James,
RPZ is a technology that resolver operators use, and so certainly
ICANN has no ability to tell resolver operators what to do. As Randy
Bush says, "my network, my rules".
However, RPZ deployed at large scale will impact registries and
authority operators. I think it is correct for ICANN to be concerned
about any potential technology that will impact stakeholders, whether
this is IDN that makes e-mail break, DNSSEC which makes operations
fragile, or widespread censorship and filtering based on DNS.
For an alternate view... the RIRs have maintained for decades that they
have no responsibility for the usability of any IP addresses they
issue: no routability guarantees, no guarantee that your mail won't be
blocked because the previous holder was a spammer, and so on.
It sounds like you think that ICANN should have a similar stance
regarding domain names. In which case, I wonder why there is any
vetting of domains at all. Surely we should simply support any domain
for any purpose going to the highest bidder? It would make everyones'
job much easier, and we can shut down the NCSG, and indeed almost
everything at ICANN except for a half dozen staff or so. ;)
Cheers,
--
Shane
At 2017-04-13 11:45:59 +0000
James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Speaking just for myself I feel that ICANN has no authority policy or otherwise to tell authoritative server operators down the chain what to do.
> Is it important in the larger scheme of internet governance, yes!! But not within the ICANN sphere and thus not for the NCSG.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Kerr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:42 PM
> To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RPZ & content control
>
> James,
>
> While I tend to agree that RPZ as a specific technology is mostly out of ICANN's bailiwick, can we agree that widespread filtering of specific domains is still probably something to track?
>
> For example, if we discover that certain TLD are heavily blocked by ISP then that may indicate some underlying problem with the way the TLD is used.
>
> Or if ICANN discovers that an IDN TLD is likely to be blocked then this seems like something that matters to ICANN and its stakeholders.
>
> Certainly if the NCSG has a reason to think that technology will be used against its stakeholders than the NCSG has reason to be concerned and investigate, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> At 2017-04-12 19:31:36 +0000
> James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > ??
> > This has literally nothing to do with ICANN Compliance?
> >
> > -James
> >
> > From: NCSG-Discuss
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Reply-To: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Date: Wednesday 12 April 2017 at 19:17
> > To:
> > "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Subject: Re: RPZ & content control
> >
> > Thanks for picking this up Niels.
> >
> > The At Large Community has been up at arms on this issue frequently in the past and has made numerous submissions to ICANN's Compliance Team through the ALAC or through the ALS's or individual members. For institutional memory, in that department you may wish to connect with Garth Bruen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> and he'll give you an update.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Have you all followed the discussion around RPZ ? It is a
> > (proposed)protocol which allows for the blacklisting of certain
> > addresses, reportedly to address malware, but you can imagine how this
> > could be used differently.
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz-00
> >
> > https://dnsrpz.info/
> >
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100728_taking_back_the_dns/
> >
> > Is this a discussion that has also been held in ICANN, or is this a
> > 'let's route around ICANN'-kind of solution?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> > PS Sorry if I have missed earlier discussions on this.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org<http://www.article19.org>
> >
> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Director
> > Pasifika Nexus
> > P.O Box 17862
> > Suva
> > FIJI
> >
> > Cell: +679 7656770
> > Tel: +679 3362003
> > E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Website: www.pasifikanexus.nu<http://www.pasifikanexus.nu>
>
|
