ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Strategic Plan Consultation

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Strategic Plan Consultation
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:16:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=XBT3f7bzpqIu2LXY7PsobhgqTN+g06HiodX2qpODrliqilRNyUWJkT54FqAmQjDn; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp; All of these questions are good ones to be sure, but are premature or</P>
<P>rather do not address "Current" DNS problems and/or concerns in respect</P>
<P>to registrant abuse, privacy, security &lt; i.e. not only DNSSEC, but registry.registrar</P>
<P>data security, registrant registration data security &gt;, and registrant and user</P>
<P>representation in ICANN in accordance with the MOU.&nbsp; So it would seem logical,</P>
<P>to address corrective measures first and than the future of DNS, which</P>
<P>BTW covers allot of territory, later.</P>
<P>Therefore I suggest the following:</P>
<P>1.) make whole those registrants whom were RegistryFly registrants</P>
<P>2.) Develope a comprehensive policy for the implimentation of DNSSEC and</P>
<P>make that manditory for every registry by a date certain which is to be no </P>
<P>later than 2008 4th quarter.</P>
<P>3.) Make NIST security standards manditory for registrant data and access</P>
<P>by 2007.</P>
<P>4.) Develope, impliment and intigrate escrow for registration data for every</P>
<P>registrar by a date certain which is to be no later than 2nd quarter 2008, and</P>
<P>that that escrowed data be secured by NIST standard at a minimum.</P>
<P>5.) Develope and impliment a policy that only allows for the registrant</P>
<P>and registrar to have access to any registrant data associated with</P>
<P>his/her domain name with secure access via NIST standard at a minimum</P>
<P>at no cost to the registrant but only allows sharing of that information</P>
<P>with third parties if the registrant approves of said sharing.&nbsp; Note: as I noted </P>
<P>some time with&nbsp;ago with URL refrences and the suggestion to review strongly,&nbsp;</P>
<P>on the RAA wkg group forum, ICT in the UK, ISO, and the WTO are following this </P>
<P>direction currently.</P>
<P><BR><BR>&nbsp;</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Aug 25, 2007 6:54 PM <BR>To: Danny Younger <DANNYYOUNGER@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Strategic Plan Consultation <BR><BR>
<DIV>I am of the opinion that #3 is where we should start. Also I think we should be frank and say "for the GA" when answering the questions.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I believe that finding a balance between the bottom dwelling registrants and individual users/consumers and the high rolling Business concerns is the most basic elemental goal that ICANN should have.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>These are the four questions put to RyC:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>!. What are the major foactors that will affect the DNS over the next three to five years?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>2. What are the major issues facing ICANN over the next three to five years?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>3.&nbsp; What are the most important issues for the ICANN community to discuss over the next three to five years?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>4.&nbsp; What should be ICANN's priorities for the next three years?<BR><BR><B><I>Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">The Registry Constituency has submitted some very<BR>well-considered remarks: see<BR>http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-2008/msg00009.html<BR><BR>After some deliberation the GA should consider sending<BR>through its own statement.<BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos &amp; more. <BR>http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<P>======= 
<P>'Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail <A href="mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A></P></ZZZBODY></ZZZBODY></ZZZBODY></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>