<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>Where ICANN is run by the marketing people and not anymore the users... (cf WHOIS review)<br><br>DNSSEC must be mandatory as well as IPv6.<br><br>What could be done, is not to make it mandatory before say end of 2012. Verisign, Affilias, ...(the back-end operators that 80% of new gTLDs will use) have just started to roll it out, and I bet they'd like to charge a premium for that feature, and they may not feel yet fully confident to roll it out as a standard feature.<br><br>So make it mandatory, but give a bit of time for new gTLDs to roll it out.<br><span><br><span name="x"></span><div><div><div>Franck Martin<br><a href="http://www.avonsys.com/" mce_href="http://www.avonsys.com/">http://www.avonsys.com/</a><br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys" mce_href="http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys">http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys" mce_href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys">http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys</a><br>twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/FranckMartin" mce_href="http://twitter.com/FranckMartin">FranckMartin</a> <a href="http://twitter.com/avonsys" mce_href="http://twitter.com/avonsys">Avonsys</a><br><br>Check your domain reputation: <a href="http://gurl.im/b69d4o" mce_href="http://gurl.im/b69d4o">http://gurl.im/b69d4o</a><br>Application Monitoring: <a href="http://gurl.im/4d39Gu" mce_href="http://gurl.im/4d39Gu">http://gurl.im/4d39Gu</a><br></div></div></div><span name="x"></span><br></span><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, 8 April, 2011 11:42:13 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Chapter-delegates] Should DNSSEC be mandatory for all new gTLDs?<br><br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><div>Dear Olivier,</div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div>This debate ought to separate the need for DNSSEC from the cost considerations. The focus of the initial discussions need to be on the significance and effectiveness (of DNSSEC as a Security process). With cost considerations separated for later, I would seek to include ccTLDs and IDNs within the scope, if not for mandated implementation, at least for a strong recommendation from ICANN.</font><div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif">Cost of DNSSEC implementation could come down as DNSSEC becomes more widely adopted. If it is still too expensive for new gTLDs, ICANN could consider creating a non-profit DNSSEC consultancy wing, possibly with help from ISOC with consultants paid by ICANN / ISOC with possible funding from International Governments to offer PART of the services related to DNSSEC implementation free to those new gTLDs that may not have attained a comfortable revenue stream.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif">Thank you..</font></div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" mce_href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" mce_style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The subject says it all.<br>
A discussion is currently taking place in ICANN's At-Large community<br>
whether DNSSEC should be or should not be mandatory for all new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
Proponents of the mandatory inclusion say that it will make every new<br>
gTLD more secure.<br>
Proponents of the optional inclusion say that it is too costly and<br>
should be chosen on a case by case basis, if it makes commercial sense.<br>
<br>
I'd like to hear the opinions of Internet Society chapters, please. Thanks!<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD<br>
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" mce_href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" target="_blank">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org" mce_href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org" target="_blank">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" mce_href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org<br>https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates<br></div></body></html>