Previous message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02719.html ********* From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlinat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: RE: ICANN to be anti-terrorist Net-cop? and a response from R. Forno Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:15:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20011029084157.02575100at_private> Declan: This screed is so deeply clueless, it's probably not worth responding. But [sigh!]: - ICANN has a very well-defined mission: it coordinates the Internet's naming & address allocation systems. It doesn't set technical standards; it's not responsible for general Internet security. ICANN's not confused about the scope of its mission; if anything, we're constantly working to narrow the scope of our work, distribute responsibility and authority down the DNS tree, and swat away efforts to add new responsibilities. ICANN supporters do *not* favor expansion of its mission; indeed, we often say that ICANN will only survive if it stays tightly focused on the coordination of unique identifiers, period. Consistent with that, our budget is fixed; our staff is small (~16). In no way is ICANN, as Mr. Forno states, "the Internet's governing body." To even suggest that shows a basic misunderstanding of how the Internet works, and what the DNS does. - Within the DNS, there are many organizations that provide services: the DNS root nameserver operators, the TLD registries, the registrars, and the regional Internet registries. While none of these organizations constitutes a single point of failure in the DNS, each is potentially a single point of failure for its users/customers. I.e., if a given TLD fails, its registrants will be harmed. It's reasonable for Internet users to wonder about the security/integrity/resiliency of those operations. - Therefore, it is a matter of ICANN concern to see that the DNS registries, registrars, root nameservers operators, etc., is doing all it should to assure the security of its operations, the integrity of its data, and the restoration of service in crisis situations. That's what the November ICANN meeting is about: a bottom-up discussion among those various groups about their own security practices and policies. In sum: Mr. Forno doesn't seem to understand how the DNS is implemented and administered, and he certainly doesn't understand what ICANN does or how it does it. ICANN is a coordinator, not a dictator. It's not part of any "war" on anything. It's a forum in which the organizations that provide DNS services will be discussing as a community potential security threats and vulnerabilities; available technical tools and management practices to avoid and combat them; and best practices for recovery and restoration of service. What Mike Roberts reasonably pointed out is that, in the wake of 9/11, assuring the security/integrity/resiliency of the DNS has taken on vastly greater importance. --andrew ********* Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:11:53 -0800 (PST) From: Lauren Weinstein <laurenat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Future of the Internet and ICANN Cc: laurenat_private, neumannat_private Future of the Internet and ICANN October 29, 2001 PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org [ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-requestat_private". ] The following material was posted yesterday in another venue. We felt that the issues mentioned would be of interest to the readership of this list. Also, today's short "Fact Squad Radio" vignette is on the related topic of "Who Controls the Internet?" at: http://www.factsquad.org/radio - - - - - Date: October 28, 2001 From: Lauren Weinstein Peter G. Neumann Subject: Future of the Internet and ICANN As much as we respect Mike Roberts and his work, it is difficult to find his recent statements [1], about the "new ICANN" as anything other than extremely "problematic" at best. ICANN's continuing controversies and problems have in large part been a function of ICANN's taking on functions well outside its appropriate purview. As we have discussed previously [2], ICANN's historical basis and structure have not been and remain unsuitable for many of the tasks it has attempted to date, even given their sincere efforts. Recent events have not fundamentally altered the importance of the Internet. The Internet's crucial contributions to the world's infrastructure far predate the horrors so fresh in our minds, although some persons have only now begun to appreciate this reality. But what has also long been true is that ICANN's stewardship of various key functions relating to the Net has been inadequate in many important respects. We continue to consider ICANN's deficiencies to be structural and increasingly intractable as the organization has stretched beyond its core competencies. Our calls for the creation of a truly representative organization to help coordinate a comprehensive range of critical Internet responsibilities [3], seems more crucial now than ever before. Arguments claiming that ICANN is "the only game in town" and that not supporting ICANN risks chaos, nationalization, and other unwelcome prospects are fallacious and seem to border on fear-mongering. The assignment of further important responsibilities to ICANN (by government or other groups) would only exacerbate already serious problems. This is particularly true for critical aspects of the Internet, such as reliability and security, that go far beyond the relatively minor niceties of domain name assignment policies. ICANN itself is not the issue. It is specifically the security, safety, reliability and numerous other attributes of the Internet that should be our central focus. Now is the time to "bite the bullet" and admit to ourselves that ICANN is not the appropriate venue to be dealing with most of these extremely important matters. Rather than trying to continue building upon the limited framework of ICANN, we need to decide that we're going to do what's right for the Internet and the world. Even the best technological concepts and "solutions" will be utterly meaningless in the absence of such a course. We must take responsibility for our actions and move forward with the establishment of *appropriate* organizations that will provide a firm and stable foundation for the future of the Net and its users. Any other path may well lead us directly into the abyss. [1] Message from Mike Roberts http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01113.shtml [2] PFIR Statement on Internet Policies, Regulations, and Control http://www.pfir.org/statements/policies [3] Proposal for a Representative Global Internet Policy Organization http://www.pfir.org/statements/proposal - - - - - Lauren Weinstein laurenat_private or laurenat_private or laurenat_private Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Peter G. Neumann neumannat_private or neumannat_private or neumannat_private Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Moderator, RISKS Forum - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 12:44:41 PST