Re: Draft response on .Com & .Net issue

[Ted Hardie <hardie@oakthorn.com>]

Ran,
	I don't think anyone is conducting an anti-VeriSign
"witch-hunt".  This document and issue are focused on the operation of
a part of the DNS infrastructure, which changed without prior
discussion in a way that is contrary to the standards.  This is not an
attack on the company, it is a technical review of the operation.  I,
and I believe everyone else involved from the IETF point of view, has
been very careful to keep this as focused on the technical issues as
we can.   Please help us keep that focus. 
	A wider technical review is, of course, one of the options
open to us, and an "IAB Considerations" document would be one way to
do that.  The difficulty would be getting a broader technical review
published in a timely fashion, especially since this topic has a
scope-creep index that is very, very high.  I would personally try to
limit that by focusing the IAB Consideration on issues where the
infrastructure operators' behavior caused concern (as, for example,
.nu and possibly .museum).
	It would also, as you note below, be possible to focus on
internationalization issues.  As I've said before, I think it will be
much better to write a "this is the way it works" doc than a
considerations doc on the various ways people have put out there that
don't work.  In any case, Leslie has called for other opinions on
this, and I look forward to hearing those as we move forward.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie






> My suggestion was very different than Ted has outlined in the text you
> quoted.  My suggestion was that the IAB put forth a document expressing
> IAB concerns about DNS operational issues in an "IAB Considerations"
> document -- instead of publishing an anti-Verisign witchhunt document
> as has been proposed by others.  

>The document I propose would 
> specifically
> be responsive to the request from ICANN, but, rather than being a
> witch-hunt focused on Verisign, would also mention some other 
> DNS-related
> issues (e.g. Microsoft's non-standard internationalised URL/resolver 
> stuff).
> It need not be comprehensive about all concerns that anyone in the world
> has, but should cover several current concerns in order to be more 
> balanced
> than the focused anti-VeriSign document that others have outlined here.



> 
> > I'll leave aside the 3rd thing
> > Ted mentions below, because I have not yet heard a proposal for
> > it that would make it within the IAB's scope.
> 
> To Leslie's comment, the proposal in my paragraph above is just
> as obviously within the IAB charter and scope as any other IAB
> Considerations document has ever been.  There is nothing new, weird,
> or different in this proposal.  I'm just saying that we ought
> not write up a document attacking a single firm when there are
> multiple firms that are engaging in active behaviours that have
> adverse impact on the DNS.  (and no, I have no financial interest
> or love for Verisign; I do have interest in IAB being even-handed
> to all parties).
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
>