[120739] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EDNS (Re: Are the Servers of Spamhaus.rg and blackholes.us down?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Brunner-Williams)
Fri Jan 1 17:23:52 2010
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:21:21 -0500
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <g3skapbivm.fsf_-_@nsa.vix.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/1/10 4:44 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
=2E..
> it's going to be another game of chicken -- will the people who build a=
nd/or
> deploy such crapware lose their jobs, or will ICANN back down from DNSS=
EC?
Either (a) a large cohort of entries is added to the root before [pick=20
predicate condition of choice, and signing the root is a common one]=20
"foo", or (b) a number of smaller cohorts of entries are added to the=20
root after [pick predicate condition of choice, and signing the root=20
is a common one] "bar".
Security and stability is the last shibboleth in ICANN rhetoric,=20
offered frequently absurdly, e.g., [1], and is one of three fictions=20
[2] which, together with the trademarks issue, constitute the "four=20
overarching issues" which presently prevents the Draft Applicant=20
Guidebook from being final, and therefore, from applications being=20
submitted, and the evaluation system from being exercised under load.
Should "ICANN back down from DNSSEC", the rational for not starting=20
the application rat race would be reduced to trademarks [3]. ICANN=20
appears to be avoiding that for all of 2010 and 2011.
Should "ICANN [not] back down from DNSSEC", the least refutable (by=20
the non-technical community) rational for delay remains controlling,=20
at some cost to businesses that do not invest in issue advocacy at=20
ICANN, and so do not matter in the slightest even if they "go dark".
Eric
[1] http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/msg00000.html
[2] The Four Overarching Issues are (1) Intellectual Property and=20
Trademark Protection, (2) Economic Analysis, (3) Security and=20
Stability and (4) Malicious Conduct.
[3] OK, there is another biggie out there, the idiots at CRAI proposed=20
that we junk the registry-registrar separation _and_ let every moron=20
cereal and/or soap trademark portfolio manager suff their brands into=20
the IANA root. The separation issue is really big, as it is a stalking=20
horse for 15 U.S.C. =A7 1=967. The marks-in-the-root issue should give on=
e=20
pause, not for sizeof(footprint) reasons, but because it is=20
unavoidable that strings in the IANA root will become private=20
property, and because as a string generator, trademarks are an=20
infinite string source.
