[Chapter-delegates] Should DNSSEC be mandatory for all new gTLDs?

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Olivier,

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.

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.

Thank you..


On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> The subject says it all.
> A discussion is currently taking place in ICANN's At-Large community
> whether DNSSEC should be or should not be mandatory for all new gTLDs.
>
> Proponents of the mandatory inclusion say that it will make every new
> gTLD more secure.
> Proponents of the optional inclusion say that it is too costly and
> should be chosen on a case by case basis, if it makes commercial sense.
>
> I'd like to hear the opinions of Internet Society chapters, please. Thanks!
>
> Olivier
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110408/c2f4e898/attachment.htm>