Hi Brenden, Good catch with this report. I just read it and here are my observations: - The report contents is basically sound, even when reading it 18 months after publication. - Despite your attention to the (correctly identified) political barriers to DNSSEC adoption at the DNS core, this is only a very small portion of the report contents. - This is clearly a USG-centric consulting assignment, but it is at arm's length with the DOC relationship with ICANN. I.e. the report deals mainly with the DHS role, NIST involvement, TLD operations for .gov, .us, .mil. So please, don't take this report as an argument for scepticism about actual Internet governance by the USG -- if anything, the report hints that DOC decisions would be actually free from DHS interference. - If USG-sponsored organizations contribued in the DNSSEC protocol development, there isn't any slightest clue (in the report, in the RFC contents, or elsewhere) that such contributions impaired the technical merits of the protocol. So far, the only agreed-upon rationale for scepticism about the USG Internet governance with respect to DNS is that “the United States [...] will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” ( http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/USDNSprinciples_06302005.htm ) - Thierry Moreau