Subject: Re: [dnsext] Moving policy data away from DNS

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:07:28 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Andrew and all,

  This approach has been in use in some sectors for some
time before publicsuffix.org was concieved and IMO remains
a good idea.  What bothers me a bit is that Chromium/Google 
Chrome still has third party cookies which seems to me to
be counter productive.  Given that Chromium/Google Chrome 
is open source though that code can/should be removed or replaced
as is appropriate.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Dec 23, 2010 8:54 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] Moving policy data away from DNS
>
>On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:20:34PM +0000, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>>  are you really sure you want to engage in a dialogue with icann policy stakeholders?
>> (at least to find out what they want?)
>
>Given our notable lack of success in learning anything at all about
>what the presumed policy stakeholders think about the "alias" issue, I
>don't believe for a New York minute that we're going to be successfun
>in engaging in dialogue.
>
>But it doesn't matter.  If there's a mechanism with a pointer to a
>repository that then has some way to express various policy things,
>then anyone can express their policies in there.  If there are ICANN
>policy stakeholders who then want to express such a policy, they can
>either write the policy in keeping with whatever mechansism we come up
>with or they can hire someone(s) from these parts to do that work for
>them.
>
>FWIW, what originally made me think along these lines was the
>historical confluence of the IDNA2008 start up and the deployment of
>publicsuffix.org.  The latter struck me -- and still does strike me --
>as a miserable hack that is there to try to solve the problem of legal
>boundaries around DNS administrative boundaries.  The IDNA2008 work
>started from the premise that what was really wanted was localization
>of DNS, only in a fully global context.  Both of these strike me as
>obviously amenable to statements on the part of a zone operator (or
>maybe multiple zone operators) that their policies follow certain sets
>of rules.
>
>Anyway, if people are really interested in this, I will endeavour to
>put together a draft some time in the early months of 2011.  I won't
>have time for sure until mid-Jan anyway, so if someone else wants to
>go ahead & start writing, don't let me stop you!
>
>A
>
>-- 
>Andrew Sullivan
>[email-masked]
>Shinkuro, Inc.
>_______________________________________________
>dnsext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

Kindest regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
Network security Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security,
IT/information security.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 
E-Mail [email-masked]
Phone: 214-244-4827