[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On some security claims (was Re: Apologies, and some reflections on requirements)

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Mon Jul 4 22:42:54 UTC 2016


How can we be way off course when we haven’t started deliberating yet?  Are you saying that you think the work plan or approach to deliberation is way off course?

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of TXVB
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 6:09 PM
To: farellfolly at gmail.com; va at bladebrains.com
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On some security claims (was Re: Apologies, and some reflections on requirements)

I don't have time to address this fully right now due to family and the holiday.

I still believe we are way way off course and there are very legitimate concerns about individual security and rights.






-------- Original Message --------
On Jul 4, 2016, 4:57 PM, Farell Folly wrote:


>>>PS : If you want, I can forward the Mail Andrew Sent me threatening me to
get me ³Offlist² Separately

Really? Are you guys going so far?

Please, Let's focus on our top priority at this moment which is to put our energy together and reach consensus on how to have our list of possible requirements, this to end PDP phase 1.

Best Regards
--ff--

Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 4 juil. 2016 22:51, "Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal" < va at bladebrains.com<mailto:va at bladebrains.com>> a écrit :
So V Renaming this WG ???
Charter Re-Drawn ?

Nah I am kiddingŠ

Sorry Chuck, This is gotta wait. I am traveling international till the
10th and this requires Some snippets to be picked up and carefully worded
to showcase that Andrew is hedonistic and came down heavily on a personal
attack and did not respect a fellow WG-M. I am seeing this getting into a
political battle rather than an Intellectual exchange. And I don¹t seem to
have time for it.

If You want me to exchange Many Pleasantries here, then tell me so and
then Tell Everyone So. Then we can all start posting jokes to this list
once a while :-)

Lets get on with it !
-VA

PS : If you want, I can forward the Mail Andrew Sent me threatening me to
get me ³Offlist² Separately. If this is for that then I am not the kinds
who gets pressured.


On 7/5/16, 2:33 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" < cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

>VA,
>
>I am having trouble understanding why you had a problem with what or how
>Andrew said.  Could you please help me understand?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>[mailto: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Group CEO-Vaibhav
>Aggarwal
>Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 12:15 PM
>To: Andrew Sullivan
>Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] On some security claims (was Re:
>Apologies, and some reflections on requirements)
>
>Andrew,
>
>Points u have written are baseless and display ur uneasiness of learning
>about "How Internet works"
>
>I won't present a retort here which is targeted to a specific individual
>and not try to waste anyone's time in reading.
>But if u are a internet conneseiur, then u wud never write a baseless
>argument over a suggestion. So I request back off and stick to the
>agenda.
>
>Lets keep the nice nodes open to data exchange and not block the speed by
>writing baselessly.
>
>Best regards,
>-VA
>
>Sent from my mobile device. Typos regretted.
>
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan < ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Responding to two messages at once.  I think there are some technical
>> misconceptions in the messages from Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal.  We
>> won't get anywhere if we proceed by believing false things about how
>> the Internet works.
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:19:53PM +0530, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> And any such suggestion can easily be implemented with the Automation
>>> of the entire Verification process. For Eg. Gmail has a two Step
>>> Authentication - One on the Password and the other on the Phone
>>> Number of the User.
>>
>> Actually, no.  What Google two-step authentication does is bind a
>> login to both a password and some other communication factor.  It does
>> not actually tell you who is at the other end, and can't.  There is a
>> serious and important difference for our purposes between
>> authenticating that the same indvidual is undertaking two different
>> actions, and identifying who that individual is when (e.g.) wandering
>> around in the street.
>>
>>> This is a issue regaining the safety of me, my family
>>
>> Can you say more about how you think registration of domain names in
>> the global DNS could (even a little bit) affect the safety of you or
>> your family?  In particular,
>>
>>> or anybody will be willing to compromise. And the Lives being lost
>>> and the
>>
>> could you say some more about how you think anyone's life hangs in the
>> balance due to registration of domain names?
>>
>> Also,
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:28:29PM +0530, Catalyst-Vaibhav Aggarwal
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as Security for the Email Addresses is concerned, every email
>>> server has a built in SMTP verification mechanism that either can be
>>> switched on or Off as per the need may be -  Most servers or Service
>>> providers don¹t switch it on as there is a cost added to their
>>> overall Network Management or Infrastructure. BUT Gmail has
>>> implemented it. That is why we are able to see Classification of Mails
>>>in our mail boxes.
>>
>> I would appreciate a pointer to the documentation of this SMTP
>> verification mechanism of which you speak.  I'm reasonably familiar
>> with the SMTP specifications, and I'm not really sure what feature
>> you're talking about.  If you mean the SMTP VRFY verb, I don't think
>> it does what you think it does, and it has been widely regarded as a
>> spam-promoting feature since at least 1999.  It is certainly not the
>> basis for Google's classification of your email, which (depending on
>> how you use it) depends on them reading either your headers or your
>> mail bodies to classify it for you.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg


_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160704/45fab3f0/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list