Association of Trustworthy Roots?

Christopher L. Morrow christopher.morrow at
Sun Jan 16 23:49:28 UTC 2005

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, 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?
> At the moment, I'm concerned whether we have trustworthy TLD operators.
> 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.

(this is kinda old since it seems the problem is being reversed, but...)

It's possible that the process which exists today to move and un-move
domains from registrar to registrar is in fact working. It's also possible
that changing that process based on 'size of the abused' is not looked
upon kindly by:
1) operators
2) icann
3) the world at large

I'm not sure what's happening with Melbourne IT (is anyone aside from Mr
Rosen and MIT?) I'm also not sure what's going on with Verisign, though I
assume Mr. Rosen and MIT do... If the proper process was started then
things look good, though unfortunately it may take some time to resolve
the problem. That process/procedure is in place for a good reason,
circumventing it will lead to problems in the long run. Do you circumvent
for MS, for AOL, for ATT? At what point do you draw the line? My home
business of pot painting?

A process that is equally applied across the board serves all folks
better. Fixing the current process to have faster, more complete reaction
times would certainly seem in order (and I'd expect Mr Rosen and several
others here to have something to say about that at the next ICANN

As to the percieved lack of progress by a Registrar, it does seem strange
that ICANN/Verisign/Core (I'm not sure which of the three really) don't
have some sort of 24/7 management, monitoring and operations
requirements built into registrar contracts. Perhaps they do and this will
be some leaverage to revoke that contract?


More information about the NANOG mailing list