Fwd: WHEN are CERF & CROCKER going to be Accountable...?

The first question....NOT answered...was....
...
WHEN are CERF & CROCKER going to be Accountable...?
...
with respect to "you are also free to build your own root"
...
Why would anyone "build a root" in this day and age. That is so 1980s DNS.
Peer-2-Peer DNS & Currency technology has clearly demonstrated the
superior architecture of NON Centralized IANA ICANN etc.
...
As for...."You will soon have many more choices of TLD."
...Jon Postel said that in 1998...



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vint Cerf <vint(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
Date: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: WHEN are CERF & CROCKER going to be Accountable...?
To: Techno CAT <mars(_dot_)techno(_dot_)cat(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com>, Fadi Chehadé
<fadi(_dot_)chehade(_at_)icann(_dot_)org>, kathy brown 
<brown(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>, Brian E
Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, Miles Fidelman
<mfidelman(_at_)meetinghouse(_dot_)net>


nonsense.

it is easy and cheap to get a domain name at second level or below.
You will soon have many more choices of TLD.
The reason people use the large providers is convenience of not having
to run your own servers.

you are also free to build your own root if you want and try to get
people to use it.

vint



On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Techno CAT 
<mars(_dot_)techno(_dot_)cat(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:


"all of this actually unrelated to DMARC"

Really ? Artificial Scarcity IANA DNS policies and Toy Protocols have
pushed people away from the simple models where people and
domains were closer to 1 to 1. People were forced into mass
service providers such as Yahoo. They then want to take their
email "handles" and use them other places. They did that and now
are not encouraged to do that.....this ALL can be traced to the
STONEWALLING of DNS by POSTEL CERF and  CROCKER.....

WHEN are CERF & CROCKER going to be Accountable for THEIR #ICANN #IANA
#ARIN #ISOC #IETF Eco.System?
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014-April/000476.html …
#NTIA #DOJ #FTC

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014-April/000476.html

[IANAtransition] [IANAxfer] DMARC snafu as a wake-up call

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Sun Apr 13 11:54:39 UTC 2014

Previous message: [IANAtransition] [IANAxfer] DMARC snafu as a wake-up call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

________________________________

Steve's analysis strikes me as the correct one.

see www.dmarc.org

v



On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

Apparently I can't post to this list from this email address.  I'm not
sure why, but the other readers of this list will have to depend on your
inclusion of my message in your reply.  This also means you'll have the
last word :)

The liability argument you're suggesting is a very slippery slope.  The
IANA group does do some checking before changes are made to the entries in
the root zone for top level domains, but for general protocol parameter
entries I don't believe they do more than make sure entries are distinct.
 If expert judgment is needed for a particular protocol parameter registry,
that's arranged in advance when the registry is defined by the IETF.

But all of this actually unrelated to DMARC.  Anyone can publish whatever
they want in his own portion of the DNS tree, and anyone is free to depend
upon or ignore what's published.  The DMARC conventions come out of the
email community.  There just isn't any direct connection to ICANN or IANA.
 Thus, even if the IANA team had wanted to intercede, they couldn't have.
 They simply aren't in that loop.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at 
meetinghouse.net>

wrote:


Steve,

Long time, no see.

In theory, what you say is true.  But... I wouldn't be so cavalier as to

assume no liability.  "I was following orders" has never been valid
defense, for anything.  And standards bodies have been held liable for
failing to exercise a "duty of care."  Re. email, IANA, and by extension
ICANN, does handle various SMTP-extension related stuff.


Still - a bit offtrack from the transition.

Miles

Steve Crocker wrote:

Miles,

IANA publishes what it's told to publish.  Editorial control lies

elsewhere.  The definition of DNS and how it's to be used is done within
the IETF.  Allocation of top level domains is done within ICANN but IANA's
role is to execute the decisions that are made in the other parts of ICANN.


The current DMARC problem isn't really even a DNS problem except that

DNS is used to publish DMARC information.  The current DMARC problem is,
well, a DMARC problem.  The community that defined, implemented and depend
upon DMARC are the ones who need to sort this out.  That's the email
community.  ICANN does not play a role here.


Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2014, at 7:47 PM, Miles Fidelman <

mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:


Sorry - I mentioned it as a cautionary tale, and the thread seems to

have exploded.  But... in thinking about it, I will say it sure does seem
like an IANA/ICANN related issue - given that the DNS system is the vehicle
that propagates DMARCS policies.


Miles

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Miles,

I understand that you are very seriously inconvenienced by this.
I just think you're reading it wrong from the point of view
of "IANA transition".

On 13/04/2014 10:50, Miles Fidelman wrote:
...
After all, what's really causing this DMARC
debacle is precisely the publication of a DNS record containing
"p=reject" by Yahoo, multiple large players honoring that record,

It's inside a TXT record as I understand it. ICANN has absolutely
nothing to do with TXT records. The DMARC draft actually says it
quite well:

  "DMARC assumes that entities who send messages with their domains in
   the RFC5322.From field and wish to protect those messages with

DMARC

   can

   1.  Control DNS entries for the domains to be protected, including
       adding arbitrary new subdomains with TXT records...."

Therefore, control lies entirely with the domain's controller, Yahoo
in this case, according to the DMARC non-standard itself.

Yahoo has chosen to use a TXT record that is described in an

unapproved

draft (that seems unlikely ever to be approved except as an

independent

publication) using a format not assigned by IANA (so far).

That's an issue of Yahoo governance.

denying delivery to a huge number of legitimate emails - effectively

DDoS attack, effected through the DNS system, with no recourse.  DNS

is

under IANA and ICANN purvue.

The names in the root zone are under ICANN purvue and the contents
of the various registries are under IANA stewardship.  But there it
ends. Neither of them is responsible for network operations.

   Brian

To me, that makes it a governance issue.

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

_______________________________________________
IANAxfer mailing list
IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140413/cb797e99/attachment-0001.html>





-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r