Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?

[gnulinux]

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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> 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:
> > 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.

Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?

[gnulinux]

On 16 Jan 2005 at 21:31, Elmar K. Bins wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.

Re: fwd: Re: [registrars] Re: panix.com hijacked

[gnulinux]

On 16 Jan 2005 at 10:25, Lou Katz wrote:

> Is there anything that us folks out in the peanut gallery can
> do to help, other than locally serving the panix.net zone
> for panix.com?
> -- 
> -=[L]=-


actually this is amazingly helpful.  in fact 
encouraging more ISPs to do the same thing is, IMHO, 
the best way to route around hierarchical problems 
like this.  

imagine . . . "The Association of Trustworthy ISPs"   
these ISPs watch out for each other.  in the case of a 
member's domain being hijacked all other members serve 
the correct zone info.  this provides for a 
decentralized solution to the problem.  this 
association only admits members based on strict 
criterion and drops members immediately upon discovery 
of unethical behavior.  as more ISPs join the 
association end users will look for the association's 
seal of approval when shopping for an ISP.  


peace

Quantifying SiteFinder Traffic

[gnulinux]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=verisign.com



[full post mirrored from Interesting People]

Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:54:28 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [IP] Quantifying SiteFinder Traffic

>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Dave Farber'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Quantifying SiteFinder Traffic
>Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:44:30 -0400
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
>Importance: Normal
>
>Dave,
>
>IP readers may be interested in a sense of just how much traffic VeriSign is
>receiving from its SiteFinder service.  Alexa, with its Alexa Toolbar and
>associated traffic tracking services, makes it easy to find out:
>
>
>
>The highlights --
>
>Over the past three months, taken as a whole, Verisign had traffic rank
>1,559.  But today its traffic rank is 19 -- meaning, at least among Alexa
>users (who are generally representative of web users), the verisign.com
>domain has suddenly become joined the top 20 sites, measured by page views.
>
>VeriSign's climb is even more notable when reckoned in "reach" -- proportion
>of users who visit the site at least once.  Measured in this way,
>verisign.com is now in position 9 -- meaning there are only eight sites on
>the web that more users visit in a given day.
>
>All that said, users don't tend to stay on verisign.com for long.  Notice
>page views rank of 45, far below the traffic rank, meaning that users tend
>to stay on other sites for a longer duration (more page views) than on
>verisign.com.
>
>
>Ben Edelman
>Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>Harvard Law School
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman