[governance] Internet Governance Debate (Silence and Fatigue)

[McTim]

Hello Brenden,

On 4/24/07, Brenden Kuerbis < bnkuerbi at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear McTim,
>
> To be honest, I was suprised to see someone who claims knowledge from
> allegedly participating in the "right" lists express such an opinion.
>


Why? You see politics, I see protocol development and implementation.
Perhaps this is because you are political scientists? I don't blame you,
when I worked in DC, I subscribed to the 'everything is political" view as
well.  After a while, I grew to dislike the tint of those particular specs.


One does not have to dig very deep in the relevant IETF Working Group lists
> (Namedroppers, DNSOPS, and other pre 2001 non-IETF lists) to find
> evidence that DNSSEC, and particularly control over signing the root, is
> intensely political and could continue to hold up deployment of the
> technology.
>

Well it's not just root-signing that is holding up deployment, it's bad
design choices along the way that is just as culpable.

Should we have a signed rootzone? yes.  Who should sign it? the rootzone
admin of course (NSTLD at VERISIGN-GRS.COM).

I don't particularly care who signs the ZSK.  I'm sure you will tell us all
who should in due course.


  In fact, one of the central actors in the technical community shaping the
> DNS (Paul Vixie) just said as much (
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dnsext/10235/focus=10237).
>


He said the word politics, true.  But if you read that mail and the rest of
the thread, or have been on the list for a long time (as I was before it got
deadly boring), you'd know that who/how root-signing was to be done is
outside IETF purview.  I don't ever recall it being tackled on that list or
DNSOPS (to which I am still subbed).

So please, do this list a favor
>


Why would it be doing the list a favor to point out that you are trying to
make a mountain out of a molehill?


, and stop trying to discredit research on this issue.
>

research or opinion? It's a blog man, you've "researched" the history and
described the protocol.  I am still waiting for the meat.

It's a fix to a narrow set of specifc well-known vulnerabilities. The sky is
not falling.  I'm trying to point this out, not discredit you.


  If you want to debate the issue please join it constructively - here, or
> on our blog < http://blog.internetgovernance.org>,
>


I am waiting for you to complete your thoughts before I offer feedback
there.


or at the upcoming symposium on Internet governance and security
<http://internetgovernance.org/events.html#Symposium_051707 > - rather
> than make misguided attempts to stiffle it.
>

I am not trying to stifle it, only to add a different perspective.
Remember,  It's only "misguided" in your head, not in mine.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070425/14a8223f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070425/14a8223f/attachment.txt>