Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxx>]

Based on the recommendations of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, 
there could be some pretty relevant arguments made in court, IMHO.  I suspect 
there would be some significant input from IPS, the engineering community and 
even users.  This is one issue that might even bring ICANN detractors into the fray 
against Verisign.  Just the spam issue is enough to bring out those who operate mail 
servers since the measures used to stop forgeries of origin are defeated with this 
scheme.

I dunno, Dan.  It just seems like it does have legs.  It would be costly, no doubt, but I 
wonder if there wouldn't be some funding available for just this issue if needs be, 
since it is such a serious one in the minds of so many.

Leah


On 23 Sep 2003 at 9:10, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> that language permits the board to enact a policy. They can then turn
> around and serve notice on Verisign to act. And Verisign can object and
> force the matter to go to court whenre ICANN would have to go and
> demonstrate that it is:
> 
>  "necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registry Services, the
>  DNS or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as
>  narrowly tailored
> as feasible to achieve those objectives."
> 
> * proving that the operational stability of the registry services were
> jeaopordized is not going to happen
>  * proving that the operational stability of the DNS is threatened is not
>  going to happen either. We may not like what we see but face it, the
>  domains that are supposed to be working....are still working!!!! You face
>  a monumental task convincing a judge that operational stability of the DNS
>  is compromised when the opposing counsel  can bring a notebook into the
>  court and challenge you to find domains that should be working (and arent)
>  because of sitefinder.  This is of course providing the judge has not
>  fallen asleep listening to your explanation of how DNS works and how its
>  supposed to work.  Remember...you have to prove all this and opposing
>  counsel can (and probably) will question your arguemnts.
> * proving the operational stability of the internet is compromised...see
> above.  we are dealing with fine technical arguments about how we 'feel'
> the internet should work. But it is the absence of several standards that
> got us here in the first place.  How can you prove something so general?
> Its like proving that someone is in a good or bad marriage. what standards
> apply? how do you even prove that those standards are applicable in the
> first place?
> 
> Nothing in courts is a slam-dunk but this one...seems from this vantage
> point...to be a long-drawn out action ending in a loss.
>