Demerara writes: "Many sites reporting Iranian video of the downed US sentinel drone. But BBC citing Iranian officials as saying that Iranian forces "electronically hijacked the drone and steered it to the ground." (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16098562 ) If so, that's a gamechanger..."
Demerara writes: "http://www.canyoucrackit.co.uk/ CanYouCrackIt is an array of numbers and a prompt to enter a keyword. The numbers are displayed graphically so you have to manually transcribe (or else do OCR with blue-on-black text) to another application for automated analysis. BBC reporting (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15968878 ) that the people behind the Can You Crack It website are the UK's GCHQ (one of the UK intelligence agencies) and that they're hiring! So, let's see if the Slashdot effect holds...;-)"
Demerara writes: As a member of ISOC, I just got this circular asking for inputs on an important review of IANA functions. I though it would be useful to broaden it to/.
The email reads: "Dear Chapter Delegates and Members,
As you are probably aware, the Government of the United States released its long-awaited Notice of Inquiry on the IANA functions on Friday last week. I'm attaching a pdf version that is easier to read than the Federal Register version on their web site http://www.ntia.doc.gov/>. The deadline for comments is 31 March 2011, so we need to begin developing our response now.
The evolution of the IANA function is an issue of immediate and great interest to all parts of ISOC and our companion organizations. I am seeking views from our membership on this important topic to use as inputs when developing the ISOC response to the NOI. I will also be drawing on the Board discussions of the IANA function that have taken place over the past few years. And finally, I will be coordinating with the other I* organizations. I do not believe we should try to develop a joint response to DoC, but we will want to ensure there are no surprises and, ideally, that there is broad general agreement in what we provide to the decision making process.
It is my believe that the US government is sincerely hoping to get a broad range of responses from the US and elsewhere with concrete suggestions for improvement of the way the IANA function is handled. For example, they are hoping to hear clear statements about what this community wants; e.g., whether and why there should be changes to how the.arpa and/or the.int are treated in the contract, what should be the arrangements for the protocol parameters, etc. If the Internet technical community would like to see the US government make changes, we need to participate in this process to build a record of those recommendations. Thus I encourage you to send me your inputs by end of day Friday, 18 March, 2011.
The NOI is quite detailed, as you will see. It describes the IANA function, and then goes on to ask questions in six areas. To paraphrase, those are:
1/ Whether the interdependent technical functions performed under the IANA should continue to be treated as interdependent, or if there should be changes to the present grouping?
2/ Recognizing that other Internet technical organizations' policies (e.g., IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLDs) impact on the performance of the IANA functions, should those be referred to and specified in the IANA functions contract and how?
3/ Should there be changes in the handling of root zone management requests requests pertaining to ccTLDs to address the concerns of some governments and ccTLD operators?
4/ Are the current performance metrics and reporting by the IANA functions operator adequate, or should there be changes?
5/ Are there improvements that should be made to the IANA functions contract to better address the needs of users of the IANA functions? Here the NOI specifically asks if additional information on the performance and administration of the IANA function would make the process more transparent?
6/ Should additional security considerations or enhancements be included in the requirements in the IANA functions contract?
In every case, the NOI requests *specific* information and *specific* suggestions for improvements in the IANA contract. This may be an area where ISOC can contribute to the process in a very positive way. I would especially like to hear from you if you are in some direct way a participant or user of the IANA functions, and if you have any specific experience that indicates a need for improvement or alteration of the contract, and if so, what your specific recommendations would be. That kind of input would improve the depth and credibility of the ISOC response. Of course, as always, you are welcome to make your own direct comments to the process, but I would still very much appreciate hearing about your experiences and views.
While I have not prepared text for the submission, in general, I would like to see ISOC explain how important it is to rely on the native Internet institutions to play appropriate roles where their expertise contributes to the smooth functioning of the Internet overall. Thus it is important that the roles of the IETF, IAB, RIRs, and ccTLD operators be recognized in the system, and that there is a need to build international confidence in how the IANA function is operated and administered. That includes the need to be more open, transparent and thus accountable in the administration of the process, to match the openness and transparency provided by the operator's extensive reporting. I also foresee suggesting that the stability of the IANA functions could be improved under different process than the current redrawing and renewing of relatively short term IANA functions contracts.
I hope that you will read the full NOI, and I look forward to hearing your views on the questions it asks, your experiences, and your recommendations for improvement.
Once again, to make it possible for me to prepare the ISOC input, please send me your inputs before end of day on March 18, 2011 or earlier if possible.
Thank you in advance