Re: [ALSC-Forum] National Infrastructure protection Centre

[Jeff Williams]

Joanna and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  I think you are reading too much into this...

  Reason:  Diversification or the DNS and the IP registry functions as
           well as the Root Server structure is and essential part of
           providing better security and functionality in cases of 
           catastrophe, I.E. Multiple or shared root structure...  
           This seems to be something that for big business interests    
           alone is not desired by them, but hampers the long ongoing 
           effort of the private sector to provide for the stability 
           that a shared or multi-root and registry structure would 
           obviously provide.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> I would be most interested to know what relationship, if any, the ALSC has
> had with the US National Infrastructure Protection Centre (NIPC)
> <http://www.nipc.gov>, either directly, or indirectly through an ISAC
> (private sector Information and Analysis Centre)?
>
> According to the NIPC website ...." Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)
> 63, no later than 2003 the United States shall have achieved and shall
> maintain the ability to protect our nation's critical infrastructures from
> acts that would significantly diminish the abilities of:
>
> the federal government to perform essential national security missions and
> to ensure the general public and safety; state and local governments to
> maintain order and to deliver minimum essential public services; the private
> sector to ensure the orderly functioning of the economy and the delivery of
> essential telecommunications, energy, financial, and transportation
> services; and any interruptions or manipulations of these critical functions
> must be brief, infrequent, manageable, geographically isolated, and
> minimally detrimental to the welfare of the United States."
>
> It could be argued that increased public participation in control of the DNS
> through direct At large membership could have an adverse effect on meeting
> NIPC objectives to ensure orderly functioning of the internet, and in turn,
> the economy, hence discreet pressure could have been brought to bear upon
> ICANN in the national interests of the USA, by the intelligence community,
> to reduce the ability of the public to influence policy decisions. This
> would be one reason to now be unpicking the At Large committment without
> giving any solid reasons. Does this make sense, or am I reading too much
> into this?
>
> Regards,
> Joanna

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208