Association of Trustworthy Roots?
John Palmer (NANOG Acct)
nanog at adns.net
Mon Jan 17 01:45:51 UTC 2005
They don't have a mailing list that is public yet. Might
be a good suggestion.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gnulinux at pacinfo.com>
To: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: 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: <gnulinux at pacinfo.com>
> > To: <nanog at merit.edu>
> > 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:
> > >
> > > > wsimpson at greendragon.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.
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list