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

[Veni Markovski]

Eric,
Speaking only in my personal capacity, your question is not quite correct.
It is not "ICANN" who is "thinking what" (to re-phrase your words.
The question was about a discussion at the At-Large. The way policies
are designed requires... Or, better said - allows anyone to
participate and say what they think. There are ISOC chapters, which
are engaged in the ICANN processes - directly, via At-Large, etc.
So, let's just make sure we don't allow the common mistake of thinking
that someone at ICANN is creating these rules and imposes them on the
Internet community.

It is difficult to put mandatory requirements, even if some believe
cost is bearable, when we speak for example of some small, non-profit,
which wantsa a gTLD.

I'm not taking any positions on the subject, just reminding you all
the way ICANN works is different from the way many other organizations
do. There's a long process for every policy (shall I remind you that
the Fast Track IDN ccTLD took about, what - 5 years?).


Best,
Veni
http://www.veni.com
(via blackberry)


On 4/8/11, Eric Burger <eburger at standardstrack.com> wrote:
> (Speaking as an individual member of ISOC-DC, not as a board member)
>
> WHAT IS ICANN THINKING???? How is it possible to even CONSIDER a new TLD, of
> any kind, that does NOT provide DNSSEC?
>
> The cost argument is laughable. It is true there are real costs of
> converting and signing legacy DNS data bases. However, we are talking about
> new domains. No legacy issue.
>
> I would offer that under a certain threshold, and I am only guessing here
> but I would offer it is around 5,000,000 registrations, the fact that DNSSEC
> uses more resources than non-DNSSEC is irrelevant. So you will need a pair
> of USD 2,000 servers instead of a pair USD 1,000 laptops to run your domain?
> COME ON! If that difference in cost makes a material impact to the business
> model, how could one have possibly come up with the USD 250,000 required to
> make a successful bid for a new gTLD?
>
> IMHO, the only domain that should get a waiver for mandatory DNSSEC
> deployment is .phish
>
> --
> - Eric
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Igor Mkrtumyan wrote:
>
>> We think it should be mandatory. The time scale might be flexible.
>> Igor Mkrtumyan
>> ISOC AM
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ
>> Crepin-Leblond
>> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:07 AM
>> To: Chapter Delegates
>> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Should DNSSEC be mandatory for all new gTLDs?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device