Since I don't believe in this move, as I explained, I suggest one of the other two council reps take this up. It is hard to draft a text you do not believe in. I will not block anything, but I really cannot lead the action. I hope you understand, thx. Marc On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, at 15:00 [=GMT-0500], Frannie Wellings wrote: > In the interest of getting things moving here, can the GNSO Council > members start drafting something? Even bullet points as Milton > suggested? Or if you have already started, can you let the list know? > > Many thanks! > > Best to all, > > Frannie > > > >Ideally, (i.e., the way things should work according to our charter) > >NCUC's policy committee, which consists of our elected GNSO Council > >members, should take the initiative here. If they can draft something - > >even just a list of bullet points - and send it to the list the rest of > >us can take it from there. > > > >>>> Frannie Wellings <[log in to unmask]> 1/18/2005 4:43:35 PM >>> > >I understand Marc is hesitant, but I really think NCUC should issue a > >statement/submit comments about this. ICANN is requesting comments > >on the transfer policy due February 1. See: > >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-12jan05.htm > > > >How do we want to go about this? > > > >Best, > > > >Frannie > > > >At 4:18 PM -0500 1/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>Marc: > >>Not quite sure whether a TLD wouild have helped panix yet, but I do > >>know that your analysis of Verisign and DNSSEC is not correct. The > >>reason DNSSEC cannot be implemented for .com is because there are so > >>many (tens of millions) of domain names in it. The processing > >>requirements of DNSSEC applied to that scale is a major problem. > >> > >>But the root zone, which contains TLD, does not now and never will > >>contain millions of records. > >> > >>>>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 1/18/2005 2:29:29 PM >>> > >>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, at 12:04 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote: > >> > >>> This incident underscores one of the reasons why ICANN should have > >a > >>> policy of regularly adding TLDs to make them available for those > >who > >>> need and can operate them. > >> > >>Though I agree about adding more TLDs, I don't see how it helps in > >>hijacking domains. > >> > >>> Businesses and noncommercial services that depend entirely on a > >>domain > >>> name may want to have the option of owning, rather than "renting," > >>their > >>> domain in order to increase security. > >> > >>Maybe we can learn something from the trade mark people here as > >>regards ownership of something that can also become defunct, if you > >>don't use it? > >> > >>> According to my imperfect > >>> understanding, it is easier to implement DNSSEC at the TLD level > >than > >>at > >>> the SLD level. > >> > >>I have little understanding of DNSSEC too. I do understand enough > >>about it, I think, to know that it would not have helped panix.com. > >>Also the implementation is most difficult precisely at the TLD level. > >>An engineer from VeriSign is the one who has time and again pointed > >>out (on IETF mailing lists, when I still had time to read them) that > >>the present protocol is impossible for a zone the size of .com. It > >>would take ages and a very, very powerful machine to sign it. > >> > >>Marc Schneiders > > > > > >-- > > > >~~~ > >Frannie Wellings > >Policy Fellow, the Electronic Privacy Information Center ~ > >http://www.epic.org > >Director, The Public Voice ~ http://www.thepublicvoice.org > > > >1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200 > >Washington, D.C. 20009 > >USA > > > >[log in to unmask] > > > >+1 202 483 1140 x 107 (telephone) > >+1 202 483 1248 (fax) > >~~~ > > > -- > > ~~~ > Frannie Wellings > Policy Fellow, the Electronic Privacy Information Center ~ > http://www.epic.org > Director, The Public Voice ~ http://www.thepublicvoice.org > > 1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200 > Washington, D.C. 20009 > USA > > [log in to unmask] > > +1 202 483 1140 x 107 (telephone) > +1 202 483 1248 (fax) > ~~~ >