About this blog…

I am employed by Netnod as head of engineering, research and development and am among other things chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee at ICANN. You can find CV and photos of me at this page.

As I wear so many hats, I find it being necessary to somewhere express my personal view on things. This is the location where that happens. Postings on this blog, or at Facebook, Twitter etc, falls under this policy.

The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of Netnod or any other of the organisations I have connections to.

Is this only sloppy wording by ICANN?

So I wrote earlier that I though it was good stuff when ICANN released a paper on DNS Security. Yes, I think it was good this paper was released, and yes it points out correctly how important DNSSEC is.

But, now when reading it in detail, I find two things that troubles me. And it has to do with management of .ARPA. A top level domain that is used for infrastructural purposes. Like IP-addresses and E.164 numbers.

The first paragraph that I have some issues with is this:

Production deployment of DNSSEC-signing of .ARPA, and a possible ICANN
role in DNSSEC-signing of the root zone will involve planning with and
approval by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the IANA functions

IAB has in this correspondance with IANA requested some domains be signed, among them .ARPA, but here ICANN states that this requires approval by US Government.

Second paragraph that I have issues with is this:

13. With respect to .ARPA,  staff have completed development work and
are currently developing an operational plan for DNSSEC deployment which
includes, among other elements, selection of secondary DNS providers
with specific service level agreements.

Given the long history of debates on what should go, and what should not go in contracts with ICANN, this makes me a bit more nervous than what it calms me down. It is good that people agree on how DNS is to be run, but if contracts and agreements are too focused to the legal situation in one legislation (i.e. the USA), then I think the process is a failure. ICANN is an international organisation, although based (like any organisation) under one jurisdiction. It must because of this work very hard, harder than today I think, in ensuring it is possible for organisations from all over the world, on equal terms, can participate. Just the fact there has been an ongoing discussion whether that is the case for the agreements accredited registrars have to go through make me rise my eye brows for this paragraph.

You can see what view the IAB has on the technical parameters of IANA here in some correspondence with DoC related to the ICANN/DoC Joint Project Agreement, and the question now is of course what the situation is in reality. And what will happen next.

Comments are closed.