>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Ken Freed
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 13 12:56:04 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from wren.prod.itd.earthlink.net (wren.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>[207.217.121.64])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D49EF002
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:56:03 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from [38.31.7.92] (ip208.denver23.co.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.5.208])
> by wren.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14709
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-Id: <v03110702b402cfd932dc@[38.31.7.92]>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <v03110702b3fd8faa7638@[38.31.5.21]>
> <v03110702b3fe3ce32947@[38.31.4.131]>
> <v0311070cb3fe8002eea2@[38.31.4.175]>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:45:09 -0600
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
>
>Dear Werner and cohorts --
>
>I've received lots of emails disagreeing with your views,
>including Gabe Baptista, who was in a position to know.
>As for whether or not the Internet's traffic was "disrupted,"
>my best research says it was, temporarily, in a small way,
>but that the impact was far more political that electronic.
>Go research the DNS listserv archives for the evidence.
>So, baring documentation to the contrary, I'll stick with
>my last rewrite (a bit different than was posted here)
>http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld-htm
>
>But journalistic accuracy is not really your goal, is it?
>
>Your purpose is distracting us with side issues,
>picking apart one word out of a larger work as an
>excuse for avoiding the hard questions I've raised.
>This is a thin strategy, and we can see through it.
>
>Why don't you address my key ICANN recommendations
>instead? Should ICANN be abandoned? Is it right for the
>USG to privatize the Internet without any public vote? And
>should we have a moratorium on new commercial TLDs?
>Also, what about a global Internet Constitution, yea or nay?
>http://www.media-visions.com/icann-recommendations.htm
>
>Please talk about the present and the future of our network.
>We will be grateful to hear your thinking on the real issues.
>
>Ken Freed
>Media Visions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Ken,
>>
>>It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any
>>traffic.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Werner
>>
>>
>>Ken Freed wrote:
>>>
>>> Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy?
>>>
>>> "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at
>>> IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for
>>> copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially
>>> disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root
>>> server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The
>>> combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed
>>> the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board."
>>>
>>> Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and
>>> whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote?
>>> -- ken
>>>
>>> >Ken,
>>> >
>>> >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from
>>> >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
>>> >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
>>> >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
>>> >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his
>>> >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of
>>> >> international protests and Postel's action effectively
>>> >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board."
>>> >
>>> >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not
>>> >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not.
>>> >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between
>>> >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path
>>> >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers.
>>> >
>>> >Regards,
>>> >
>>> >Werner
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch
>>> >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
>>
>>--
>>Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch
>>Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
>
>
>
>
>
--
"So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
