-----Original Message----- From: Robert Gray [mailto:bob(a)brockhurst.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 1 October 2004 7:30 a.m. To: Keith Davidson Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] so ... what is the real reason there is whois anyway?
Keith Davidson wrote:
InternetNZ has already agreed to implement DNSSEC. Waiting for the resolution of the issue of "walking the zone" appears prudent.
The debate about "walking the zone" has centered on whether this is actually an issue, luminaries such as Joe Abley and Bill Manning have suggested that it is not. Others, well DPF, has suggested that it is.
Being the first ccTLD to implement DNSSEC in its current form, purely to satisfy a handful of NZNOGers, is hardly a responsible stewardship of the .nz namespace, imho.
I don't recall any one on this list advocating that .nz should be first, certainly I did not. Andy suggested that an implementation in .geek.nz would be a sensible trial to determine if the societies fears are be groundless or others.
That the society wishes to ignore the views, however well informed, of a "handful of NZNOGers" speaks volumes about the need for industry membership of InternetNZ. Why pay money to be ignored when you can be ignored for free.
I've been trying to wind this thread down, but feel I have to respond to this. This is getting off-topic for which I apologise - I would suggest any future correspondence be by direct e-mail or transfer to another appropriate list. I resent any implication of a view being ignored. I say that as the person who spent many hours in trying to make sure that the desire of the geek.nz proponents for IPv6 and DNSSEC did not undermine geek.nz being approved, and that .nz did make progress on IPv6 and DNSSEC. Hence I have convened meetnmgs of interested parties, and got policy approved by InternetNZ. I have continued to take an active interest in both issues, and was very disappointed when the zone file issue meant that to proceed would have breached an already existing policy. And I am sure there would be outrage if INZ dumped an existing long standing policy, without consultation. There is a world of difference between a view being ignored, and a view not being agreed with. I've been at meetings of the InternetNZ Council where I think I was on the losing side of every vote. That's the nature of things. And the fact that myself and Keith and others actually front up here and debate issues, rather than the old days where decisions were never debated in public, is a good thing IMO. It would in fact be easier to just ignore what people say as Bob suggests, but I think that is a dumb way to operate. In fact several people have told me that I should not have responded to Joe's original e-mail saying he disagreed with the zone file policy, but it is because I wanted to know his views, I streted what has now become a long thread. As someone who is not a technical guru, I treat the views of people like Joe and Andy with a hell of a lot of respect. But that is different from saying I am going to agree with them automatically. And while they do a hell of a lot more than me on DNSSEC, I actually know a hell of a lot more than most people about how spammers and scammers do use zone file data for purposes which are highly undesirable. DPF