North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?
On 16 Jan 2005 at 15:52, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote: > See http://www.public-root.com for an alternative to the ICANN monopoly. > Those folks are very concerned with security. these folks don't seem very decentralized. do you know if they have a public mailing list? there doesn't seem to be much information on the website. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <email@example.com> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? > > > > > > On 16 Jan 2005 at 21:31, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > > > > > email@example.com (William Allen Simpson) wrote: > > > > > > > While the Association of Trustworthy ISPs idea has some merit, we've > > > > not been too successful in self-organizing lately. ISP/C? > > > > > > I thought we already had built such a thing, currently covered by ICANN. > > > > let's think outside the box. > > > > there's no reason that nanog (or anyone willing to run > > a mailing list) couldn't create an ad hoc > > decentralized Trustworthy ISP/Root service. heck, > > such a thing may even encourage more active > > participation in nanog. having a shared group > > identity where the rubber meets the road is very > > powerful. it's the underlying motivator behind the > > nanog, xBSD, GPL, torrent, tor, (pick your non- > > hierarchical community driven project), etc. clans. > > > > there's also no reason that this has to replace ICANN. > > and it would likely have the exact result on existing > > entities that you mention below - improved > > trustworthiness. > > > > > > peace > > > > > > > But well...life changes everything, and for some (or many) or us, this > > > association doesn't seem so trustworthy anymore. Maybe it would be better > > > to improve trustworthiness of the existing authorities. I believe there > > > is still much room for participation, not to mention political issues > > > you simply cannot counter on a technical level. > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, I'm concerned whether we have trustworthy TLD operators. > > > > > > One can never know what's going on behind the scenes. Maybe Verysign > > > is on the issue, maybe not. I believe, there are at least three VS > > > people on this list who could address this. I don't know whether they > > > are allowed to. > > > > > > > > > > It's been about 24 hours, it is well-known that the domain has been > > > > hijacked, we've heard directly from the domain owner and operator, > > > > but the TLD servers are still pointing to the hijacker. > > > > > > By chance - how is the press coverage of this incident? Has anybody > > > read anything in the (online) papers? Unfortunately I haven't been > > > able to follow the newsboards intensely this week-end, but Germany > > > seems very quiet about this. > > > > > > Yours, > > > Elmar.