RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

Maggie

Improving the existing relationships is indeed a continued goal, I think
Mark's remarks refer to new relationships (currently outside of ICANN
recognition). We need to clarify this.

 

I have mixed views over the expansion of the SSAC, although recognition
that on some particular security aspects ISP involvement would be
helpful is potentially a good move.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:maggie.mansourkia@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 14 July 2006 14:57
To: Holmes,AR,Tony,CXM R
Cc: greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx;
mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yukari@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU
Inquiry

 


I hope to send comments soon.  I did want to check the group's pulse on
the notion that no changes are necessary in the relationships with other
groups?  It seems to me that ICANN could benefit in working better
(perhaps more formally?) with the IETF and other more "grown up" type
groups?  And do we think a larger SSAC to include ISP experts would be
beneficial?   

Magnolia Mansourkia
Chief Privacy Counsel
Verizon Communications
703-351-3199 Voice
703-351-3653 Fax
202-744-3745 Mobile 




tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx 
Sent by: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

07/14/2006 09:44 AM 


To

greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx, mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx,
olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yukari@xxxxxxxxx 


cc

 


Subject

RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU Inquiry

 


 

 




Greg
I support your sentiments on the RS operations (I also like 'tragic
attempt' but 'misguided' is far more diplomatic though not so
explanatory, so suggest we make that change).

I hope more comments will be forthcoming from others, or is Mark's draft
so good that it's supported in its totality? 

If so - great job Mark!

Tony 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Ruth
Sent: 14 July 2006 14:35
To: mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx;
olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yukari Takayama
Subject: Re: [ispcp] ISPCP Draft Comments on US Government ICANN MoU
Inquiry

Mark (et al),
    I like your draft. We might replace "tragic attempt" with
"misguided attempt" - although I can think of other, more juicy
adjectives ;-)
    If we would like to comment on the unsatisfactory informality of
current arrangements with root server operators, may I suggest
something like the following:

The current administration of the DNS root depends on distributed and
redundant operation of the root name servers by a dozen independent
organizations.  Although this system's performance has been acceptable
to date, it is remarkable that it is based entirely on informal
agreements with the operators.  This threatens to undermine the
credibility of ICANN as a legitimate, responsible custodian of the DNS.
The DNS has become vital to international electronic communication and
commerce and the root is the lynchpin of the entire system.  Surely
more business-like arrangements are called for in order to ensure the
stability and security of the DNS root in the future.  If ICANN is to
convince the international community that it is competent and worthy of
the authority it bears, it must operate in a more professional fashion.
 

Feel free to change this in any way you like to make it fit into the
document.  Comments?

Greg


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com