At 11:52 PM 4/25/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>This is fun ;-)
As always, it's unfortunate that you treat it as a game.
>While you are busy re-writing history,
>why don't you explain this interesting
>story from the Wall Street Journal.
And, of course, it is not in the least surprising that you choose to
respond to a detailed analysis by a) making a blanket dismissal, and b)
pointing elsewhere.
Bob-and-weave deception has been a tool in trade for those trying to create
a pattern of delays through misinformation.
At 12:06 AM 4/26/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> crocker squirting clouds of ink to cover up and distort
Thank you for the respectful and professional tone. It aids your cause
enormously.
> >Fact error 3 and 4: The IAHC committee operated under the auspices of IANA
> >and ISOC. IANA had responsibility for DNS operations from its inception,
> >more than 10 years earlier, and ISOC provides the legal base for IETF
> >standards work.
>
>yeah but ISOC has not yet done this for ten years and all hands were not
>entirely comfortable with its doing it
sigh. I should have known that totally precise language was going to be
needed, since anything less gives an opportunity to take
exception. Indeed, ISOC has not existed for 10 years; I'm not sure but it
is around 7 or 8, I think.
Gosh. That really alters the nature of the distortions I was responding to
a lot, doesn't it?
> >>has simply rushed in to fill the power vacuum on the Internet, which has,
> >>since inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and community.
> >
> >Fact error 5: I've no idea what "power vacuum" is being cited. The
> >committee operated under the authority of an existing 'power' structure and
> >at all times acknowledged that structure's authority, claiming none for
> >itself, except as was delegated to it.
> >
> >I suppose that Brock might find a way to clarify his statement to make the
> >'fact' at least plausible.
>
>i'll tell you exactly what....the power vacuum was that the IANA powers had
>never been institutionalized....but they were carried around on the
>shoulders of jon postel whom some apparently thought immortal......
>certainmly no one DARED criticize jon for not sharing some of his power or
>even doing much thinking about the issue until it was too late
"institutionalized"? not entirely sure what that means, since the
negotiations between the IESG and IANA sure looked institutional (i.e.,
formal and process oriented) to me when I was an area director.
And that is the point: To those developing and operating the Internet,
things were plenty institutionalized. To those outside it didn't. Yes,
that permitted a wedge for politicians to use to destabilize IANA's
otherwise solid position.
> >>This cabal intends to control how and when new domain names will be added
> >>to the current list of .com, .org, .edu, .gov and .mil, and who gets the
> >>rights to act as a registry of those domain names.
> >
> >Fact error 6: A small point, but it shows the continuing pattern of
> >carelessness. .gov and .mil were not part of this topic.
>
>wrong....you misread what meeks writes.....gov and mil were in the name
>servers....he has what will be ADDED to the collection of names in the
>servers
IN that case, he left out the 100+ country code TLDs, and a few
others. Again, the gTLD effort pertained only to a subset of top-level
domain names, and that includes a subset of NEW names.
> >Fact error 7: The term cabal is an example of hyperbole that mostly shows
> >a failure to understand the process which took place.
>
>an error of hyperbole at best...fact no and one that many who are not apart
>of the MOUvement as you who have been its most faithful footsoldier for so
>long would willingly from their point of view agree....
>
>the MOUvement was a clique, a small group with a pledge....to play you had
>to sign the pledge....a grand total of three major american corps signed
>the pledge...
You say hyperbole error. I said hyperbole error. Sonds like we agree.
But, no, we can't have that, so...
Then you support the inflammatory term cabal by using another one,
clique. I don't have a dictionary around, but I suspect that the word is
also applied incorrectly. Most participants in the IAHC had never worked
together before and many had never met before. All were appointed by
different organizations and needed to have the support of those
organizations. And it got that, in particular, from the signing by IANA
and ISOC and INTA and WIPO and ITU (and please don't nit-pick about the
nature of the ITU signing.) Along with 220 additional organizations around
the word.
That hardly counts as a "clique".
>Fact error 8: Only one closed meeting was held in Geneva. The other was
> >open. Another closed meeting was in San Jose and another in
> >D.C. Obviously, that isn't the sort of error to worry about.
> >
> >The serious error is the failure to cite the extensive open discussions
> >held online during the entire process and the modifications to the proposal
> >that came directly from that process.
>
>of horseshit....yeah just like ican holds extensive open discussions with
>all their bullshit open committees after the power has been divided up in
>the smoke filled room with esther, mike and joe
sounds like the sour grapes of someone who is unhappy they aren't in that
room, particularly since it is so dismissive of the very extensive public
discussions that were held.
Of course, participation in the style that you are using to respond to me
is rarely constructive...
> >>The group set up a U.N.-style international tribunal that operates under
> >
> >Fact error 9: Perhaps there is a definition of "U.N.-style international
> >tribunal" that can be made to fit the POC/CORE structure that was
> >developed, but I doubt it. At the least, the structure was not "between
> >nations" and that is what "international" means. In other words, it was
> >quite pointedly not a treaty organization.
> >
>
>wrong again as tony rutkowskii has pointed out to you time and time again,
>but as any true believer you will never get it dave
Tony has made many false assertions of technical (and legal) fact, like
this. He never responds to serious challenges of his assertions, instead
choosing to call such challenges "attacks". Further, his assessments
always run directly contrary to the opinions of other expert legal counsel
that I and others talk with. In fact, it is extremely rare to find a
lawyer that agrees with him.
Nonetheless, I said that he is free to provide substantive explanation for
the claim.
Rather than attack me why don't you do a little reportorial digging and
produce that substance for his claim?
> >>the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union, which has
> >
> >Fact error 10: Again, we could probably find that the usage of "auspices"
> >has some sort of plausible application, but it would only be a
> >technicality. The ITU was very much a secondary issue to the development
> >and implementation of the POC/CORE structure. Had the ITU chosen to be
> >uninvolved, it would not have affected any of the significant details one
> >bit, except that we would have held the two Geneva meetings elsewhere, I
> >suppose.
>
>yeah sure dave....itu just provided a mail box...nothing more
>guess that is why the secretray of ste got involved just to put ITU out of
>the mailbox business
She didn't. You continue to ignore what precisely took place from the U.S.
government and what precisely took place afterwards.
To repeat: The U.S. government called for and participated in an ITU
member review. The member review UNANIMOUSLY supported the work that had
been done. The U.S. was part of the UNANIMOUS support.
Pesky things, facts. They really do get in the way of a good conspiracy
theory.
> >>But the group has garnered no consensus in the Internet community. During a
> >
> >Fact error 11: As cited above, quite a few organizations formally
> >supported this activity. In fact, the opponents were very few in number,
> >but very damn effective at lobbying the White House.
> >
>
>less see vint cerf got MCI to sign
>
>mike odell brought UUNET on boar d and strong rumor had it that MCI
>threatened DEC with cessation of all internet business if it didn't sign
>....those were the three american corporations among the fortune 500 who
>signed
Let's see. I said that roughly 220 organizations signed and you do a bit
of rumor-mongering about two or three of them. Yes, that certainly does
show a lack of support, Gordon...
> >>Anticipating the end of that monopoly, two influential groups decided that
> >
> >Fact error 12: The effort was to CREATE the end of the monopoly, not
> >anticipate it. The difference is significant.
> >
>
>wronmg.....it has always been about putting its opposing monopoly in place
NSI is an unregulated, for-profit monopoly. CORE is a highly regulated,
not-for-profit. Those are not usually called monopolies, but in any event,
the latter stages of discussion included the realization that multiple
core-like groups were not unreasonable.
Pesky things, facts...
> >>The IANA operates under a loose charter from the U.S. government to act as
> >
> >Fact error 13: Funding was from the US government; authority was from the
> >Internet technical and operations community.
>
>word of mouth solely
Well mostly, but even that isn't entirely true, since there is a bit of
formal text, concerning its relationship with the IAB, as well as long
history of "formal" interactions with the IETF.
But, gosh, no there is no congressional record of those interactions.
> >>These two groups put together the Internet International Ad Hoc Committee,
> >>which hunkered down for eight weeks with members of the ITU and World
> >>Intellectual Property Organization and hammered out the memo of
> >>understanding, a document that essentially sets up a global governance
> >>scheme for the future of the Internet.
> >
> >Fact error 13: Something which explicitly acknowledges the established
> >authority of IANA over it and which is thoroughly constrained to gTLDs (not
> >even all TLDs) is hardly something that is setting up a global governance
> >scheme for the future of the Intenret.
>
>oh bullshit...the daer iana was effectively taking orders from heath hoping
>against hope at the time to get ISOC leability insurance to take cover under
Ahhh. I see that you never really dealt with Postel, Gordon, or you would
not be making such a silly claim. For that matter, it is equally clear
you've never really dealt with Heath...
But then, that's why you make the claim but don't substantiate it.
> >>However, those signatories come with a huge caveat: not a single
> >>government, save Albania, has signed on.
> >
> >Fact error 14: It was originally thought that having governments sign
> >would be a good thing. It was eventually realized that it would create
> >problems as was dropped as a goal.
> >
> dates times places dave.....expost fact excuse here....chjange of plans to
>avoid huge embarrassment...meeks is dead right
I hope folks notice the nature of the dilemma this line of attack
creates. If the original proposal is put forward unchanged, then the
effort is unresponsive. If the proposal is changed according to feedback,
then the changes are really to avoid huge embarrassment, or the like. It
couldn't possibly e that a constructive process took place, intending to,
and making, changes according to public feedback. Nope, can't have that.
Gosh, why would anyone be disinclined to participate in a public exchange
conducted with this sort of attacking as its base? I can't imagine how
anyone interested in constructive dialogue would lose heart, and quickly.
> >>This process has drawn the ire of virtually everyone outside the small
> >>cabal of organizations that had a hand in drafting the document. The memo,
> >
> >Fact error 15: The ire came from only a tiny group. Acceptance was quite
> >broad. Take a look at the list of signatories.
>
>bulllshit 3 of the fortune 500 I am SOOOOOO impressed
Just a tad ethnocentric, Gordon. Rather more dismissive of non-U.S.
countries that is good form, these days. And, speaking of ex post-facto,
on-the-fly revisionism, where DID you get the Fortune 500 as a definitive
criterion?
> >>Alas, none of us appreciated just how effectively a few, well-funded people
> >could lobby the White House, or how ignorant the White House was of actual
> >Internet operations, in spite of considerable effort to educate them.
>
>who was well funded???? you are getting sleazy here dave
NSI is well funded and hired damn good lobbyists. So are a couple of large
multi-national companies (they are part of that much vaunted Fortune 500)
whose lobbyists were quite active in discussions with the White House. I'm
not documenting it further because THEY didn't document it further. Given
the rumor-mongering that Gordon is willing to indulge in, my relying on
second-hand and undocumented, but consistent, reports, hardly counts as
unusual.
> >>"although without the stature of a treaty because it can be signed by
> >>parties other than sovereign states, is clearly an intergovernmental
> >>agreement that possesses significant binding force and effect... as public
> >>international law," writes Tony Rutkowski, former executive director of
> ISOC.
> >
> >Fact error 16: As usual, Tony's pronouncements about such things are just
> >plain wrong. There is nothing about the MoU which is
> >intergovernmental. Tony is welcome to provide details to substantiate his
> >claim, but it is worth noting that he is consistent in failing to do so.
>
>you are a liar....... I have watched him do time and time and time
>again....tell the big lie often enough and people will believe
Right. That's exactly what I said. Tony repeats big lies and people have
come to believe them. Hold those lies up to any detailed analysis and they
don't survive.
So, rather than calling me a liar, Gordon, do the reportorial work that is
supposed to be your job, and obtain all that substantive supporting
information you feel is readily available. Others have tried to get it
from Tony, without success.
> >>Remember, IANA and ISOC have absolutely no formal authority to proceed with
> >
> >Fact error 3 and 4, repeated: Remember, IANA had 10 years of operational
> >precedence and ISOC has formal arrangements with the IETF, under which IANA
> >operates.
> >
> >>this process -- they just decided to "do it."
>
>but no specific authority I suppose because jon postrel was the one person
>in the net who didn't need it
Nicely ignores that a number of additional organizations participated. So
much easier just to make a personal attack.
In any event, "specific authority"? What does that mean? IANA
administered the DNS and always had. It pursued further administration, as
it always had.
> >Fact error 17: The cable called for a review of the process; it formally
> >and explicitly took no stand. The U.S. government repeated that statement
> >of "no position" during the open Geneva meeting.
> >
>
>wrong....did it or did it not >>upbraiding the ITU secretary general for
>calling such a meeting "without
> >>authorization of the member governments."
It questioned it and called for a review. The U.S. government then
participated in the review and the UNANIMOUS vote of support. I notice
that you chose to ignore that portion of my previous note.
So, Gordon, NOT wrong.
> >Fact error 18: Technical experts are in agreement that we don't know what
> >the limit is but that things are probably safe up to about 2,000 top-level
> >domains and very possibly might be unsafe above that.
>
>2000 versus unlimited.....evenb garin only asked for 500 picky picky
The primary technical lesson from the Internet is about "scaling". That
is, attending to questions about growing an effort. It is easy to say that
2,000 is a large number so what the heck, let's just dive in and not
worry. That isn't the way professional operations efforts work.
You also chose to ignore my statement that some experts are concerned about
operational impact at 500. That doesn't mean it won't work, but that we
need to approach it carefully.
It is always easy to conduct a paper exercise that results in a feeling of
comfort with charging ahead without concern for real impact. It is another
thing to take a responsible approach to such changes.
Again, I note that your response ignored that detail I supplied in my
previous note.
> >>Further, "During the challenge period, your Internet address can be
> >>suspended," Sernovitz says. "If you lose a case - you will have lost your
> >>rights forever. There is no appeals process and there is no one to sue."
> >
> >Fact error 25: preemptive suspension (like an injunction) was a very, very
> >constrained tool, not nearly as available as the quotation implies.
>
>an we are supposed to belive hoset abe, uuh I mean honest dave just cause
>he says so.
No, you are supposed to look at source material, carefully, and believe
it. But I suppose that is too much work to do.
> >>The cabal is moving this process forward on a fast track, claiming that
> >>action must be taken quickly to keep the Internet from folding in on
> >>itself. This hurry-up stance goes against the entire culture of the
> >>Internet and is yet another reason why critics claim the memo is simply a
> >>power grab.
> >
> >Fact error 26: The activity came after two years of community discussion
> >and was pursued under pressure from the community that held those
> >discussions. It was perceived as "sudden" only by those who had no
> >awareness of the prior work.
>
>no it was a work by a group that never succeeded in gaining consensus and
>heath recently admited as much
The topic was about urgency and history. Is there some reason you are
ignoring them and choosing to introduce a different line of attack?
> >So, the detailed review suggests that I should have qualified my statement
> >to say that all of the "significant" assertions of fact were incorrect. Of
> >a total of 30, or so, a few minor assertions were correct.
> >
> >That's not a reporting record to be proud of, or even to defend, much less
> >to get offensive about.
>
>spoken like a true ICANN propaganda minister d ave
Spoken like a true creator of personal attacks, Gordon. I didn't think
that was what you claimed to do as a professional, but then that's why I
suggest people read your interviews, not your analyses.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
