Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?

[gnulinux () pacinfo com]

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.
> >
> >
> > 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.