[atrt2] Fwd: and now, for something completely different -- SSR

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Aug 13 03:54:48 UTC 2013

A message from Mikey O'Connor. It was sent to the threat that was 
preparing for the PDP Chairs discussion on Wednesday, but it goes WAY 
over an above the original subject and into all sorts of compelling 
issues, many of which can readily fit into "accountability and transparency".


>From: Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>Subject: and now, for something completely different -- SSR
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:06:15 -0500
>CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
>         <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Charla Shambley 
> <charla.shambley at icann.org>,
>         Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
>To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, Roberto Gaetano
>         <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>,
>         "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>, 
> "rickert at anwaelte.de
>  Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, James Bladel 
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
>         <pdiaz at pir.org>, "jeff.neuman at neustar.biz jeff.neuman at neustar.biz"
>         <jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>, Alan Greenberg
>         <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>hi all,
>one last picture from Mikey before our call on Wednesday.
>Olivier will know this picture -- it's one we developed in the DSSA 
>together.  so there's perhaps less need for us to discuss this one 
>on our call (where *is* that agenda Alan?).
>i bring this forward because i think ICANN is getting really close 
>to splitting the root with all this late maneuvering around the SSR 
>issues (dotless domains, name collision, internal certs, 
>etc.).   i'm levering these questions to the ATRT into this 
>conversation because i was the GNSO co-chair of the recently-dead 
>DSSA working group.  here goes...
>-- where is the connection between the SSAC and action?  why are 
>reports that point to serious SSR issues not finding their way into 
>policy discussions in a timely way?  as a test case please consider 
>tracing the path that SAC045 took, and determine why we didn't have 
>Lyman Chapin's report on namespace collision commissioned and 
>completed 3 years ago.  why didn't the GNSO pick up on this and 
>launch a discussion/investigation/PDP?
>-- does ICANN (the corporation) have a conflict of interest, now 
>that so much of its budget is dependent on the revenue anticipated 
>from new gTLDs?  is it losing its place as trusted steward for the 
>root because of that?
>-- has ICANN gotten so big and so layered with complexity and 
>privilege that it has forgotten how easy it is to stand up a 
>separate root?  to a person, my corporate and ISP uber-network-geek 
>pals are saying that the easiest way to take care of all the 
>problems caused by new gTLDs may be to simply edit those domains out 
>of a privately operated root zone.   it used to be hard to stand up 
>a robust root -- now it's easy, cheap and may well be a lot less 
>work that chasing down all the troubles that could be caused by new gTLDs.
>-- in olden times, alternate root providers were viewed with nothing 
>but distain.  but suppose that the largest corporate and 
>connectivity-provider DNS operators decided to collaborate on a 
>"clean" DNS root zone that simply pointed to the the legacy 
>registries and treated the ICANN new-gTLDs the way that all 
>alternate TLD/zone providers have been treated?
>-- here's another investigation the ATRT may want to pursue.  why 
>does the staff suggest a tiered risk-management approach to 
>name-collision, and try to make it sound like InterIsles' report is 
>the source of that approach, when that's not the case?  InterIsle 
>describes 5 approaches to managing the risk in their report, none of 
>which include the option that the staff constructed.  yet through 
>tricky wording, the two 5-August staff reports attempt to make it 
>sound as though they're carrying out the recommendations made in the 
>report when in fact they're cherry-picking their way to the 
>speediest rollout schedule.
>-- by the way, what happened to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder 
>process in any of these late-breaking SSR issues?  sure, we're out 
>for comments right now.  but then what?  this is TMCH on steroids 
>and this time we may see ICANN lose its credibility with the 
>technical community that underpins this hallucination we all agree 
>to share.  what if the trust relationship is broken and we geeks 
>just stick our hands in our pockets and walk on down the road?
>-- why did ICANN take so long to react to the constant barrage of 
>communication (from Verisign and others) about risks related to new 
>gTLDs, and why is that reaction still so muted?  what on earth is 
>going on with the communications between Verisign and the NTIA?
>-- in short -- what is becoming of the "grand bargain" that was 
>struck back in the late '90's?  are "gaps in policy, management, or 
>leadership threatening to split the root"?  the DSSA drew this 
>picture a couple years ago -- now our predictions (and those of the 
>Internet Society on which they're based) seem to be coming true.
>there.  that ought to provide some entertainment for the last couple 
>days before our call.  :-)
>discuss away,
>PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for 
>Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130812/8564f02f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2de4d92.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 225398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130812/8564f02f/2de4d92.jpg>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list