Harald and all,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 16:00 28.11.99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Harold and everybody else,
> >
> > It was suggested some time ago after I did yet another review of the
> >ICANN Membership list, that as suggestion very similar was made
> >for ICANN to consider doing this themselves. Nothing ever came of that.
> >I wonder why, as do many of our [INEGroup] members.
>
> That's why I experiment - if nobody has keys to send, one reason why ICANN
> shouldn't bother doing this is verified.
> (So far, this seems to hold)
My argument was converse to you drawn conclusion here Harald. That
being that ICANN should take the lead. Consequently your conclusion,
and experiment, at least from a broad prospective does not logically
follow, hence it is not valid. Now, from MY specific standpoint, in that
I have already done as you suggested to the ICANN membership list
with my Key, your answer or suggestion is thus fulfilled already... >;)
But to expect others to do so without a request from the ICANN
BoD, is not likely to be very well received. So the burden of
proof, in on the ICANN and the DNSO...
Another possible solution to determine this would be to have
a referendum VOTE on the DNSO GA list or a "Voting Booth"
such as the IDNO has to determine this. It might be that several
resolutions could be offered so the electorate has some choices
to consider.
>
>
> And if nobody has signatures on their keys that can be used to build a
> trust network, another reason why ICANN shouldn't bother is verified.
>
> And if neither reason holds water, we can raise the issue again, now with a
> specific keyring to use as argument for our case.
>
> > If I recall
> >the several exchanges I read through on the ICANN Membership
> >list correctly, Kent Crispin, now (DNSO Voting Watchdog) had
> >serious sounding objections to this. I, along with many of our [INEGroup]
> >members also wonder why this is so, and how interesting it is that Kent
> >Crispin is now a (DNSO Voting Watchdog). As is recommended
> >by the IETF, sending keys to non-CA is discouraged.
>
> excuse me.....all the IETF standards for public key cryptography recommend
> sending the public key of the keypair far and wide and publicly; the whole
> idea is that this key does NOT need to be kept secret.
> The IETF standards largely recommend NEVER sending your signature secret
> key ANYWHERE, not even to the CA.
>
> Just to get the message straight.....
Absolutely right, and as I have said, to my knowledge the E-Mail
address you "Created" is not one of those nor is it accepted by
any CA that I know of for ANY keys to be sent to, including ICANN
or the DNSO. If I am mistaken, please provide me the ICANN
or DNSO statement that would enumerate this... >;)
>
>
> Harald
>
> Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
