Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Statements against new.net?

  • From: Henry R. Linneweh
  • Date: Sat Mar 17 12:39:31 2001

[OFF THE RECORD, UNOFFICIAL] I see an administrative nightmare
in allowing anyone to create their own t gTLD and it would cause a
security problem beyond comprehension. I believe everyone must
come together on this and move to the next level and decide an what
gTLD'S will be allowable and acceptable by everyone without as much
as a whimper.

I can see from the last 600 emails that this has really touched a sore spot,
once the agreement on the gTLD's has been reached then it will have to
be presented to ICANN. If you must rant at me please do it privately
not on the NANOG list, this would serve no useful purpose and I
would wind up losing a potentially valuable human source of information.

I am simply wanting to diffuse the current rant and get to a level where
this can be worked out for everyone's benefit and that no one is king
of the hill, and to eliminate any jealousy.



Jeff Workman wrote:

> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Simon Higgs exclaimed:
>
> > At 12:06 PM 3/16/01 -0500, Jeff Workman wrote:
> >
> >
> > 4. Stability of the root zone and criminal consequences
> >
> >     It should be recognized that in the United States, altering DNS
> >     records to the detriment of a pre-existing organization is covered
> >     under federal computer fraud statute, 18 United States Code, Section
> >     1030[6]. As a result, criminal convictions have resulted from the
> >     alteration of DNS information[7]. Most countries now have similar
> >     laws.
>
> I don't recall saying squat about modifying the root zone.  I was
> referring to local nameservers that are under your (or my) administrative
> control.  Tell me how this is any different than "content filtering"
> packages that are in use today (X-Stop comes to mind.)  Sure, the
> underlying mechanism is different, but the result is the same.  User tries
> to access a site that is administratively prohibited, and is redirected to
> a local web page explaining to them why.  Are we going to prosecute all of
> these organizations now?
>
> If it's *my* DNS server running on *my* equipment using *my* bandwidth,
> then I can do whatever I want to with it, right?  Just as long as I don't
> try any cache poisoning foo or otherwise propagate my authoritative
> 'new.net' zone to other DNS servers that aren't under my administrative
> control.
>
> > So instead of wasting energy making the case against you for the
> > prosecution, why don't you use that energy productively in this situation?
> > New.net already know this. They don't yet know how to go about it.
>
> Why doesn't new.net start sending me monthly paychecks?  Since they're
> *all* about money, then if I am going to help them get their business off
> the ground, then where's mine?
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> "...and the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the
> fire." -Joe Zeff in the SDM.

--

Thank you;
|---------------------------------|
| Thinking is a learned process.  |
| ICANN member @large             |
| Gigabit over IP, ieee 802.17    |
| working group                   |
| Resilient Packet Transport      |
| http://www.luminousnetworks.com |
|---------------------------------|
Henry R. Linneweh







Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.