Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
+1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker. Gene Gaines On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.comwrote: And let us imagine that the IETF was bullied into making a second statement as Mr Bennett demands, how would he use it? Would it be used in a good faith effort to clarify or would it be used to claim that the IETF had repudiated its earlier claim that it does not take sides in this dispute and that it has endorsed the position Mr Bennett is paid to promote. While Mr Bennett is careful to keep saying 'we' it is a very long time since he was an active participant here. The organization that he works for, the ITIF is a DC thunk tank. Like all thunk tanks it exists to cause people to accept the thinking that has already been thunk for them by the people paying their bills under the guise of being an objective research organization. It is one thing to engage in these hair-splitting discussions and having people bandy about the word 'truthful' as if it was personal property etc. if they are made in good faith. But the tactics used go way beyond what is acceptable for a paid advocate for a particular position. In this case, his activity here appears to me to be entirely counter-productive. All he is doing is to draw more attention to a claim that the ATT policy office would almost certainly wish was forgotten as quickly as possible. On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote: On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Richard Bennett wrote: You can read ATT's letter to the FCC here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396 OK, I find the section heading, Paid Prioritization Expressly Contemplated by the IETF to be highly misleading. I think you'll find that the phrases you quote below are not in the letter, so it's not clear that your comments are in any way relevant to the issue under discussion, Ted. We don't know what ATT said to the reporter, do we? And what we seem to be arguing about is a press release, not a formal submission to the FCC stating an official position of the IETF (something which the IETF generally doesn't do). In any case, I still don't think we need to do anything, and if it's OK for you to state wants, I'll state a want. I want you to drop this. :-) -- Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Local Beijing people response - RE: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Hui Deng's statement (below) is the most important I have read on the issue of a meeting in China. Re-read the Tao. The IETF is about building, developing, contributing to an Internet available to all. It is people, not governments. If you, personally, are afraid of China, I recommend you go there and hold out your hand. I cannot think of a more excellent challenge to the IETF at this time than to meet in China, and meet 1,000 new friends. And to make 1,000 new friends for the IETF and for the continuation of a cooperative, open development of the Internet. Gene Gaines On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@hotmail.com wrote: excuse me for previous sending wrong email. Hello, all I have to say something before the deadline of this survey. To be honest, I am not the hoster, but live in Beijing, China for the long time, and would like to clarify several different concerns about China and Beijing. 1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 in China, they have been discussed for example lots of security or privacy stuff such as in 3GPP SA3, I haven't see any problem. 2) Olympic game has been here, most of people think that it was a sucess. 3) IETF is doing technical stuff, I don't see why we need to be involved in political stuff. 4) China is one of the major member of United Nations, anyhow, come here and see what she really looks like, other than imagine remotely is a better way to do it. Thanks for your consideration. -Hui From: dean.wil...@softarmor.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:04 -0500 CC: i...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org On Sep 28, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Folks, A number of people have indicated that they believe the draft contract language is standard, and required by the government. It occurs to me that we should try to obtain copies of the exact language used for meetings by other groups like ours. If indeed the language is identical, that probably means something useful. If our draft language is different, that also probably means something useful. Does anyone have access to copies of agreements for other meetings? As the IETF's liaison manager to OMA, and a former member of the OMA board of directors, I checked with OMA's management team, providing them the proposed text from our contract. They have held several large meetings as well as smaller interop events in China in the past. Their general manager does not recall having signed anything as unforgiving as the proposed contract, and suggested that we try to negotiate the terms, especially the financial damages clause, and that we attempt to restrict the right to terminate to just the affected session, not the entire multi-working-group IETF meeting. Clearly the government has the power to terminate whatever they want whenever they want, but OMA management seemed to think that the proposed contract was more generous to the venue than government rules might require. OMA management did caution us to be careful about visas and be prepared for some of our attendees to show up with missing or wrong visas and need help at the time of arrival, and that we may have visa difficulty with attendees from Taiwan. They also had some trouble with equipment in customs, including power supplies and WiFi base stations. Apparently some equipment was disassembled by customs inspectors and required in the field repair with solder and scavenged parts, so we should be prepared to re-assemble things that weren't meant to come apart. Their technical support firm is based in France and ended up shipping some equipment in and out via the French embassy due to transport difficulties. OMA management did note that they consider their meetings in China to have been very successful, and that they had and expected no difficulty with their technical discussions falling afoul of local regulations. OMA, as has been previously pointed out, has considered DRM specification a central piece of their specification family in the past, and encountered no difficulties talking about DRM in China. -- Dean -- check out the rest of the Windows Live™. More than mail–Windows Live™ goes way beyond your inbox. More than messageshttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF
Marshall, excellent statement for the IAOC. May I recommend that the IETF sit down with representatives of the People's Republic of China and the U.S. government and discuss concerns with meetings in both countries -- the issue of censorship in China and arbitrary visa problems in the U.S. Not to open Internet-related issues, only to establish procedures and agreements that will permit the IETF to meet in both countries without having to sacrifice the open character of its meetings and without having the visa problems that have harmed some individuals in the past. It is important to both countries and to the the IETF to normalize its meeting relationships. Gene Gaines On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Bernard Aboba bernard_ab...@hotmail.comwrote: The IETF does not and cannot make any warranties relating to the political views, manners or behavior of attendees. The attendees are responsible for their own actions, and the IETF has no ability ensure their conformance to local laws or customers. If attendees violate the laws or customs of the host country, they may face consequences -- but they're on their own. So if the question is whether the IETF should sign any agreement that takes responsibility for the behavior attendees, I'd say that this is a bad idea. It's not really an issue of politics -- I'd say the same thing if the meeting were being held in Palm Beach and the city requested that the IETF take responsibility for ensuring that participants conformed to the dress code (no white after labor day!). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?
Two points: 1) As a U.S. citizen, I apologize for the statement made on this thread by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I quietly suggest to all that it be ignored. I am he misspoke -- perhaps the laptop slipped in his lap at IETF73. 2) Again as a U.S. citizen, I will contact the IETF Chair and ISOC management to volunteer to assist in resolving the issue of IETF meeting attendance. There is substantially less of a problem here than most realize. The real issue is certainty -- the IETF needs to obtain clear instructions, obtain the cooperation of U.S. government officials so that people from any country can know well in advance AND WITH CERTAINTY the process of applying for and obtaining authorization for attending an IETF meeting anywhere in the world. If this cannot be accomplished, then the IETF should not meet in that country. Gene Gaines Sterling, Virginia USA On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/18/08 2:16 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you solve the problem? hold the meetings in non-terrorist countries. i.e. not the united states. I don't know what that means. Canada, for example, is a peacekeeper nation that requires visas for entry from countries from which there are many IETF participants (India, China). Is the issue the visa requirement itself or is it how visas are processed? Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
An update. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/29/business/net.php EU and U.S. clash over control of Net By Tom Wright International Herald Tribune FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 GENEVA The United States and Europe clashed here Thursday in one of their sharpest public disagreements in months, after European Union negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of their effective control of the Internet. The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century. It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position, said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet. Delegates meeting in Geneva for the past two weeks had been hoping to reach consensus for a draft document by Friday after two years of debate. The talks on international digital issues, called the World Summit on the Information Society and organized by the United Nations, were scheduled to conclude in November at a meeting in Tunisia. Instead, the talks have deadlocked, with the United States fighting a solitary battle against countries that want to see a global body take over supervision of the Internet. The United States lost its only ally late Wednesday when the EU made a surprise proposal to create an intergovernmental body that would set principles for running the Internet. Currently, the U.S. Commerce Department approves changes to the Internet's root zone files, which are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, a nonprofit organization based in Marina del Rey, California. more ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Vint Cerf joins Google
There is news, and, from time to time, wonderful news. This wonderful news. -Gene Gaines From www.forbes.com Faces In The News Google Hires Internet Legend Vint Cerf David M. Ewalt, 09.08.05, 12:06 PM ET Cerf's up: Google says it's boosting the company's already strong geek cred by hiring Vint Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the Internet, to serve as its Chief Internet Evangelist. Cerf, 62, was an engineer at the United States Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency from 1976 to 1982, where he helped design TCP/IP, the suite of communications protocols that is used to connect computers on the Internet. Later, while working at MCI (nasdaq: MCIP - news - people ), he helped design the first commercial e-mail service to be connected to the Internet. He's the recipient of the National Medal of Technology, the Association for Computing Machinery's Turing Award, and is chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. Vint Cerf is clearly one of the great technology leaders of our time, said Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people )Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, in a statement. His vision for technology helped create entire industries that have transformed many parts of our lives. We are honored to welcome him to Google. In his role as Google's Internet Evangelist, Cerf will help the company build network infrastructure, architectures, systems, and standards for the next generation of Internet applications. He will also continue his efforts on other projects, including ICANN and the Interplanetary Network, a project of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, which aims to extend the Internet into outer space for planet-to-planet communications. Source: www.forbes.com/2005/09/08/google-cerf-internet-cx_de_0908autofacescan04.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ITF63, visa information - last word
To answer the question of a visa requirement to attend IETF63 in France -- for citizens of all countries. According to your nationality, the country where you reside, and the duration and purpose of your stay in France, a visa may be required before departure. Citizens of most countries do not need a visa. Examples of where a visa is not needed for IETF63 include: citizens of the EU, USA, Canada, Mexico. You should have a current passport; carry with you something, for example a business card or letters, that identifies your employer and that you are a professional; and information about where you will be staying. France does not require you to carry a formal letter of invitation from the organizing body. The French government provides a web page that definitively will tell you if you require a visa. Go to: www.diplomatie.fr/venir/visas/ Select your language preference - English, French, Spanish. 1. In list at left, select the country you reside in. 2. In list at right, select the nationality of your passport. 3. Below, select short term (up to 3 months). 4. Select purpose of your stay as Professional and Business trip. 5. Press Submit. 6. A new page will tell you need or do not need a visa. If a visa is needed, that page will have a link to a visa application form, detailed instructions for documentation required with the application, and a link to locations to apply for the visa. To obtain the visa, you may require a letter of invitation, see www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-63.html. An exception. If your passport identifies you as a government official, you are required to obtain a visa. Hope this helps. Gene Gaines ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 63, visa information
Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote: Is it possible to get a waiver for the visa requirements? I think for IETF61 the visa was waived for all IETF goers. For IETF61 in Korea, we did not get a waiver. I obtained a letter from the Korean Embassy (in English and Korean) explaining IETF61 was a scientific meeting and a visa is not required for those meeting the below conditions. A visa was NOT required for U.S. citizens traveling to Korea providing: 1) they were a U.S. citizen and carried a valid U.S. passport, 2) were traveling to Korea for the purpose of attending a recognized scientific meeting (IETF meetings qualify) and/or tourism, 3) would be doing no business or attending business meetings in Korea, 4) would not be acting as an official of the U.S. Government, and 5) would be in the country for less than 90 days. The French Embassy in Washington DC confirmed to me this afternoon that the same conditions apply for IETF63 in Paris. That is, U.S. citizens with a valid U.S. passport DO NOT NEED A VISA to attend IETF63 in Paris (a scientific meeting) providing they do not also conduct business and stay for less than 90 days. As with IETF61, it would be good to get a blanket letter from the French Embassy confirming that IETF63 qualifies for this status. A copy can be carried by each traveler. Visa requirement for citizens of other countries are all different. Gene Gaines -Original Message- From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:43 AM To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF 63, visa information IETF provides you with a letter of invitation that you could use to get a visa. http://www.ietf.org/meetings/invite_letter.html to get a visa, you have to go to the nearest French Consulate. France has started issuing biometric visas, which requires you to apply in person. you cant mail the application in. more information at http://www.consulfrance-sanfrancisco.org/english/visa/en_vs_index.html Vijay Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote: I am not sure if this is the proper forum for how to get visa in order to go to IETF63. Is there any assistance provided by IETF? I also assume it is especially difficult to get the visa for folks who are not US citizens. Thanks. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 63, visa information
Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote: Gene, this is great. Can you please ask the French Embassy to extend the same offer to citizens of PRC and India please? I think we have a lot of those from these two countries who want to attend IETF63. Thanks, -- larry I will speak with the IETF Secretariat people Monday morning and we will attempt to obtain a definitive statement for as many countries as possible, will inform this list quickly as to outcome. Gene Gaines -Original Message- From: Gene Gaines [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 2:36 PM To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF 63, visa information Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote: Is it possible to get a waiver for the visa requirements? I think for IETF61 the visa was waived for all IETF goers. For IETF61 in Korea, we did not get a waiver. I obtained a letter from the Korean Embassy (in English and Korean) explaining IETF61 was a scientific meeting and a visa is not required for those meeting the below conditions. A visa was NOT required for U.S. citizens traveling to Korea providing: 1) they were a U.S. citizen and carried a valid U.S. passport, 2) were traveling to Korea for the purpose of attending a recognized scientific meeting (IETF meetings qualify) and/or tourism, 3) would be doing no business or attending business meetings in Korea, 4) would not be acting as an official of the U.S. Government, and 5) would be in the country for less than 90 days. The French Embassy in Washington DC confirmed to me this afternoon that the same conditions apply for IETF63 in Paris. That is, U.S. citizens with a valid U.S. passport DO NOT NEED A VISA to attend IETF63 in Paris (a scientific meeting) providing they do not also conduct business and stay for less than 90 days. As with IETF61, it would be good to get a blanket letter from the French Embassy confirming that IETF63 qualifies for this status. A copy can be carried by each traveler. Visa requirement for citizens of other countries are all different. Gene Gaines -Original Message- From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:43 AM To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF 63, visa information IETF provides you with a letter of invitation that you could use to get a visa. http://www.ietf.org/meetings/invite_letter.html to get a visa, you have to go to the nearest French Consulate. France has started issuing biometric visas, which requires you to apply in person. you cant mail the application in. more information at http://www.consulfrance-sanfrancisco.org/english/visa/en_vs_index.html Vijay Liqiang(Larry) Zhu wrote: I am not sure if this is the proper forum for how to get visa in order to go to IETF63. Is there any assistance provided by IETF? I also assume it is especially difficult to get the visa for folks who are not US citizens. Thanks. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Newsletter: What's cooking?
Franck, Brian, (Copies of Brian and Frank emails on this subject below.) Good idea. In my opinion, could be very beneficial to both the IETF and ISOC. In addition, perhaps there are other ways of increasing communication and strengthening both organizations. For the past six months, some of us in ISOC Chapters have talked about starting a speakers bureau. At its simplest, just to collect ISOC chapter contacts and chapter meeting dates, and remind IETF members that when they travel to other cities or countries, think about taking a small amount of time to visit the ISOC chapter there. Both organizations can benefit. In several cases ISOC people have been able to assist visiting IETF people, either advising on local places to stay, tourism, etc. in other cases making important introductions to local people. ISOC France is playing a good role in the coming IETF63 in Paris. ISOC Washington DC organized VIP tours of the U.S. Capitol building during IETF61 Unless there is objection to this, in the next 2 weeks I will come up with a modest proposal, and will ask my local Washington DC ISOC chapter to perhaps support such an effort. After all, ISOC and IETF are limbs of the same tree. How many ISOC people know of the Tao? Extraordinary document, RFC 3160 August 2001: www.ietf.org/tao.html How many IETF people have seen the founding principles for ISOC laid down by Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Lyman Chapin in 1992? www.dcisoc.org/Announcing_ISOC.pdf Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 6:00:22 AM, Brian wrote: Franck, That's a good idea. In fact, it's so good that the IETF's EDU team already has the desire to start a newsletter, with ISOC support. It is not likely to be monthly (too much effort) but it should be regular. Brian Franck Martin wrote: I realise the importance of having a newsletter from the IETF that would explain every month what is happening in IETF from a non-technical point of view. The newsletter would be about the protocols which are getting developped but in non-technical terms (or not too much) so that the general population could understand how the Internet is shapping today. At the moment the world is watching how the SPAM issue will be solved, if IETF could monthly indicates initiatives taken by IETF in this sense everybody would benefit. I see that IETF has a strong link with ISOC, ISOC supports IETF to a large level, however ISOC individual members (most of them are non-technical people) do not know this relationship, nor understand it. They also do not understand the day to day activities of IETF. Scientific/Technical Vulgarisation is urgently needed! In the Pacific Islands many members of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society would be interested to learn how IETF is shapping the Internet. Speaking with other chapters, they are also strongly interested. To pursue the relationship IETF/ISOC and let's say in general IETF/Public I think such monthly newletter is needed (via e-mail it is fine). I put humbly this request in front of the Chair of IETF for action. Support ISOC individual members and we will support IETF. Cheers ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Appreciation Evening for Vint Cerf Bob Kahn - May 10
IETF people are invited to attend. Washington DC area. Appreciation Evening for Vint Cerf Bob Kahn Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 7 - 9:30 p.m. Where: Booz-Allen-Hamilton World Headquarters, McLean, Virginia Host: DCISOC - Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf, members of our local Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society, have recently won the Association for Computing Machinery's prestigious annual Turing Award. The ACM is the premier organization for computing professionals, and its Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize of Computing, has been given to Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn for their for pioneering work on the design and implementation of the Internet's basic communications protocols. Cerf and Kahn jointly developed TCP/IP. The Turing Award will be presented at the ACM Awards Banquet in San Francisco, in June. Since we all can't get to the ACM meeting in San Francisco, ISOC chapters around the world have organized this meeting to express our gratitude for everything Bob and Vint have done, not just for the industry but for ISOC and the IETF as well. The evening will start with a social hour, with time to say hello to Vint and Bob. Several speakers (including Dennis Doughty, President, Booz-Allen-Hamilton Worldwide Technology Business) will touch briefly on the differences the Internet has brought to the world. Internet pioneer Steve Crocker will ask Bob and Vint to share their thoughts, looking back on three decades of remarkable change and to the future. We will have replica copies of historical TCP/IP documents which Vint and Bob may be so kind as to autograph for us. During the evening, leaders of ISOC chapters around the world will be joining the meeting via the Internet to congratulate Vint and Bob, and thank them for their key roles in the start and growth of the Internet, as well as in creating and supporting ISOC and the IETF. To attend, please R.S.V.P. to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We need to give Booz Allen a count of the expected number of attendees, as they will be providing refreshments. Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 7:00 - 9:30 p.m. Place: Booz-Allen-Hamilton Conference Center Tel. 703-902-5000 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean (Tysons Corner), VA 22102 Map and detailed driving directions: www.dcisoc.org/bah_directions.pdf or www.dcisoc.org/bah_directions.gif For more information on event contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] See www.dcisoc.org for more information on the Turning Award. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Organizationed spam RE: [Sip] WiMAX Summit'05 - Paris - France
Based on the comments over the last several days and my interpretation of RFC 3683/BCP 83, I ask the firm of Upper Side, Paris France, to STOP POSTING COMMERCIAL NOTICES to the IETF general list [EMAIL PROTECTED] I quote from RFC 3683/BCP 83: Guidelines have been developed for dealing with abusive behavior (c.f., Section 3.2 of [1] and [2]). Although not exhaustive, examples of abusive or otherwise inappropriate postings to IETF mailing lists include: o unsolicited bulk e-mail; o discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or technical concerns; o unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject; and, o announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. I made a phone call to Upper Side this morning (always pleasant when an transatlantic phone call costs less than the cup of coffee in my hand), was told Peter Lewis left the employ of Upper Side two years ago. The two managing partners of Upper Side, Remi Scavenius and Michel Gosse, are receiving copies of this email. Upper Side is a for-profit organizations that organizes conferences and provides training in IT. The quality or value of their activities is not the point. Such commercial announcements are not to be sent to IETF lists. Thomas Gal states that he sent email to the company on November 11 objecting to such SPAM commercial emails and he received no reply. As a personal courtesy, I will appreciate a reply to this request from Upper Side management off-list. If I am wrong in understanding IETF policy, please let me know. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Thursday, December 16, 2004, 2:45:51 AM, Harald wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at least one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour. Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83? BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response from him/them when they have been asked to stop spamming the IETF lists? Harald --On onsdag, desember 15, 2004 17:35:11 -0800 Thomas Gal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Harald and community, Observation/Comment from a concerned member. I've never really complained about anything before, but if I search over the last couple of months (I did a searchback to Oct 1) across the following mailing lists to which I'm subscribed: XCON,AVT,IPSEC,IPTEL,SIP,SIPPING,MMUSIC etc I get notices from Peter Lewis and Gunther Palmer, sometimes I get 5+ copies of these notices. For example I have 11 notices about the summer '05 wimax summit in paris france that I haven't deleted floating around my mailbox! 5 Just today between SIMPLE,XCON,SIPPING,MMUSIC, and SIP! Who knows how many more went out. I thought this was a little bit unacceptable(I'm trying to be polite for some reason I guess) as the IETF itself has 1 announce list for announcing things, and as far as I'm concerned this is basically spam. I sent a message on November 11th which is attached basically saying to the principals of this organization that: - -I'm receiving multiple notices, - -think it's unreasonable, - -the people sending the notices are not participants on the lists so are clearly exploiting the mailing list - -that the IETF has an announce list which they should work out appropriate submission and distribution through, as I'm sure that IETF memebers would in fact like to be notified of their events, but appropriately. I'm copying them on this message again as well, and personally I feel that if you look at http://tinyurl.com/6mvnc - -and- http://tinyurl.com/452e5 You can see that peter lewis has been sending bulk unsolicited email through IETF lists for some time, and Gunter Palmer appears to be a new up and coming distributor. That said, I never got a response, so I'm inclined to say we should boot them from IETF mailing lists, and ideally get a response and arrange to have them submit 1 notice 1 time to go out to the IETF announce list, or perhaps even a separate list which is specifically for folks wishing to address the IETF population at large. Certainly only willing participants to the IETF/IETF announce list should be getting these notices. I do recall a gentleman mentioning in DC something about coordinating reasonable official submissions, and I feel this falls in line with that request. There's enough of a problem with spam that we can't do anything about, and I think dealing with this situation properly could have the potential to not only reduce some junk mail, but also allow that information to go out in an appropriate fashion to willing recipients, and perhaps educate some people (who's company supposedly caters to technology folk) along the way of proper edicate for such matters. And if they don't respond, who cares, just boot em
IETF61 - U.S. Capitol tour for Thursday cancelled
I regret to say the tour of the U.S. Capitol scheduled for Thursday morning, Nov. 11 is CANCELLED. I have been able to add a second tour for Friday morning. Those scheduled for the Thursday tour will have first priority for the Friday morning tour. Sorry for such short notice. The congressional office that was to assist me with the Thursday tour (even though Thursday is a U.S. federal holiday) informed me this afternoon that they have decided to close totally that day. This is a slow time in the Capitol, congress in recess. I must have a congressional staff member with me in order to take a VIP tour group into the Capitol building. Two alternatives if you wish to tour the Capitol: 1. Join the expanded Friday morning IETF61 tour. We will meet at 8:30 a.m. at the IETF61 registration desk in the hotel, taxi to a congressman's office and enter the Capitol without waiting. Email me so I can reserve a place for you. One Friday morning tour will be going to Senator Patrick Leahy's office, the second tour to Rep. Robert Goodlatte's office. Co-chairs of the Congressional Internet Caucus. 2. Go to the U.S. Capitol and take the public tour. This can be done any day (including this Thursday) except Sunday. Will involve standing in line, probably for several hours. The Capitol opens for public tours at 9:00 a.m., and tour tickets are given out for the day on a first-come first-served basis. This week, if you are in line early, say by 8:15 a.m., you should be able to get tickets for a tour that enters the Capitol between 9:00 and 10:00. If you join the line as late as 1:00 p.m. you should be able to get tickets for that day, but no certainty, and the tickets may be for any time that afternoon. There is no charge for tickets, and every person desiring a ticket must wait in line; one person cannot obtain tickets for a family or group. Sorry for the last-minute change. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia +1 703-433-2081 ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tour of US Capitol
For anyone whose email request for the Capitol tour during IETF61 bounced, please send again. My email account was out service for about 12 hours, during which emails bounced. Sorry. Back in service now. If further email trouble (unlikely), send to my wife's email account: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nathaniel, I'll take your email below as a request to join the tour. Consider yourself signed up. Here is the status. We expect that some time today (Friday) a revised IETF61 session schedule will be issued. When the new schedule is available, I'll send you an email asking you to indicate which day(s) are best for you to take the tour. We are trying to interfere as little as possible with IETF sessions. Apologize for bounce problem. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 703-433-2081 -Original Message- From: Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Oct 29, 2004 7:17 AM To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Tour of US Capitol Am I the only one who tried (more than once!) to respond to the capitol-tour offer, but got a bounce from all my attempts? If the right people are reading this -- yes, I'd love a tour! Sorry to send this to the list, but it appears that the tour offer is unreply-able otherwise. -- Nathaniel ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
DC airports to hotel
Transport alternatives from the 3 Washington area airports to the Washington Hilton hotel. FROM REAGAN AIRPORT: As Brian states (below), a taxi or Metro makes sense from Reagan airport because it is quite close to downtown DC, and there is a Metro station at the airport. Best alternatives: - Taxi: about US$ 18. - Metro (subway): $2 - $3 Walk 4 blocks from Metro to hotel, see Brian's directions below. - Supershuttle: $12 first person, $8 each additional person. FROM DULLES AIRPORT: Dulles is rather far out in Virginia, no rail or Metro. Choice of: - Direct taxi: $50. - Supershuttle: $25 one person, $8 each additional person going to same hotel. - Cheapest: Washington Flyer Shuttle to Metro, take Metro, transfer to second Metro, walk 4 blocks to hotel, $10-12. From Dulles, SuperShuttle is the best compromise between price and convenience. Small vans, run 24 hours, may stop at several hotels before getting to yours. SHARING SUPERSHUTTLE: To get the reduced rate, before you board the SuperShuttle, check in with the Supershuttle dispatcher in the bus area, say you are with the IETF and name the hotel you are going to, the SuperShuttle people are nice and will permit you to share at the $35 + $8 price. At Dulles, directions to Supershuttle bus: Collect your baggage and follow signs for ground transportation leading you directly to the SuperShuttle boarding area located on lower level, outside at curb 1D or 1E. There will be a uniformed SuperShuttle dispatcher. After 12:00 midnight call 703-416-7884. BWI - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON AIRPORT: Far from downtown DC. - No Metro, there is a train station 1 mile from airport, but complicated. - Supershuttle: $31 first person, $10 each additional to same hotel. - Taxi: About $63. SuperShuttle will stop at many but not all DC hotels. You can inquire at http://www.supershuttle.com/htm/cities/dca.htm or +1 202 296-6662 or 800-258-3826. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday, October 8, 2004, 10:02:52 AM, Brian wrote: If you are flying into National there is a metro stop directly at the Airport you take the Blue line to Mertro Center and go upstairs to catch the Red line... If you are coming into Dulles ... sorry its $45.00 minimum we've been trying to get it out there for the last 10 years.. $45? Nah, only if you take a cab. If you are coming into Dulles, you take the Washington Flyer shuttle ($8) to the West Falls Church Metro station. That's the orange line, which you take to Metro center and change to the red line to Dupont Circle. The metro ride from West Falls Church to Dupont Circle will cost you $1.85 off peak, $2.70 peak. http://www.washfly.com/ http://www.wmata.com/ Another alternative is SuperShuttle, which is around $24 or so. http://www.supershuttle.com/htm/cities/dca.htm Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where
Kai, We do not understand each other at all. My email of a week ago was addressed to one simple point: Fear expressed by a few people that obtaining non-profit U.S. 501(c)(3) status for either the IETF or a separate organization supporting be IETF could be difficult and perhaps not possible. I was _only_ stating that such fear is unfounded. I do confess that I made an attempt to provide some information to show that this fear is unfounded. Drop this issue and get back to productive discussion. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 5:04:00 PM, Kai wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gene Gaines) wrote on 22.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It appears to me that IETF qualifies for this status easily as But we're not interested in this status for the IETF. We don't want to incorporate the IETF. What is under discussion is incorporating a separate organization whose mission is supporting the IETF. a technical, memberhhip organization, not operated for private Neither the IETF, nor this possible new organization, has any (formal) membership. I spoke briefly with a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expert who told me informally that IETF appears to qualify easily for non-profit, tax-exempt status. Well, given how far your model seems from the one discussed here, that seens worth nothing whatsoever. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here)
Karl, 2 cents. Assuming IETF is going to set up a corporation and it is to be created in the United States, it appears to me there are strong reasons for incorporating as a non-profit, and further to obtain tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization. It appears to me that IETF qualifies for this status easily as a technical, memberhhip organization, not operated for private benefit, engaged in creating and publishing information freely available without charge and in the public domain. I spoke briefly with a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expert who told me informally that IETF appears to qualify easily for non-profit, tax-exempt status. If anyone is interested, I can provide several IRS rulings and Shephard-qualified court decisions for similar organizations. The forms to make application are not burdensome, and can be completed by any competent lawyer (knowledgeable of non-profit law) and should be part of the process of setting up any IETF corporate entity. I emphasize: Setting up the IETF entity to properly qualify for non-profit and 501(c) tax-exempt status _must_ be considered at the time the corporate charter is set up. Note that the IRS processing time for obtaining 501(c)(3) status currently is 120 days; this can be shortened by invoking special circumstances; the effective date will be retroactive to the date the entity filed for incorporation. Despite all the folk tales, the U.S. IRS is not capricious in such cases, and a qualified lawyer can state with certainty whether the IETF does or does not qualify. I'm not a lawyer, but am sure the IETF does qualify. Warning. IETF people travel between countries to attend meetings. Security and border restrictions are becoming increasingly restrictive in the U.S. and many other countries. I suggest it is imperative that, if the IETF does incorporate, it obtain non-profit and I recommend tax-exempt status. It is important -- critical -- the IETF attendees be seen as traveling to attend a technical meeting conducted by a non-profit organization. Remember the trouble with U.S. people traveling to Korea for IETF 61? (We obtained special papers from the Korean embassy in Washington by claiming the IETF to be part of ISOC, and ISOC has non-profit status. It is generally true that visitors to a country for tourism or to attend non-profit technical meetings are subject to substantially less restrictions and less paperwork than those traveling for business purposes. Further, it is so very important the IETF be transparent, and its financial dealings be open. The annual filings required of U.S. non-profit tax-exempt organizations will provide much of that transparency. Last question. What impact will incorporation, either the entire IETF organization or only a headquarters activity, have on ISOC and the support it provides to the IETF? ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the District of Columbia. I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to obtain the same status. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 12:37:36 PM, Karl wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: I think this and a number of other points made here gloss over a key point of which some of the participants may not be aware. Under US law, there is a significant difference between not-for-profit and charitable nonprofit It might be useful to add more precision. In the US there are two levels from which laws affecting corporations arise, state and Federal. Corporate structures are usually created under state law. Many states of the US have laws that allow non-profit or even charitable nonprofit. Here in California, for example, there are several forms of non-profit: public-benefit, charitable, mutual benefit, religious, medical, etc. And here in the US we have a lot of states - 50 of 'em - each with its own different corporations laws. At the federal level there is yet another mountain of law, but we often end up talking about tax exemptions under Title 26 Section 501 of the US code. That part of the tax code covers a lot of territory and is very complicated and full of subtle distinctions that trigger significant differences in treatment as well as imposing rather different kinds of limitations and obligations upon the entity that is seeking or obtained one or another of these exemptions. So, when talking about these things we can avoid a lot of confusion if we try to be precise about specific state level conceptions of corporations and non-profitness and federal level conceptions of federal tax exemption and the benefits, limitations, and obligations that come from each. I might add that one of the questions that ought to be raised, and it is a question that I'm certainly neither qualified to answer nor will I even attempt to answer, is whether the IETF ought to seek Federal tax exempt status at all. Sometimes it may be better
Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here)
Karl, Good thoughts. I agree with all. I suppose the reason for my long writing was to say that 501(3)(?) status should not be feared, the process is predictable, and I think you will find the IRS actually will assist in the process. In any event, requires a good non-profit / tax lawyer to evaluate and explain the consequences. But getting the status is easy. Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, 5:49:25 PM, Karl wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote: ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the District of Columbia. I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to obtain the same status. There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different kinds of chains that impose limits on what the organization can do and impose affirmative duties. Simply jumping into one category without understanding the nature and form of those chains could lead to a kind of organizational buyer's remorse. Whether one considers the application process easy (or hard), fast (or slow), or the IRS to be capricious (or not), it isn't something to be undertaken lightly or without understanding the ramifications. The IRS is one of the world's great bureaucracies; I know attorneys whose entire practice is focused on just small parts of the US tax code and small parts of that bureacracy. The choice of Federal excemption also may have impact on the liability (or rather on the limitation of liability) of unpaid Directors and officers both on the basis of State laws that recognize certain protections for certain 501 categories (and not for others) and also under Federal laws that may provide some protection for volunteer (unpaid) directors under some circumstances. Many have, of course, navigated the maze and been happy with the results. And some entities, after having experienced life as a 501(c)(3) have discovered the limitations too binding and have changed their status. The IETF ought to move forward with knowledge and understanding. It ought not go forward blindly and with say 501(c)(3) or bust without knowing fully what that means and implies. The same goes for chosing the state of incorporation and the form under that state's laws. (There is, of course, the option of creating several different legally cognizable entities, each shrink-wrapped with its own choice of jurisdiction and form. But that could lead to a situation in which there is not one IETF but several that drift in divergent directions.) I'm not arguing against the 501(c)(3) status - I have neither an opinion nor enough knowledge to make an informed choice. I'm merely noting that the issue is complex and involves hard choices that ought to be made with knowledge of the tradeoffs. --karl-- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Response to complaint from Dean Anderson (fwd)
Enough. The Dean Anderson fiasco has continued long enough. This is a formal request that Anderson be asked to cease the off-topic diatribes about a problem that I view as of his own making. The IETF should have no legal or moral obligation to accede to his demands, nor should any individual associated with IETF activities. His negative diatribes and threats do damage to the IETF. It is important he cease or be banned from IETF lists. I have not met Mr. Anderson, but remember him quite well from past correspondence lists such as: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To: Yakov Shafranovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fwd: ICANN asks Verisign to shutdown SiteFinder in 48 hours From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see that Verisign is complying while they review their options. Well, hopefully they are having their lawyers go over their contracts to see if ICANN can claim it is in breach of any contract. It would seem that they can't, having not complained about other registries, and having not substantiated any adverse effects to the internet. It will take some time to go through each claim and offer a substantial proof that it is wrong. It will be interesting to see what the lawyers say. It was really to bad that they gave the angry scientists and engineers as much credit as they did. This angry group is basically the same bunch of Verisign bashers that have been whining about Verisign or Network Solutions for many years, when there are other registries that are much more deserving of criticism. Calling them scientists and engineers gives too much credit because real scientists and engineers deal in facts. I would use another term. I for one hope that SiteFinder will come back, and I wish Verisign good luck. --Dean - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia On Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 4:22:49 PM, Dean wrote: On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:43:23 EDT, Dean Anderson said: Mr. Vixie's obvious malice for Av8 Internet is plain to see, As is the fact that the feelings appear to be mutual One never appreciates being publicly disparaged, defamed, or harrassed, but it is incorrect to assume that just because I have been attacked, that I harbor malice for that person. Rather, I feel sorry for someone who is presumably in his 40's and resorts to name-calling. Such unsocialization or immaturity must be debilitating. I pray for them. This does not mean that I will silently accept such treatment, nor does it mean I will not assert my rights and privileges to object to such treatment. Besids Mr. Vixie's on-list comments, there is his involvement in the defamatory and misleading statements about Av8 Internet's IP address space. Long ago, and for other reasons, I came to believe that defamation results in a short term loss for the defamed and a short term gain for the defamer, but a long term gain for the defamed and a long term loss for the defamer. Lies are always exposed as lies and liars are always exposed as liars. This is particularly appropriate as the UN meets today to discuss anti-semitism, which is also spread by defamation. The defamed may be saddened and harmed while being defamed, but have solace in the fact that history will eventually right the wrong: It always has. It always will. This doesn't mean one should be complacent. Everyone should stand up to stop defamation. I have made efforts to make my criticisms professional and accurate, and not to allow myself to degenerate into name-calling. Persons who behave badly and call other people names deserve criticism. While everyone may be fallible from time to time in overheated discussion, some people seem to have no control or compuction whatsoever. I have tried to make sure that my criticisms meet the standard of cool and detached professionalism. Mr. Vixie's comments (loons, trolls, dv8, least technical person on the list do not meet that standard. But I note that you have not amoung those who have posted messages calling for Mr. Vixie to take a break before calling other people names. Is it that you have become accustomed to his behavior or do you hold me to a different standard? services to customers. However, it is unclear what Mr. Vixie's expertise is actually in, other than name-calling, and making disparaging alterations on another companies trademarks. I have seen little else. Pot. Kettle. Black. Not exactly. Questioning someone's expertise is quite a bit different than declaring someone else to be the least technical person on the list. I did the former, Mr. Vixie did the latter. The former is reasonable and appropriate, the latter isn't. Questioning Mr. Vixie's expertise
Visa for Korea
As promised. The Korean consulate in DC has produced two letters for U.S. citizens to carry with them to the IETF Seoul meeting. The letters state that U.S. citizens carrying a valid passport traveling to Korea to attend the IETF meeting and/or tourism for up to 30 days DO NOT NEED A VISA. The letters have been confirmed with the responsible minitries in Korea, and copies sent immigration at Incheon airport, the usual point of entry for Seoul. I have made graphic files and sent them on to the IETF Secretariat people to post to the web. Give them a couple of days to review and get them up. Print and take with you. Show if border officials ask for them. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA
Re: Visa for Korea
As promised, The Korean consulate in DC has a resolution for the visa problem. The Korean Consular General for the United States has committed to preparing two letters for U.S. citizens to carry with them. The letters, one in English and one in Korean addressed to border officials, states that U.S. citizens traveling to Korea to attend the IETF meeting and/or tourism for up to 30 days DO NOT NEED A VISA. The IETF secretariat expects to receive these letters by Friday, Feb. 6 and will let you know when they are posted as graphics on the www.ietf.org web site. Print copies and carry with you. About customs and immigration. Less said, faster through. Just show your passport and say you are attending a technical meeting in Seoul by a nonprofit organization. Should the official inquire about a visa, then show him the letters. TO BE CLEAR: This applies only for U.S. citizens with a current passport traveling to Korea to attend the IETF meeting -- a technical conference by a nonprofit group. If you are traveling to Korea to attend additional business meetings then technically you require a visa, as does a government employee acting in an official capacity. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia My previous email: On Thursday, January 29, 2004, 3:24:01 PM, Gene wrote: An official letter is coming from the responsible Korean government official in Washington DC. I wrote the text for him, so unless he gets it messed up, will be very clear that U.S. citizens do not need a visa for IETF meeting in Korea. The Korean sponsor also is attempting to get such a letter in Seoul. I expect we will have and Foretec can post on the IETF meeting web site by next Monday -- so I hope this can put the issue to sleep for a few days. If you disagree, please let me know. Otherwise, in the issue of visas for the moment silence will be golden. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia -- As promised. The Korean consulate in DC has a resolution for the visa problem. Was not easy, as the language we are using is confusing to the Koreans. (Somehow, the word engineering gets translated as applied engineering and therefore assumed to be business, etc., but this is off subject.) I spoke Monday afternoon with the Korean Consular General for the United States -- Mr. Byung Kil Han. He does understand the situation, wants his country to be a good host, and fully agrees that U.S. citizens visiting Korea do not need a visa to attend the IETF meeting and/or tourism for up to 30 days. He has instructed the First Secretary, Mr. Won Sup Park, to prepare and fax to me two letters: (1) to those traveling stating that a visa not required, and (2) a letter in Korean to Korean border officials ordering them to admit the traveler without a visa. Those two letters will be faxed to me, I will create as a basic TIF and GIF format files and send on to Foretec to post at www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-59.html. I spoke with Park several times today, and am coordinating with Marsha and Dawn Thomas at the IETF Secretariat These letters must be written and vetted carefully, so I expect them by Thursday or Friday. I don't want to rush Park and cause more confusion. TO BE CLEAR: This applies only for U.S. citizens with a current passport. They are traveling to Korea to attend a technical conference by a nonprofit group. If they also will go on to attend business meetings then technically they require a visa, as does a government employee acts in an official capacity in Korea. I hope this is constructive. Want to change something, let me know. If I'm interfering, tell me and I'll be gone. I will post a quick note to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia My previous email: On Thursday, January 29, 2004, 3:24:01 PM, Gene wrote: An official letter is coming from the responsible Korean government official in Washington DC. I wrote the text for him, so unless he gets it messed up, will be very clear that U.S. citizens do not need a visa for IETF meeting in Korea. The Korean sponsor also is attempting to get such a letter in Seoul. I expect we will have and Foretec can post on the IETF meeting web site by next Monday -- so I hope this can put the issue to sleep for a few days. If you disagree, please let me know. Otherwise, in the issue of visas for the moment silence will be golden. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia -- On Thursday, January 29, 2004, 3:01:37 PM, Gene wrote: An attempt to attenuate the visa discussion. The Korean Consulate in Washington DC is preparing an official letter intended to clearly state that U.S. citizens do not need a visa to attend the IETF meeting in Seoul. I will forward a graphic of the letter to the IETF Directorate, who has agreed to post on the web. Suggest giving the visa for U.S. citizens issue a rest for four days, time to get the official letter. Note. I can think
Re: Visa for Korea
An attempt to attenuate the visa discussion. The Korean Consulate in Washington DC is preparing an official letter intended to clearly state that U.S. citizens do not need a visa to attend the IETF meeting in Seoul. I will forward a graphic of the letter to the IETF Directorate, who has agreed to post on the web. Suggest giving the visa for U.S. citizens issue a rest for four days, time to get the official letter. Note. I can think of no reason to have a letter of invitation unless you need a visa. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia
Re: visa requirements (US citizens)
Visas for travel to Seoul, Korea IETF meeting. Perhaps I can settle this. A U.S. citizen does NOT need a visa to visit Korea for a meeting by a non-profit group such as the Internet Engineering Task Force. I just confirmed this with the head of the visa section in the Korean Consulate in Washington DC. But don't take my word for it. If anyone requests, I will be glad to get an official letter faxed from the Korean Consulate-General. I would carry that letter with your current U.S. passport. More precise statement: - U.S. citizens traveling to Korean to attend the IETF meeting do not need a visa, as they are traveling to attend a non-profit conference. They can stay in Korea up to 30 days for such purposes and for tourism. - If you travel to Korea for business purposes, such as meeting customers or other business purposes, then a visa is required. - There also is confusion about government employees. U.S. government employees going to Korea just for tourism or a non- profit conference such as IETF do not need a visa because they are going a private citizens. However, government employees going to Korea for official purposes do need an official visa. I won't request an official letter unless someone asks me to do so. I could post on a neutral web site or email to you. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 3:54:12 PM, Eric wrote: On 1/28/2004 12:46 PM, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote: Seems to me to pretty clear that a visa is not needed. These are the future possibilities: 1) You got the visa, the guard on duty that day deems it unnecessary, and you curse the effort you spent to get it. 2) You don't get the visa, the trainee on duty that day deems it is necessary, and you curse the ~30 hour round-trip flight, the money, and the effort you spent avoiding the visa fetch. --
Fwd: Re: Visa for IETF meeting
Email below is from Mr. Sang Yoo, in the visa office of the Korean consulate in Washington DC. It should put to rest the question of visas for the upcoming IETF meeting in Seoul. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a forwarded message From: ¹Ì±¹ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 4:55:40 PM Subject: Visa for IETF meeting for MR. YOO =Original message text=== Hi, Mr.Yoo said that you don't need visas for the conference and can stay up to 30days in Korea. But he pointed out one wrong thing in your email. That is the following. You wrote; - This applies only to private U.S. citizens. Government employees and citizens of other countries need to contact their local Korean embassy for a determination in their case. Ken, in your case, if you are a government employee, you will need a visa. But the right information is that it applies to all U.S.citizens. And even though when government employees go to Korean for official purpose, then they need official visas. But when they go to Korea just for tour or non-profit conference, they don't need visas. If you have more questions, then please write us back. Thank you. -- [ ¿øº» ¸Þ¼¼Áö ] -- º¸³½ »ç¶÷ : Gene Gaines ³¯Â¥ : 2004-01-13 06:15:07 Á¦¸ñ : Visa for IETF meeting for MR. YOO Sang Yoo, Thank you for speaking with me today. I described what you told me in the email below, sent to the email list used by the people that will be attending the Internet engineering meeting in Seoul 29 February - 5 March 2004. Gene Gaines President Gaines Group Sterling, Virginia [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-433-2081 COPY OF MESSAGE SENT BELOW From: Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ken Hornstein CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 12, 2004, 3:18:21 PM Subject: Visa for South Korea =Original message text=== Ken, As it happens, I attended a dinner Saturday that was addressed by Ambassador Han, the Korean Ambassador to the U.S. Taking up the Korean visa issue today, I spoke with an official in the Washington DC visa section. I believe I can state the visa regulation as it applies to U.S. citizens. - Individuals traveling to Korean to attend the IETF meeting do not need a visa, as they are traveling to attend a non-profit conference. They can stay in Korea up to 30 day for such purpose and for tourism. - If you travel to Korea for business purposes, such as meeting customers or other business purposes, then a visa is needed. - This applies only to private U.S. citizens. Government employees and citizens of other countries need to contact their local Korean embassy for a determination in their case. Ken, in your case, if you are a government employee, you will need a visa. - Another consideration concerning visa. People attend IETF meetings as individuals, not directly representing their company -- and clearly a private individual traveling to attend a nonprofit technical meeting clearly does not need a visa. Warning. I am only relaying what was told to me today by a responsible embassy official. I am not attending the Seoul meeting, but if I was, I would want to have an official statement from an Korean official regarding the visa request. One official who can handle such a request at the visa section in Washington DC is Mr. Sang Yoo. I am copying this email to him. A member of the meeting committee might want to put a formal query to him, and email his answer to the list. For Mr. Yoo, details of the meeting: 59th IETF Meeting, Seoul, South Korea, 29 February - 5 March 2004. For information about the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) see: http://www.ietf.org/overview.html Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Monday, January 12, 2004, 12:12:27 PM, Ken wrote: I d be interested in answers people get from other consulate/embassy staff both from locations other than Boston and with different phrasings of the question. Well, I finally was able to talk to someone at the Washington, DC, embassy. Their answer? We re not sure, but you might need one. -- snip -- --Ken -- ==End of original message text=== -- Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Embassy of the Republic of Korea http://www.koreaembassy.org ==End of original message text=== Hi, Mr.Yoo said that you don't need visas for the conference and can stay up to 30days in Korea. But he pointed out one wrong thingin your email. That is the following. You wrote; - This applies only to private U.S. citizens. Government employees and citizens of other countries need to contact their local Korean embassy for a determination in their case. Ken, in your case, if you are a government employee, you will need a visa. But the rightinformation is that it applies to all U.S.citizens. And even though when government employees go
[IETF] Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful
At last a meaningful remark, quoting from below (far below)... I cannot believe we are even having such a dumbass debate. With apologies, I do not appreciate is the number of individuals who have made observations based on their personal experience concerning the SPAM subject. Trading war stories does not contribute to meaningful technical work, and in fact works to the detriment of the IETF. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Thursday, December 18, 2003, 12:00:37 PM, Mark wrote: Keith- Putting [foo] in the subject header is just another example of this trend. Sure, it might be useful to people with dysfunctional MUAs, and there are a lot of those people out there. There were once a lot of people whose MUAs couldn't do reply all, too. This is just wrong. From lines and Reply-to and whatever are headers that are meant to be processed by computers. So, you can say all you want about how dumb MUAs do or do not process these (and how intermediate mail servers should keep their mits off). Now, humans use these lines, too. So, call them dual use. The subject line, on the other hand, is just for people. Sure we can make programs and filters grok them to classify mail if there is some standard format (e.g., i-d actions). But, fundementally subject lines are for humans, not computers. So, comparing subject line munging to reply-to munging seems to me to pretty much apples and oranges. You might read the above as supporting your point that we should not add [ietf] to subject lines because subject lines are not for computers (or dysfunctional MUAs) to process. However, I think the correct interpretation is that it is OK for the mail server to add these tags **and** they may aid the entities that the subject line is actually for in the first place (humans). Hence, they are fine. allman (I cannot actually believe I am sending a non-snide comment in this thread. Someone should slap me. I read through the whole thread last night. Every message was dumberer than the previous one (probably including this one!). I was literally laughing out loud. I cannot believe we are even having such a dumbass debate. But, it was like a wreck on the highway and I could not stop rubber-necking. If we have this much trouble about 6 characters in the subject line then we might as well forget that problem statement thingy. Really.) --
Fwd: Verisign attempt to take all unpaid addresses
Forwarded with Vittorio Bertola's permission. I received a similar response from Izumi Aizu. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA This is a forwarded message From: Vittorio Bertola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 9:17:46 AM Subject: Verisign attempt to take all unpaid addresses =Original message text=== Hello, we've been working on this since the first rumours started to come up, see http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00385.html and following thread. We will release a statement shortly. Thanks for your support :-) Regards, On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:48:26 -0400, you wrote: To: ICANN Interim At-Large Advisory Committee: Erick Iriarte Ahon, Peru, Computer Law Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Izumi Aizu, Asia Network Research Researcher, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vittorio Bertola, Italy, Technical manager, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pierre Dandjinou. BENIN, ICT Policy Advisor, SURF/UNDP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esther Dyson, USA, publisher/writer/IT investor/small business owner, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clement Dzidonu. GHANA, Dept Computer Science, Valley View Univ., [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xue Hong. Prof., Faculty of Law, U. Hong Kong, Prof., Foreign Affairs Coll., [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a request of you, and I politely request individual answers from each of you. There are many many emails denouncing the new move by VeriSign to hijack all unregistered addresses in the spaces they manage. All unregistered domains in .com and .net now resolve to 64.94.110.11, a Verisign-operated web search engine on port 80 which reports advertiser-paid results. If ICANN will not move immediately and aggressively here, then it is a clear sign that organization is of no value, and is in fact what ICANN is what Karl Auerbach has long suspected the organization to be. I ask that you immediately and publicly denounce this move by VeriSign. I ask that you issue statements both as an individual and as a member of ICANN. If you do not issue such statements, I intend publicize widely your failure to do so. It is time for you to take a stand. Either you support the Internet as it exists today, are you elect to be part of the interests that are moving to destroy it. I would like to know. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA +1 703-433-2081 On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 6:02:59 AM, Zefram wrote: Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net zones. This is, as already noted, very dangerous. We in the IETF must work to put a stop to this attempt to turn the DNS into a directory service, and quickly. I suggest the following courses of action, to be taken in parallel and immediately: 0. Urgently publish an RFC (Wildcards in GTLDs Considered Harmful, or DNS Is Not A Directory) to provide a clear statement of the problem and to unambiguously prohibit the practice. 1. Via ICANN, instruct Verisign to remove the wildcard. 2. Some of us with sufficiently studly facilities should mirror the COM and NET zones, filtering out the wildcards. Then the root zone can be modified to point at these filtered COM and NET nameservers. 3. Instruct ICANN to seek another organisation to permanently take over COM and NET registry services, in the event that Verisign do not comply with instructions to remove the wildcard. I believe that the direct action I suggest in point 2 is necessary, because we have previously seen the failure of the proper channels in this matter, when Verisign added a wildcard for non-ASCII domain names. Verisign have shown a disregard for the technical requirements of their job, as well as displaying gross technical incompetence (particularly in the wildcard SMTP server). I believe Verisign have forfeit any moral right to a grace period in which to rectify the situation. -zefram -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]-- http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... ==End of original message text=== -- Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee response to Verisign SiteFinder
This is a forwarded message From: Vittorio Bertola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2003, 2:06:02 PM Subject: Verisign attempt to take all unpaid addresses =Original message text=== = The At-Large Advisory Committee would like to bring to ICANN's attention concerns about Verisign's surprising roll-out of the SiteFinder service for .com and .net. SiteFinder works by re-directing queries for non-existing domain names to the IP address of a search service that is being run by Verisign. This practice raises grave technical concerns, as it de facto removes error diagnostics from the DNS protocol, and replaces them by an error handling method that is tailored for HTTP, which is just one of the many Internet protocols that make use of the DNS. We will leave it for others to explain the details of these concerns, but note that returning resource records in a way which is countrary to the very design of the DNS certainly does not promote the stability of the Internet. These concerns are not mitigated by Verisign's efforts to work around the consequences of breaking the Internet's design on a service-by-service basis: These workarounds make specific assumptions on the conclusions that Internet software would be drawing from nonexisting domain names; these assumptions are not always appropriate. When working as intended, the service centralizes error handling decisions at the registry that are rightly made in application software run on users' computers. Users are deprived of the opportunity to chose those error handling strategies best suited for their needs, by chosing appropriate products available on a competitive marketplace. Software makers are deprived of the opportunity to compete by developing innovative tools that best match the user's needs. We urge ICANN to take whatever steps are necessary to stop this service. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]--- --- http://bertola.eu.org/ --- ==End of original message text=== --
Re[2]: Splitting the IETF-Announce list?
On Thursday, November 15, 2001, 3:31:06 PM, John wrote: There exist security problems associated with HTML-enabled mail readers, and the security of this list (given the MASSIVE number of viri distributed through it) is sufficiently suspect to disable that in many systems. We're not talking about this list, though; we're talking about ietf-announce, where only the Secretariat can post. Moreover, we're probably talking about an optional digestified form of ietf-announce; people who can't trust their MUA don't have to use it. /===\ |John Stracke |Principal Engineer | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Incentive Systems, Inc.| ---snip--- Wrong thinking. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA --
Melinda, I'm impressed
, X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0400 To: Ian King [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Any value in this list ? Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - snip It would be refreshing if someone stepped forward and said This is my problem. I will try to fix it. Melinda Thank you for a bit of light in the darkness. BTW, it appears to me that Microsoft engineers its products for demonstrators, rather than for users. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia
Re[2]: too many Out of Office AutoReply
David, Why in god's name would any email program worth 2 cents not have this feature? Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thursday, June 28, 2001, 10:32:16 PM, David wrote: David, Thanks for the step-by-step instructions. I'm curious, though - the usual heuristic for most vacation auto-responders has been to not send responses to any message which didn't include the recipient's address in the to or cc header field. Is there a way to configure Exchange to use that heuristic? Keith At this time, there is no way to configure Exchange to do that. Most of our customer feedback has been that our current configuration scheme, which allows per-domain configuration, meets our customers' needs. Based on recent customer input (including this thread's input), we are currently evaluating adding that feature. I can't promise when it will make it into the product, but I do agree that it is a good thing to do. David --- David Lemson Lead Program Manager Exchange Server Microsoft Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: too many Out of Office AutoReply
j0rge, But, that might filter some Out of Office AutoReply messages that are intended for me. A more general solution would be to look for header fields beginning X- which contains certain words. Microsoft would good. Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday, June 29, 2001, 9:40:03 AM, CARDOSO wrote: Hi, I think this topic started somewhere because of my Out of Office AutoReply emails. Sorry for the incovenience, Im working out of Portugal in London, but i deactivated this function remotely. Concerning this matter, its a mickeysoft tool - Yes - confirmed. I have always a lot of people trying to contact me concerning Urgent issues and its necessary to give them an easy path to reach me - this tool of autoreply is usefull. I can sugest something logic: - since the tool for filtering Out of Office AutoReply on the origin will not be developed in short time, and there will be for sure another users using Out of Office AutoReply, the smart mailing-list mail-server should apply a rule filtered by subject because the subject field seems to be always the same Out of Office AutoReply:. so, the rule would be: if subject field starts with string Out of Office AutoReply:, the mail is dropped else proceed. regards, j0rge card0s0 --
Re[2]: Carrier Class Gateway
Betsy, I agree. Please take the off-topic nonsense off the IETF list. You are wasting my time. Gene Gaines [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sterling, Virginia USA On Friday, April 27, 2001, 5:10:59 PM, Betsy wrote: I'm sure this is a stupid question (and I will probably get flamed for this email), but what does this have to do with the IETF? Ben Yalow wrote: At 05:00 PM 4/26/01 -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote: Willis, Scott L wrote: Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship! Swing the 16 guns and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for it. Errr, actually carriers don't have 16 guns, the battleships did. There *were* smaller caliber turrents on the older (e.g. WWII Essex class) carriers for antiaircraft work, and the newer carriers have such things as Phalanx for the same reason, but definitely not something as big as 16. Now, sending off a flight of F-15s with laser guided weapons on the other hand... Actually, while the Essex class carried some smaller guns (5, and then lots of smaller caliber), the largest guns on US carriers were on Lexington (CV-2), and Saratoga (CV-3). Since they were originally laid down as battle cruisers, and later converted to carriers, they still had 8 8 guns. - peterd Ben - Ben Yalow[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
