nanog mailing list archives
Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?
From: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog () adns net>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:45:51 -0600
They don't have a mailing list that is public yet. Might be a good suggestion. ----- Original Message ----- From: <gnulinux () pacinfo com> To: <nanog () 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 () pacinfo com> To: <nanog () 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 () 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. peaceBut 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.
Current thread:
- Re: panix hijack press, (continued)
- Re: panix hijack press Thornton (Jan 20)
- Re: panix hijack press Richard Parker (Jan 20)
- Re: panix hijack press William Allen Simpson (Jan 20)
- Enough. (was Re: panix hijack press) Steve Gibbard (Jan 20)
- Re: panix hijack press Thornton (Jan 20)
- Re: panix hijack press Matthew Sullivan (Jan 21)
- Re: panix hijack press David Lesher (Jan 20)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? gnulinux (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? John Palmer (NANOG Acct) (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Paul Vixie (Jan 19)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Jan 19)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Chris Adams (Jan 16)
- Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots? Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 16)