communication channel can now be high > jacked by any script kiddie with a network of bots. And we are being > asked to settle for DNSSEC which is clear is not so secure and easily > broken by - guess who - script kiddies. When the kiddies figure out > how to control the DNS through these vulnerabilities were going to be > a mess. > > My main concern are the criminals who will soon also discover how > these flaws can be exploited. Port randomization as has been show > does not work. It just take more time to do. Bernsteins concern with > the year 2015 is very real today. > > I've asked Vixie some questions and gotten some replies. I hate to > say this but the only real way left to guard against this attack is an > intrusion detection system (IDS) to monitor any recursive DNS server > and a good well behaved firewall. > > I addressed the fix for these problems back Jan 2007 in the > Public-Root Name Server Operational Requirements document published by > INAIC. The sections are 4.2.7 to 4.2.9. The reference document is at > the following URL. > > http://www.publicroot.org/technical/root-server-standards.pdf > > In any case thats what now needs to be done to secure DNS ASAP. A > would recommend a smart IDS that not only detects but also based on a > set of rules attempt to find and correct the answer or response to the > DNS server in real time. I expect OpenDNS has this sort of thing > deployed. > > cheers > joe baptista > > -- > 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] Vixies vixens make big boo boo on successful Russian DNS hack
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

Dr. Joe and all, Well your very welcome indeed! >:) After all what is a meal, if not with the proper spice to enhance properly the savory taste eh? Unless of course that meal is best served cold... Food for thought prhaps? You be the judge. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Jeffrey A. > Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Dr. Joe and all, > > Thanks for also saving/archiving the original story. > History if > saved in this manner can never be truthfully revised. BTW, > I > and 200 odd other or our members also archived this story > including all metadata for forensics purposes as well if > needed > in the future for legal purposes. I hope SANS will also be > covering it as well as did NetworkWorld. > > > Your a gem Jeff, if not a joy to add flavour to our gatherings. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > > > FWIW, it may be time to keep a closer watch on Circleid, > which I have also written for on occasion. Yellow > journalism > is not a good thing... > > Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > The news story below was first published on CircleID. It > has since > > been yanked and is no where to be found on CircleID. > Maybe we are > > witnessing a bit of history revision. This makes me sad > because > > CircleID was a publication I once wrote for. In fact I > was one of the > > first paid writer for the organization. Probably the only > one at the > > time. And it is sad to see revision at an organization I > was once > > associated with. > > > > However it is understandable considering Vixie, the sacred > cow of DNS, > > made such a stupid and silly statement in the article. > > > > Basically an internet researcher in Russia was able to > break the Vixie > > patch and poison a servers cache after some 10 hours, > billions of > > connections over a gigabit connection. Vixies response > was "before > > somebody gets all excited about it let's be clear that it > takes two > > billion packets on average to defeat UDP port > randomization, which in > > this case was a fully utilized gigabit Internet connection > for a > > period of ten hours." and proceeded to draw parallels > that the level > > of risk was reasonably low because of this > rationalization. > > > > I think sometime Vixie lives in the dark ages of the net, > when > > everything was low bandwidth and script kiddies were a > novelty. > > Indeed Polyakov, the Russian researcher, should be > congratulated for > > his success in this attack considering the poor russian > was using such > > limited resources. > > > > Unlike script kiddies or real internet criminals Polyakov > did not have > > the resources required, being hundreds of thousands of > computers > > connected through a maze of IRC botnets on hundreds of > thousands of > > both DSL and gigabit connections to conduct a proper > attack. Poor man > > had to do it with one computer and one high speed internet > link. If > > he had better resources - like the kiddies - he could > probably do it > > in much less time - 10 - 20 minutes? > > > > Under these circumstances I'm not surprised the story was > yanked. The > > quote makes Vixie look like an idiot. > > > > In any case - here is the original story no longer > published at > > CircleID. > > > > > > Latest news postings on CircleID > > URL: http://www.circleid.com/news/ > > Updated: 10 hours 46 min ago > > > > Emergency DNS Patch Still Vulnerable, Proves Russian > Physicist > > > > 10 hours 19 min ago > > A Russian physicist has been able to successfully poison > the latest > > BIND patch with fully randomized ports. In other words, > the emergency > > fix put in place to patch the Domain Name System (DNS) > vulnerability > > for BIND, Internet's most popular DNS software, has been > demonstrated > > to be vulnerableand still exploitable by criminals. > > > > Evgeniy Polyakov from Moscow, Russia in a blog post today, > has shown > > how using two fairly powerful computers and a fast > broadband > > connection, one could successfully attack the patched DNS > server in > > less than 10 hours. With a fast connection, "any trojaned > machine can > > poison your DNS during one night" says Polyakov in his > blog post. > > > > As demonstrated by security expert, Dan Kaminsky on > Wednesday at the > > Black Hat security conference, the vulnerability, if > exploited by > > criminal, could be detrimental to the Web as well as > services such as > > email. > > > > Paul Vixie, president of the Internet Systems Consortium > (ISC), the > > organization in charge of maintaining the BIND software > has verified > > that Polyakov's exploit looks real. However "before > somebody gets all > > excited about it," Vixie says, "let's be clear that it > takes two > > billion packets on average to defeat UDP port > randomization, which in > > this case was a fully utilized gigabit Internet connection > for a > > period of ten hours." In other words, the probability of a > successful > > attack is fairly minimal. On the other hand, in the case > of an > > unpatched server, an attack was "narrowed down to six > seconds," Vixie > > noted. > > > > In the long term, Vixie says "we'll go on improving our > forgery > > resilience, as will every recursive DNS implementor, while > we continue > > pushing DNSSEC as the ultimate long term solution to the > entire > > forgery problem including this off-path-attacker problem." > > > > > More under: DNS, DNSSEC, Security > > Categories: Net coverage > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > -- > 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] I do not own it, it belongs to everyone, so let me make money selling it!
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

JFC and all, JFC, surely as a Frenchman you recognize that age old lady of the evening creed: "No money no honey, come back pay day"? Such is and as you should have known long ago, is the unspoken and unwritten creed of ICANN. All to sad, yes, but all too true. JFC Morfin wrote: > How nice this "Internet for the Rich". I love the Anglo-Saxon > practical money inductive reasoning ... There are definitly different > cultures on this list : "I sell", "I do", "I follow", "we wait for > the best opportunity for us", "may be, we could share". > We will see who is the winner. > jfc > > At 23:20 10/08/2008, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction. > > > >The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of > >multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an > >agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" > >but there are plenty of other examples. > > > >The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, > >and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable > >path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming > >practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best > >for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever > >(the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too > >fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it > >would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly. > > > >Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web > >will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is > >your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. > > > >On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few > >high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has > >repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply > >wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of > >offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate > >caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, > >cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs. > > > >Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong > >statement about. > > > >Alan > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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

The Pirate Bay blocked in Italy
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 11, 2008

Aug. 11, 2008

All, The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent site, has been blocked by (some/most ?) Italian ISPs. It seems it was an IP-based block. Thus, it can be circumvented quite easily. I wonder where the NA'S or the ALAC is on this one? Hiding perhaps? Or just disinterested? Under/non-funded to oppose effectively? Score: ALAC and Naralo's 0 IPC and the IP ACTA folks 1 What normally happens is: 1. Comp requests http://thepiratebay.org 2. ISP's DNS server looks up the IP address for http://thepiratebay.org to answer query 3. ISP's DNS server resolves http://thepiratebay.org to be http://83.140.176.200 4. ISP serves http://83.140.176.200 Italian ISPs stepped in at stage 3, and blocked that IP address from being served. Thus, the way to resolve this would be to use some other DNS resolution server (instead of theISP's). OpenDNS <www.opendns.com> provides such a service, with DNS servers 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 Italians can also continue to access TPB by using http://labaia.org/ ("La Baia" being "The Bay" in Italian.) 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

[Reminder] At-Large NARALO Conference Call @ Mon 11 Aug 21:00 – 22:00 ()
by Google Calendar Aug. 10, 2008

Aug. 10, 2008

na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, this is a reminder for Title: At-Large NARALO Conference Call Time: Mon 11 Aug 21:00 – 22:00 (Time zone: Zurich) Where: Teleconference - Adigo Calendar: Description: 1900 UTC Start. Please find the details and participation instructions for this meeting on our meeting page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?meetings_and_events You can view this event at http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=OWdwZjJ1OWh1MG82dG10Mj… You are receiving this courtesy email at the account na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at http://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationand auctioning model.
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 10, 2008

Aug. 10, 2008

Vittorio and all, Your essentially correct, Vittorio IMO. The real problem is in your example of .CAT, that it is already in use. So, first use in commerce would apply under the law. As for .XXX, or for that matter any other "String" as a gTLD, or even a IDN gTLD is that national laws as to use would likely apply. If for instance, .XXX's specifically forbid sexual related registrations of DN's in that name space, I can't see how it would than be a problem per se. However as ICANN's oversight has been poor of it's Registries and Registrars, the problems of accountability and legal liability become the issue. Yet I don't see how any of this has much to do with whether or not auctioning gTLD's is a good implementation method or not. But still all of this still points back to the beginning. Self regulation simply doesn't work. Oversight is necessary. The more the better, and the better that oversight is, the better the "Greater Good" can and will be served. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Bret Fausett ha scritto: > > On Aug 10, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web > >> will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is > >> your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. > > > > I was on the Council when this first came up, and the concern I heard > > from the ALAC then was about regionalism, rather than "non-profits" v. > > "for profits." I don't know that we care which among many U.S. > > corporate entities wins the battle for the next big ASCII TLD gold mine. > > > > The ALAC concern, as I understood it, was about whether a foreign > > registry services provider ought to win the bid for the IDN versions > > of COM/NET/ORG over a competitor in the region in which the language > > is spoken. At bottom, it's a debate about free trade v. regional > > protectionism, a subject on which the nations of the world have > > significantly different positions. > > Another case is when the two competing bids have completely different > purposes and "social value". I.e. what happens if Catalonia applies for > .cat to serve its 7-million Catalan speakers, but at the same time > Caterpillar does the same and puts more money on the table, only to use > the TLD for a nicer URL for their one corporate website? > > If I remember well, the last versions of the process presented in Paris > said that auctions would only be used if all applicants were > "non-community", ie generic, while if at least one was a community > applicant then they would have used a beauty contest. But I'm not sure > whether this is still the intention. > > I already said when .xxx was on the table that IMHO there is no way that > you can get out of this mess without making subjective political > judgements on who "deserves better", or whether a string is "against > public policy", etc. In the end, I just hope that these decisions will > be taken by an accountable political entity (e.g. the Board) rather than > by an unaccountable "expert panel", disguised as if they could be objective. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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

[Fwd: [ga] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 10, 2008

Aug. 10, 2008

All, As an FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ga] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:32:44 -0700 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: "mail=ga(a)gnso.icann.org" <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation 8 August 2008 Economic Case for Auctions in New gTLDs Paper Released -- During the ICANN meeting in Paris, France, ICANN staff made a commitment to release a paper describing the economic case for auctions as a tiebreaking mechanism for resolving contention among identical or confusingly similar applications for new gTLDs. ICANN is today making the Economic Case for Auctions in New gTLDs paper available so that the community can provide feedback on this element of the forthcoming implementation plan. The paper [PDF, 52K] was prepared by ICANN's auction design consultant PowerAuctions LLC with support from ICANN staff. The paper notes that auctions as a tiebreaking mechanism accomplish a goal of allocative efficiency through a transparent, objective and scalable process for the resolution of gTLD applications. This paper does not address specific details on how an auction process to resolve string contention may be conducted. These details will be provided as part of the larger information on new gTLD implementation to be presented to the community in the near future. A public forum has been established at at http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. Comments submitted to auction-consultation(a)icann.org will be considered until 7 September 2008 23:59 UTC (8 Aug 2008). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- String Similarity Algorithm Update -- ICANN staff recently completed a workshop with SWORD, the partner who is assisting ICANN with the creation of an algorithm that will help automate the process for assessing similarity among proposed and existing TLD strings. SWORD's verbal search algorithms are used by various patent and trademark offices throughout the world. SWORD has completed a beta algorithm and reviewed several test cases with ICANN staff. This is being done in order to refine the parameters and discuss how the algorithm could be successfully integrated as a tool to help implement the GNSO's recommendation that new gTLD strings should not result in user confusion with existing TLDs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Backend Registry Certification Not Available in First Round -- On 31 January 2008, ICANN posted an announcement (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-31jan08.htm) to inform the community that it was exploring a potential initiative for the certification of backend registry operators for new gTLDs. ICANN staff has determined not to proceed with this initiative in the first round of the new gTLD process. The initiative was suggested as a possible means to streamline the application process for new gTLDs and to create a pool of pre-qualified registry operators who could provide assistance in the event of a registry failure. Exploration of the initiative was also prompted by inquiries from community members who expressed the potential positive aspects that creation of the certification might promote. During the exploration of the initiative, ICANN consulted with the community including technical experts and gTLD and ccTLD registries and registry service providers. Potential operational benefits and risks of implementing the initiative were assessed. Ultimately, a decision was made to not proceed with certification as part of the initial new gTLD application round based upon a number of factors. Some of these are: additional assessment as to effects certification might have on the marketplace, e.g., whether the implementation might cause expansion or contraction; additional collaboration with the community as to the terms of such a certification; and weighing the potential post-certification activities including ongoing testing, re-certification and the introduction of new compliance activities. It was also deemed important to be able to assess the positive and negative aspects of the new gTLD implementation without possible crossover effects of this additional certificat! ion. This independence of interactions can be better assured by introducing the certification (if it is deemed appropriate after additional analysis) at a later date. Both ccTLD and gTLD backend registry operators can still offer to provide registry services to new gTLDs. The Request for Proposals for new gTLDs, when published, will detail the minimum technical criteria and pre-delegation check requirements that must be met by every applicant prior to the approval of their TLD for insertion into the root. New gTLD applicants might choose to build their own registry infrastructure and systems, retain the services of an existing gTLD or ccTLD registry services provider, or contract with another technical services provider. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] Vixies vixens make big boo boo on successful Russian DNS hack
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 10, 2008

Aug. 10, 2008

Dr. Joe and all, Thanks for also saving/archiving the original story. History if saved in this manner can never be truthfully revised. BTW, I and 200 odd other or our members also archived this story including all metadata for forensics purposes as well if needed in the future for legal purposes. I hope SANS will also be covering it as well as did NetworkWorld. FWIW, it may be time to keep a closer watch on Circleid, which I have also written for on occasion. Yellow journalism is not a good thing... Joe Baptista wrote: > > The news story below was first published on CircleID. It has since > been yanked and is no where to be found on CircleID. Maybe we are > witnessing a bit of history revision. This makes me sad because > CircleID was a publication I once wrote for. In fact I was one of the > first paid writer for the organization. Probably the only one at the > time. And it is sad to see revision at an organization I was once > associated with. > > However it is understandable considering Vixie, the sacred cow of DNS, > made such a stupid and silly statement in the article. > > Basically an internet researcher in Russia was able to break the Vixie > patch and poison a servers cache after some 10 hours, billions of > connections over a gigabit connection. Vixies response was "before > somebody gets all excited about it let's be clear that it takes two > billion packets on average to defeat UDP port randomization, which in > this case was a fully utilized gigabit Internet connection for a > period of ten hours." and proceeded to draw parallels that the level > of risk was reasonably low because of this rationalization. > > I think sometime Vixie lives in the dark ages of the net, when > everything was low bandwidth and script kiddies were a novelty. > Indeed Polyakov, the Russian researcher, should be congratulated for > his success in this attack considering the poor russian was using such > limited resources. > > Unlike script kiddies or real internet criminals Polyakov did not have > the resources required, being hundreds of thousands of computers > connected through a maze of IRC botnets on hundreds of thousands of > both DSL and gigabit connections to conduct a proper attack. Poor man > had to do it with one computer and one high speed internet link. If > he had better resources - like the kiddies - he could probably do it > in much less time - 10 - 20 minutes? > > Under these circumstances I'm not surprised the story was yanked. The > quote makes Vixie look like an idiot. > > In any case - here is the original story no longer published at > CircleID. > > > Latest news postings on CircleID > URL: http://www.circleid.com/news/ > Updated: 10 hours 46 min ago > > Emergency DNS Patch Still Vulnerable, Proves Russian Physicist > > 10 hours 19 min ago > A Russian physicist has been able to successfully poison the latest > BIND patch with fully randomized ports. In other words, the emergency > fix put in place to patch the Domain Name System (DNS) vulnerability > for BIND, Internet's most popular DNS software, has been demonstrated > to be vulnerableand still exploitable by criminals. > > Evgeniy Polyakov from Moscow, Russia in a blog post today, has shown > how using two fairly powerful computers and a fast broadband > connection, one could successfully attack the patched DNS server in > less than 10 hours. With a fast connection, "any trojaned machine can > poison your DNS during one night" says Polyakov in his blog post. > > As demonstrated by security expert, Dan Kaminsky on Wednesday at the > Black Hat security conference, the vulnerability, if exploited by > criminal, could be detrimental to the Web as well as services such as > email. > > Paul Vixie, president of the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC), the > organization in charge of maintaining the BIND software has verified > that Polyakov's exploit looks real. However "before somebody gets all > excited about it," Vixie says, "let's be clear that it takes two > billion packets on average to defeat UDP port randomization, which in > this case was a fully utilized gigabit Internet connection for a > period of ten hours." In other words, the probability of a successful > attack is fairly minimal. On the other hand, in the case of an > unpatched server, an attack was "narrowed down to six seconds," Vixie > noted. > > In the long term, Vixie says "we'll go on improving our forgery > resilience, as will every recursive DNS implementor, while we continue > pushing DNSSEC as the ultimate long term solution to the entire > forgery problem including this off-path-attacker problem." > > More under: DNS, DNSSEC, Security > Categories: Net coverage > > -- > 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

RIAA Foiled again By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, Seems to me that this RIAA saga has reached a level of the RIAA becoming a "Cyber bully" and therefore their Domain Name would seem to be a representation of a "Abusive Domain name. Time to take their Domain Down? Well I think so. Further, seems that the RIAA has demonstrated yet again it's decided lack of legal expertise. Small wonder eh? But they still can't seem to get the message. That being that their tactics and acumen in this area of law is less than professional or reasonable. I think I would elect to go to trial if I were the defendant or her lawyer. That way they have a chance of reducing even further the $200.00 and possibly can seek their own damages as well. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an interesting development in a Texas case against a college-age defendant who was 16 at the time of the infringement, the Judge has http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/08/innocent-infringement… denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion and ordered a trial of the damages even though the defendant admitted copyright infringement using Kazaa based on the 'innocent infringement' defense, which could reduce the statutory damages to $200 per song file. Relying on [2]BMG v. Gonzalez (PDF), the reasoning of which I http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-riaa-litigation-p… have criticized on the 'innocent infringement' issue, the RIAA argued that Ms. Harper does not qualify for the 'innocent infringement' defense, since CD versions of the songs, sold in stores, have copyright notices on them. In its http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/maverick_harper_080808.pdf 15-page decision (PDF) the Harper court rejected that contention, holding that 'a question remains as to whether Defendant knew the warnings on compact discs were applicable in this KaZaA setting', since 'In this case, there were no compact discs with warnings.' Finding that there was a factual issue as to what the defendant knew or didn't know at the time of the infringement, the Court ordered a trial of the damages unless the RIAA agrees to accept $200 rather than the $750-plus it seeks per infringed song." 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

EFF Warns That Email Privacy Is In Jeopardy
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, Well yet again one of the IPC's favorite sons, the MPAA this time, has seen fit to be snoops and desires to snoop on your email via government assistance. But EFF is hopefully coming to the rescue. Good for them! Perhaps they should also get the assistance of the ACLU's Atty.'s as well. Is there any doubt that the MPAA like its twin the RIAA and their other Intellectual property paranoists need to be revoked from the IPC? No doubt in my and our members minds. I wonder if there is some way I can Enjoin this action? I do have a pending case! If so, I hope one of the EFF Atty's will contact me by phone or via Email. See: http://www.hothardware.com/ According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a http://www.hothardware.com/News/Electronic_Privacy_in_Jeopardy/ dangerous legal precedent has just been set that can potentially unravel existing federal privacy protections for e-mail and Internet usage. The http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/08/05 alert from the EFF is not just to sound a general warning, but it also takes the form of an Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, filed with the federal 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for the court's legal finding to be overturned... The findings of this case could become the foundation of a legal precedent upon which other similar cases can subsequently be based. If that were to be the case, then the unauthorized retrieving of e-mails from an e-mail server would not be considered a violation of the federal Wiretap Act, which will then open the door for government-sponsored snooping. 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

More on/update to: BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, Well it seems that the ISC patch didn't do all that much. Typical. This is what happens when you have less than interested folks attempting to do security related fix's. Lets hope DHS gets on the ball and gets this noted soon! I am relatively sure ICANN won't. Yet, our BindPlus stands up to the test so far! >:) No holes here. I wonder how Berstein's is doing? See: John Markoff of the NYTimes writes about a Russian hacker, Evgeniy Polyakov, who has http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?partner=rssnyt&emc… successfully poisoned the latest, patched BIND with randomized ports. Originally, the randomized ports were never supposed to completely solve the problem, but just make it http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/195225&tid=172 harder to do. It was thought that with port randomization, it would take roughly a week to get a hit. Using his own http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/blog exploit code, two desktop computers and a GigE link, Polyakov reduced the time to 10 hours. 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

Auctioning of new gTLD's response.
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

To whom it may and should concern, Interestingly enough, I personally agree with Vittorios arguments with why auctioning off new gTLD's is wrong, or in my own opinion, a very bad idea. See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/msg00003.html What's worse coming from our members a bit at a time, is that they are of the belief, and I also feel rightly so, that setting this sort of precedent for implementing new gTLD's or IDN gTLD's is very bad as it sets up a pricing war akin to speculation as being done with oil futures. Such benefits only the wealthy or wealthy organizations, which does not promote good competition or realistic and fair ecommerce trade. 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: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model.]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, As an FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model. Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:34:20 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com>,NameCritic <namecritic(a)blogs.pn>,at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org References: <489DB449.9050507(a)vande-walle.eu><54535d540808091503k51f6fd61w9050270d7483197c(a)mail.gmail.com><008401c8fa80$a76ebf30$0201a8c0@namecritic> <54535d540808091829x456983e6t38f57633bd7d813f(a)mail.gmail.com> Hong and all, I would agree. But that's not the "ICANN Way", and never has been, and will not likely be unless or until they are forced to do so. Only DOC/NTIA can accomplish such, which is also not likely but does provide a ray of hope. ICANN needs/wants lots of $$. Auctioning off gTLD's or IDN gTLD's is a good way of accumulating a goodly sum in a fairly short period of time. My silent inside sources today have told me this is already a "Done Deal". The announcment was only to give the appearance that such is only now a consideration up for discussion/debate. A debate rat hole. Happy rat hole chasing/discussing/debating! >:) Hong Xue wrote: > What Chris said reminds me of the ALAC statement at the ICANN Public Forum: > ICANN should encourage the IDN gTLDs be run by the small-scale, > non-commercial and language community-base registries. But under the auction > model, these applicants will be simply out of the question. > > Hong > > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:33 AM, NameCritic <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> wrote: > > > I couldn't agree more and in addition to that, ICANN's staff and BoD seems > > to think the only viable business plan for a registry or TLD owner is to > > sell domain names. What if a person has different goals or a business plan > > that is unique and not just money-motivated, yet they prove they can manage > > a TLD from a technical standpoint? > > > > They could be giving domain names away and it should not matter to ICANN > > and ICANN should not assume they know a good business plan from a bad one. > > It is not their function, nor is it their strong suit to evaluate business > > plans. > > > > Even those in the past who thought they were qualified to do so shot down > > business plans because they did not see them as a standard type of plan or > > one they thought would work. Take Xerox giving away their technlogy for > > computer interface or hewlett packard turning down the pc or IBM passing up > > opportunities in the software business. > > > > When ICANN puts itself into the position of having to approve the business > > plan of a prospective TLD owner, they put themselves in the liable position > > of having approved that business plan should it fail. If they do not approve > > someone's business plan, then they are restricting free enterprise and free > > trade by not allowing them to try it. > > > > ICANN's process of approving TLDs and putting prohibitive costs on the > > process is flawed and favors large business over small business. This is not > > fair to small business owners and those at ICANN know it. > > > > Years ago, the federal gov approved 60 million dollars to remodel houses in > > downtown Philadelphia. They told the city that they could have the money > > only if they also allowed small contractors to bid on those jobs rather than > > just the big companies. The city agreed. Then behind closed doors, after > > accepting the money, they decided to add a stipulation. That anyone could > > bid those jobs, but they would have to pay for all the materials and labor > > out of pocket and wait one year after completion to be reimbursed by the > > city. They knew full well this meant that small contractors would not be > > able to do so. > > > > ICANN, by charging such a high fee is barring small business owners from > > creating their own TLD while they tell everyoine it is open to everyone. > > It's a scam. > > > > Chris McElroy > > Dot SEO TLD > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> > > To: <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > > Cc: <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 6:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation > > andauctioning model. > > > > > > > > Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD > >> process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or > >> shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the > >> economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, > >> such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on > >> selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical > >> Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more > >> important > >> and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been > >> precisely stated by Vittorio: > >> > >> Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that > >> counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly > >> connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of > >> the > >> Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is > >> how > >> strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD > >> contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group > >> of > >> people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD > >> will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None > >> of > >> these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing > >> to > >> me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce > >> global > >> public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, > >> still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of > >> the > >> Internet itself lies. > >> Hong > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle > >> <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu > >> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >> > >> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > >>> > >>> ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > >>> regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > >>> contention. > >>> > >>> http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > >>> > >>> I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > >>> proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > >>> the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > >>> possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > >>> in such context. > >>> > >>> The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > >>> some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > >>> will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > >>> > >>> A public forum has been established at > >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > >>> Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Patrick Vande Walle > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> At-Large mailing list > >>> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >>> > >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> At-Large mailing list > >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: [Fwd 6th no reason given to: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model.]]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, Again yet another censorship sad comentary... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd 6th no reason given to: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model.] Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:23:14 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: "matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org" <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>,Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>,Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>,GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov> CC: DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk>,Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>,"ICANN Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" <karen.lettner(a)icann.org>,ICANN Dan Halloran <halloran(a)icann.org>,ICANN Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org>,icann legal <jeffrey(a)icann.org>,ICANN Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org> Matthias et., al., Ok, what is the reason? Do you just not like me? Ahhhhh, what a shame, eh? And additionally how childish. How does the ALAC ever expect to gain any respect for an significant number of users/stakeholders with this sort of childish behavior? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementationandauctioning model. Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:04:54 -0400 From: at-large-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To: jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Your message was rejected 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: [Fwd 5th no reason given to: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey]]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 9, 2008

Aug. 9, 2008

All, Another sad FYI... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd 5th no reason given to: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey] Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:18:44 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: "matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org" <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>,Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>,GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> CC: DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,"ICANN Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" <karen.lettner(a)icann.org>,ICANN Dan Halloran <halloran(a)icann.org>,ICANN Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org>,icann legal <jeffrey(a)icann.org>,ICANN Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org>,ICANN Policy Staff <policy(a)icann.org>, Chris McElroy <chris(a)seo.pn> Matthias et., al., Ok, what is the reason? Do you just not like me? Ahhhhh, what a shame, eh? And additionally how childish. How does the ALAC ever expect to gain any respect for an significant number of users/stakeholders with this sort of childish behavior? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:50:11 -0400 From: at-large-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To: jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Your message was rejected 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation andauctioning model.
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

Patrick and all, Yes this is a bad idea. It sets a bad precedent, that will be contentious for years to come. But as the lady of the evening once said, "Money walks, and BS just talks". What remains now in this context is, will the sluts prevail? Maybe .XXX will get another opportunity... Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm > > ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, > regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of > contention. > > http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf > > I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model > proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on > the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as > possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch > in such context. > > The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on > some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD > will be outplayed by the wealthy ones. > > A public forum has been established at > http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. > Comments to auction-consultation(a)icann.org before 8 September 2008. > > -- > Patrick Vande Walle > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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

[Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams - ICANN - Jefsey Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:44:08 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: Bill Silverstein <icann-list(a)sorehands.com>,GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> References: <C4C0E5D7.9DA1%staff(a)atlarge.icann.org><3F3E15DA767FE34598D8776192CA23A6046D510D(a)CUEXVS2.consumer.org><200808090636.m796a7FO005423(a)ns1.irnic.ir><13e529281e5b1cdd6f27dccf03ea090c.squirrel(a)mail.sorehands.com> <200808091024.1krPmY1Za3Nl36H2(a)mx-laughing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> JFC and all, ROFLMAO! How incessantly paranoid! You seed far too much credit to me, and far too less to reality. Besides I am only a messenger. So why shoot the messenger. What is important is the message(s). And indeed there is little or no difference between what is relevant to the Internet, especially DNS, and what is relevant to ICANN. Such was certainly not my idea, but ICANN's circa 1999. JFC Morfin wrote: > 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). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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

[Fwd: [ga] FYI Fwd: Kaminsky on djbdns bugs]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

All, Of course Joe and Kaminsky are correct and have been for years. Yet ICANN and the ISC have been unable or unwilling to do the right thing. Well that's a shame, a very huge shame indeed. We, took matters into our own hands as did Bernstein, and desinged our own BIND product. To date, no security holes recognized. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ga] FYI Fwd: Kaminsky on djbdns bugs Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:44:32 -0400 From: "Joe Baptista" <baptista(a)publicroot.org> To: Ga <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joe Baptista<baptista(a)publicroot.org> Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Kaminsky on djbdns bugs To: Erwin Hoffmann <feh(a)fehcom.de> Cc: dns(a)list.cr.yp.to Hi, On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Erwin Hoffmann <feh(a)fehcom.de> wrote: Hi, At 03:42 08.08.2008 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote: Kyle Wheeler writes: > That makes it easier for an attacker to guess the right number, but > only somewhat (your chances per-guess go from one in four billion to, > say, thirty in four billion). This criticism of djbdns seems > somewhat... well, specious. http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html has, for several years, stated the results of exactly this attack: The dnscache program uses a cryptographic generator for the ID and query port to make them extremely difficult to predict. However, * an attacker who makes a few billion random guesses is likely to succeed at least once; * tens of millions of guesses are adequate with a colliding attack; etc. The same page also states bilateral and unilateral workarounds that would raise the number of guesses to "practically impossible"; but then focuses on the real problem, namely that "attackers with access to the network would still be able to forge DNS responses." Yes. I've posted years ago an URL to tinydns.org (originating from Security Focus) with a very careful analyis about the above topic Kaminsky claims now to be a new affair -- however, the link has been removed (I can post a copy of the article in PDF format on request). i'd be interested in seeing it. Most of what Kaminsky discusses is pretty old and well know - obviously except for the BIND guys (regarding DNS). The BIND guys know it. The BIND guys patch BIND every year. But it so half assed. How many versions of BIND have been published to address security issue. Answer - every single one. I've complained for years about this. Especially to the internet DNS pirates at ICANN. It goes no where. What pisses me off is that they have the resources to do a good job but don't. From their point of view it seems every BIND vulnerability is a marketing opportunity. It has been either an attempt to use the security issue to deny users access to port 53 or in this case an attempt to market a crappy protocol like DNSSEC - which is in my opinion an attempt by a technical community to give control of the root to the 13 root gods. Even worse; here in Germany on the Heise ticker, there es more confusion regarding MacOS an the missing dnslib patches from Apple (sailing on the waves of Kaminsky's 'discoveries'). The common misunderstandings about the roles of the stub-resolver, the dns-cache/full-resolver, and the dns-content-server seem to be persistent; in particular in spite of DNSSEC. regards. --eh. (The german reading folks may have a look in the 2nd edition of my book "Technik der IP-Netze" which explains DNS -- I shall translate that chapter into english and make in public available; any volonteers?) Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | FEHCom | http://www.fehcom.de/ Wiener Weg 8, 50858 Cologne | T: +49 221 484 4923 | F: ...24 -- 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 -- 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

Borrador de enmiendas propuestas al Acuerdo sobre Acreditación de Registradores
by At-Large Staff Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

Borrador de enmiendas propuestas al Acuerdo sobre Acreditación de Registradores http://www.icann.org/es/announcements/announcement-18jun08-es.htm 18 de junio de 2008 Haga clic aquí para ir al periodo de presentación de comentarios públicos (abierto hasta el 31 de agosto de 2008). Esta notificación reseña quince enmiendas del borrador al Acuerdo sobre Acreditación de Registradores (AAR) de modo que sean estudiadas y debatidas por la comunidad de ICANN (Corporación para la asignación de números y nombres de Internet). Las enmiendas se elaboraron a través de un proceso de consulta de la comunidad y posteriormente un debate entre registradores e ICANN acerca de dichos comentarios. Las enmiendas del borrador se presentan aquí para facilitar el debate posterior de la comunidad con el objetivo de aplicar una serie de cambios contractuales para mejorar las medidas de protección de los registrantes. El personal de ICANN estará a su disposición para facilitar debates con grupos de unidades constitutivas en asambleas de ICANN en París y en posteriores reuniones. Estas enmiendas se constituyen en cuatro categorías generales: * Instrumentos de ejecución: estas enmiendas están diseñadas para potenciar el cumplimiento del registrador y otorgar a ICANN unas mejores herramientas de aplicación. * Protecciones de registrantes: estas enmiendas se centran en áreas para realzar la protección de los registrantes mediante la mejora de información al consumidor, gracias a la cual las decisiones y elecciones relativas a la protección de datos estarán mejor fundamentadas. * Promoción de un mercado de registradores estable y competitivo: estas enmiendas tienen como objetivo asegurar que todos los participantes cumplan los estándares mínimos en el mercado de registradores. * Modernización del acuerdo: estas enmiendas están previstas para cerciorarse de que las disposiciones del contrato satisfacen las necesidades actuales. Historial de la consulta * En un esfuerzo por abordar los asuntos suscitados por la protección de los registrantes, ICANN ha entablado un gran número de negociaciones con miembros de la comunidad relativas a potenciales enmiendas al AAR. Se han recibido contribuciones a través de foros de comentarios del público, en particular de ALAC (Comité asesor de alcance) y de la Unidad constitutiva de propiedad intelectual (IPC). De acuerdo con la dirección fijada en estas negociaciones, ICANN ha mantenido debates tanto telefónicos como personales con registradores sobre la manera de ofrecer estas medidas de protección mediante la reforma del AAR. De entre las ocho áreas sustantivas de reforma exigidas por Paul Twomey en marzo de 2007 (consulte <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm>) y de estas consultas a la comunidad, se han propuesto 15 enmiendas al AAR. * Se realizaron talleres en las asambleas de ICANN donde se debatieron temas de custodia de datos, migración en caso de fallos del registro, cumplimiento y enmiendas al AAR. Paralelamente, la Junta Directiva resolvió que el personal directo solicitara contribuciones a la comunidad concernientes a las enmiendas al AAR; participara en un diálogo con registradores para llegar a una serie de enmiendas propuestas del AAR que se deben someter a los comentarios del público, y solicitara consejo de ALAC, GNSO (Organización de apoyo para nombres genéricos) y demás partes interesadas con el fin de informar de la revisión de las enmiendas realizada por la Junta Directiva (consulte < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm#k>). * Se redactó un conjunto inicial de enmiendas, que se sometió a comentarios del público entre julio y septiembre de 2007, con un resumen publicado en octubre de 2007. Se incluyó una página en el sitio web de ICANN para "Consulta sobre enmiendas al Acuerdo sobre Acreditación de Registradores" en <http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/>. Durante este periodo inicial se entablaron asimismo negociaciones con registradores. * Una serie actualizada de enmiendas surgió a partir de las negociaciones con los registradores y la solicitud de consejo a la comunidad. La Unidad constitutiva de registradores (RC) creó un grupo de trabajo, dirigido por el presidente de esta, Jon Nevett, para entablar un diálogo continuo con ICANN sobre los asuntos del AAR objeto de debate. Se han redactado diversas reiteraciones a medida que el diálogo entre el grupo de trabajo e ICANN ha progresado. Han tenido lugar diversas conferencias tanto personales como telefónicas. * ALAC asimismo creó un grupo de trabajo para revisar el AAR y ha contribuido al diálogo. Las comunicaciones entre los registradores y ALAC han mejorado, en parte como resultado del continuo diálogo. * A la finalización de este periodo de contribuciones del público, se preparará un informe con los pormenores de los comentarios para que la Junta Directiva los tenga en consideración en su revisión. Enmiendas propuestas A continuación se muestra un resumen de las enmiendas que se han publicado para la presentación de comentarios públicos. (Si desea obtener información sobre la propuesta de idioma del contrato para poner en práctica cada una de estas, consulte http://www.icann.org/es/topics/raa/raa-provisions-comparision-18jun08-es.pdf (Comparación de disposiciones de AAR) [PDF, 49 K] y http://www.icann.org/es/topics/raa/redline-2001-raa-18jun08-es.pdf (Modificaciones propuestas del ARR pendientes de estudio) [PDF, 86 K].): 1. Instrumentos de ejecución 1. Auditorías de registradores: permiten a ICANN realizar visitas a sitios web y auditorías de registradores previa notificación de al menos 15 días de antelación. 2. Sanciones y suspensiones: disponen herramientas de aplicación del cumplimiento incrementado, tales como sanciones económicas y suspensión del acceso al registro. 3. Responsabilidad de grupo: previene "conductas impropias en serie" por parte de registradores cuando se rescinde el AAR de otro registrador afiliado (mediante control común). 4. Honorarios del registrador: revisión de la disposición de honorarios del registrador para que se adecue a los presupuestos recientes y actuales de ICANN; cálculo del interés sobre los pagos de honorarios en mora. 5. Registros por parte de registradores: creación de responsabilidad de los registradores para con ICANN por cuenta de cualquier registro efectuado por los primeros que se use en la provisión de servicios de registro. 6. Suspensión arbitral: eliminación de la suspensión automática de rescisión de 30 días que los registradores reciben en la actualidad mediante el inicio del procedimiento arbitral o el litigio para presentar una demanda contra la rescisión de un AAR. 2. Medidas de protección de registrantes 1. Registro privado y requisitos de custodia de datos de los registradores: se exige a los registradores que custodien los datos del cliente al efecto en el caso de registros privados o de proxy, o bien que presenten una notificación destacada en que se indique que dichos datos no serán custodiados. 2. Derechos y responsabilidades del registrante: se exige a los registradores que incluyan en sus sitios web un enlace a un documento de "derechos y responsabilidades del registrador", que se deberá crear previa consulta con la comunidad de ICANN. 3. Relaciones contractuales con los distribuidores: protección a los registrantes que son clientes de distribuidores obligando a los distribuidores a seguir las políticas de ICANN y exigiendo bien la custodia de los datos de privacidad o proxy de los clientes, o bien la publicación de una notificación destacada en que se indique que dichos datos no serán custodiados. 3. Fomento de un mercado estable y competitivo de registradores 1. Acreditación mediante compra: se exige a los registradores notificar a ICANN cualquier cambio de titularidad y volver a certificar el cumplimiento con el AAR. 2. Formación y pruebas de conocimientos de operadores: disponen formación obligatoria para representantes de registradores con el fin de asegurar la mejor comprensión por parte del registrador de las políticas de ICANN y de los requisitos del AAR. 3. Uso de registradores acreditados por el ICANN: mantenimiento de la política general de ICANN de exigir que los registros utilicen registradores acreditados del ICANN (salvo excepción razonable e indicada). 4. Modernización del acuerdo 1. Disposición de notificaciones: se agiliza la obligación de ICANN de notificar a los registradores las nuevas políticas de consenso que son de aplicación a los registradores. 2. Referencias al Departamento de Comercio de Estados Unidos: reconocimiento de la deriva de ICANN hacia posiciones independientes de dicho departamento mediante la eliminación de determinadas referencias dentro del AAR que aluden al requisito de aprobación por parte del Departamento de Comercio. 3. Requisitos de retención de datos del registrador: clarificación del requisito de retención de datos para los registradores con el fin de contar con prácticas más uniformes. Envíe comentarios sobre los cambios propuestos a raa-consultation(a)icann.org. Vea los comentarios en http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Next NARALO Teleconference: Tuesday, 11th August 1900 UTC
by At-Large Staff Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled on Tuesday, 11 August at 1900 UTC. Please find further details for this meeting on the meeting page. An agenda will be uploaded shortly. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?11_august_2008 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Beware: nicir.ir DNS is grossly misconfigured]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Beware: nicir.ir DNS is grossly misconfigured Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:20:31 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah(a)irnic.ir>,ICANN SSAC Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello(a)icann.org>,ICANN SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>,"matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org" <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>,"ICANN Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" <karen.lettner(a)icann.org>,Ga <ga(a)gnso.icann.org>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> CC: Bill Silverstein <icann-list(a)sorehands.com>,"Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>,Carl Wallace <CWallace(a)cygnacom.com>,Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm>,Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>,Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>,"Darlene Thompson," <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>,ICANN Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org>,icann legal <jeffrey(a)icann.org>,ICANN Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org>,ICANN Policy Staff <policy(a)icann.org>,JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com>,John Levine <icggov(a)johnlevine.com>, GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Kieren McCarthy <kieren.mccarthy(a)icann.org>,Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> All, Beware: Nicir.ir is grossly misconfigured and will expose you to serious danger if traffic received from any transmission from any IT protocol or application is sent to you. See: http://member.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnslite.php?domain=nicir.ir http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=nicir.ir&token=104056… 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: Re: [ga] Kaminsky on dns bugs - Bernstein responds]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ga] Kaminsky on dns bugs - Bernstein responds Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:28:30 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,ICANN SSAC Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello(a)icann.org>,"matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org" <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>,"Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett(a)networksolutions.com> CC: Ga <ga(a)gnso.icann.org>, icann board <icann-board(a)icann.org>,Kieren McCarthy <kieren.mccarthy(a)icann.org>,Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>,"twomey(a)icann.org" <twomey(a)icann.org>,Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz>,GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>,Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>,"Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>,Carl Wallace <CWallace(a)cygnacom.com>,Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm>,Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>,"Darlene Thompson," <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>,Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>,ICANN Marc Salvatierra <marc.salvatierra(a)icann.org>,ietf-nomcom Mailing List <ietf-nomcom(a)ietf.org>,"Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>,Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>,"Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett(a)networksolutions.com>,Robert Guerra <robert(a)privaterra.org>,Roland Perry <roland(a)internetpolicyagency.com>,Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah(a)irnic.ir> References: <874c02a20808081918x7955ea24yc13506a6e7dfa915(a)mail.gmail.com> Dr.Joe and all, Yes of course, some of have known for years and stated such years ago right here on the GA when the old DNSO was still in existance, myself and yourself Joe, included. It's all in the archives, which I am sure by now Kent Crispin or someone at ICANN is scowering in case "Creative" editing can be deployed or "Artistically" utilized as has been done before and also reported accordingly. But not to worry, I have two other seperately archived copies of all those archives! >:) Joe Baptista wrote: > > Well the long-awaited description of Dan Kaminsky's regarding the dns > vulnerabilities was released as a 104-slide Powerpoint presentation: > > http://www.doxpara.com/DMK_BO2K8.ppt > > On slide 34 it claims that DJB (Dr. Bernstein) WAS RIGHT. This is > something we all have known for years. But then Kaminsky went on to > hang himself by saying that DJB was "NOT PERFECT, we're seeing (and > patching, don't ask)". Kaminsky offers as an example that the > birthday attack protection was not implemented by Bernstein because he > believed port randomization was enough, and goes on to say that DJBDNS > has other known issues too. > > People this claim by Kaminsky is a load of crap and once again > furthers my claim that the recent security issues are nothing more > then the rehashing of old security problem that Bernstein addressed > years ago. > > In any case there was a response to this by Bernstein - the response > is below. As you can see Bernstein supports what I have been going on > about concerning these recent dns securities issues. The problems > have been known for years and this is nothing more then a rehash of > existing security issues to exploit user hysteria in the hope the > world can be tricked into accepting yet another useless insecure > protocol - being DNSSEC. > > I agree with Bernstein that the recent patches don't fix the problem. > In any case here is Bernsteins reply for the record. > > regards > joe baptista > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: D. J. Bernstein<djb(a)cr.yp.to> > Date: Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:42 PM > Subject: Re: Kaminsky on djbdns bugs > To: dns(a)list.cr.yp.to > > Kyle Wheeler writes: > > That makes it easier for an attacker to guess the right number, but > > only somewhat (your chances per-guess go from one in four billion > to, > > say, thirty in four billion). This criticism of djbdns seems > > somewhat... well, specious. > http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html has, for several years, stated > the > results of exactly this attack: > > The dnscache program uses a cryptographic generator for the ID and > query port to make them extremely difficult to predict. However, > > * an attacker who makes a few billion random guesses is likely to > succeed at least once; > * tens of millions of guesses are adequate with a colliding attack; > > etc. The same page also states bilateral and unilateral workarounds > that > would raise the number of guesses to "practically impossible"; but > then > focuses on the real problem, namely that "attackers with access to the > > network would still be able to forge DNS responses." > > I suppose I should be happy to see public awareness almost catching up > > to the nastiest DNS attacks I considered in 1999. However, people are > deluding themselves if they think they're protected by the current > series of patches. UIC is issuing a press release today on this topic; > > see below. > > ---D. J. Bernstein, Professor, Mathematics, Statistics, > and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago > > > DNS still vulnerable, Bernstein says > > CHICAGO, Thursday 7 August 2008 - Do you bank over the Internet? If > so, > beware: recent Internet patches don't stop determined attackers. > > Network administrators have been rushing to deploy DNS source-port > randomization patches in response to an attack announced by security > researcher Dan Kaminsky last month. But the inventor of source-port > randomization said today that new security solutions are needed to > protect the Internet infrastructure. > > "Anyone who knows what he's doing can easily steal your email and > insert > fake web pages into your browser, even after you've patched," said > cryptographer Daniel J. Bernstein, a professor in the Center for > Research and Instruction in Technologies for Electronic Security > (RITES) > at the University of Illinois at Chicago. > > Bernstein's DJBDNS software introduced source-port randomization in > 1999 and is now estimated to have tens of millions of users. Bernstein > > released the DJBDNS copyright at the end of last year. > > Kaminsky said at the Black Hat conference yesterday that 120,000,000 > Internet users were now protected by patches using Bernstein's > randomization idea. But Bernstein criticized this idea, saying that it > > was "at best a speed bump for blind attackers" and "an extremely poor > substitute for proper cryptographic protection." > > DNSSEC, a cryptographic version of DNS, has been in development since > 1993 but is still not operational. Bernstein said that DNSSEC offers > "a > surprisingly low level of security" while causing severe problems for > DNS reliability and performance. > > "We need to stop wasting time on breakable patches," Bernstein said. > He > called for development of DNSSEC alternatives that quickly and > securely > reject every forged DNS packet. > > Press contact: Daniel J. Bernstein <press-20080807(a)box.cr.yp.to> > > -30- > > > -- > 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

[Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 7, 2008

Aug. 7, 2008

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moderation of Jeff Williams Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:11:18 -0700 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>,GAC Rep <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>,Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>,"matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org" <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>,"ICANN Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" <karen.lettner(a)icann.org> CC: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org,Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>,Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk>,ICANN Kim Davies <kim.davies(a)icann.org> References: <C4C0E5D7.9DA1%staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Nick and all, How was the post to which you refer, off topic? This is a Users organization and that post to which your refer is a user issue. Ergo it cannot by definition be "Off-Topic". At-Large Staff wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > 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