Re: ITU takes over?
There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called PrepComs as in preparatory committees leading up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) taking place December 10-12 in Geneva. In the most recent meetings, a government only rule was invoked that excluded interested parties such as ICANN, among others, but the texts have been made visible. Of course, it remains to be seen whether these texts will be adopted by the summit meeting representatives. The texts cover principles and action plans, respectively, for realization of the Information Society. The subject of Internet Governance has been a large focus of attention, as has been a proposal for creating an international fund to promote the creation of information infrastructure in the developing world. Internet Governance is a very broad topic including law enforcement, intellectual property protection, consumer protection, tax policies, and so on. It also happens to include some of the things that ICANN is responsible for. Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy (which is being treated as synonymous with governance). ICANN's mandate is very limited and it would be helpful if the broad governance issues mentioned above could find other organizational homes. ICANN's work could be fitted into a larger framework but some people seem to think that if ICANN doesn't do all the things that might fall into Internet governance then ICANN should be replaced with, eg, an ! ITU or UN body. This is, of course, a controversial matter with sovreignty of states mixed into a variety of political attitudes about the US, the Department of Commerce role with ICANN and so on. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I would prefer to see a solution to the broad governance problem that continues to limit the ICANN mandate and creates organizational homes for that which ICANN cannot or should not undertake. Just as plainly, I don't favor replacing ICANN with a UN-agency. You may make a search on key words, like internet governance at that site www.wsis-online.net and will see all relevant meetings. Hope this is helpful. Vint Cerf At 11:51 PM 12/8/2003 +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Noel Chiappa writes: Anyone know more about this? Since it is being discussed in secret (with even ICANN excluded, apparently), it's hard to know more. Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: ITU takes over?
Noel: 1. The Salt Lake Tribune: U.S. Net dominance questioned http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12082003/business/118003.asp 2. The Register: Internet showdown side-stepped in Geneva http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34394.html 3. CNN Money: A potentially tangled Web? http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/08/technology/internet.reut/ 4. The Washington Times: U.N. control of Web rejected http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031208-125717-6682r.htm 5. SeattlePi.com: Talks seek global Internet ground rules http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700slug= UN%20Tech%20Summit 6. The New York Times: Digital Divide to Be Big Issue at U.N. Summit on Internet http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/07CND-DIVI.html?ex=10714644 00en=1f0ead87b5fce559ei=5062partner=GOOGLE 7. Telecom.paper: ITU nominated to monitor Internet governance http://www.telecom.paper.nl/index.asp?location=http%3A//www.telecom.paper.n l/site/news_ta.asp%3Ftype%3Dabstract%26id%3D37965%26NR%3D122 8. TechWorld: Battle for control of Internet postponed http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=displaynewsnewsid=750 9. ARS Technica: U.N. battle brewing over control of the Internet http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1070735373.html 10. BBC News: Go ahead for UN internet summit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3300071.stm At 02:42 PM 12/8/2003 -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote: Just saw this online, and it seem apropos to recent traffic: snip http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/08/technology/internet.reut/index.htm Anyone know more about this? Noel Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: ITU takes over?
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy. v At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote: Hmmm, What is wrong with ISOC? Cannot it be this body, we are looking for? Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: Re[3]: national security
I don't know what jefsey means by IP zones Louis and I met in 1973 and his datagram ideas, sliding window ideas for flow control, influenced my thinking about TCP. Gerard LeLann, who worked in Louis Pouzin's group at IRIA came to Stanford in 1974 to work on the TCP and Internet. IEN 48 refers to catenet - a term invented by Louis. So Louis deserves recognition especially for his work on datagram networks. I can't speak to the email matter, not having any personal knowledge beyond the work of Ray Tomlinson at BBN in 1971 and Douglas Englebart at SRI in the mid/late 1960s. At 03:35 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, jfcm wrote: But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD) who you may know. He specified the first mail program at MIT, the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones (recently Vint recalled the Internet could have been called catenet from his multiple routes concatenation approach - I think is the necessary future). Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: national security
karl, ICANN has responsibility to do what it can to make sure the DNS and ICANN root system work. It does not have to disenfranchise the RIRs and the root servers to do this. vint At 12:02 AM 12/1/2003 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: Verisign will wave the flag of bias and ask ICANN to demonstrate why anycast got such an easy entree. because it did not change the results of queries. sitefinder did. Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: national security
karl, we raised the question of anycast risk with SECSAC in response to your concerns and the conclusion was that the risks had not materialized in the operation of anycast in roots that had already deployed it. There are lots of ways in which routing can be wedged - until we get some form of authentication, that risk will be with us. Moreover, even with authentication it is possible to misconfigure routing. Any table driven system that does not have an obvious syntactic or semantic way of detection a bad configuration is subject to these risks. vint At 06:29 PM 11/30/2003 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: The switch to anycast for root servers is a good thing. But it was hardly without risks. For example, do we really fully comprehend the dynamics of anycast should there be a large scale disturbance to routing on the order of 9/11? Could the machinery that damps rapid swings of routes turn out to create blacked out areas of the net in which some portion of the root servers become invisible for several hours? Could one introduce bogus routing information into the net and drag some portion of resolvers to bogus root servers? Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: national security
At 05:49 PM 11/29/2003 +, Paul Robinson wrote: John C Klensin wrote: With regard to ICANN and its processes, I don't much like the way a good deal of that has turned out, even while I believe that things are gradually getting better. I lament the set of decisions that led to the US Govt deciding that it needed to be actively involved and to some of the risks, delays, and socially undesirable statements that situation has created. OK, the big issue for those countries that want ICANN to be disbanded and for the Internet to be handed over to the ITU is quite simple: ICANN is a US-government controlled entity subject to US/Californian law. Please read the most recent MOU. The US Department of Commerce has gone to considerable effort to outline the path by which ICANN becomes the party responsible for the updating of the DNS root. The control you assert is quite limited even today. Any formal body has to have some jurisdiction in which it is constituted. One can argue whether California non-profit law is better or worse than being a UN entity. I believe there are arguments against the latter as much as there may arguments against the former. That's great if you're the US government and even semi-reasonable if you're an American. Absolutely awful if you're Chinese or Korean. that's not at all clear. ICANN has tried to promote the adoption of IDN, for example, in a responsible way. John Klensin's efforts, and others, to promote international compatibility to enhance the ability for parties to communicate is commendable. What do you think is awful? The IETF is about as close as we've got as an authority on the Internet that is not bounded by geographic boundaries, governmental control or commercial contract. You can make a reasonable argument that we should be running the show here, not ICANN. Not unless you want to take on the full burden of Internet Governance written large. Not even ICANN wishes to do that. In fact, ICANN's role is very limited compared to the full scope of Internet Governance. Issues such as fraud, taxation, intellectual property protection, dispute resolution, illegal actions are governmental matters and not even UN has the appropriate jurisdiction. It will take cooperation among governments and thoughtful domestic legislation to deal with many of these matters. ICANN has high regard for IETF and IAB and for that reason there is an IAB liaison appointed to the Board of Directors. The UNITC meeting needed to happen several years ago, but now we're there, realistically there is only one option left for a single, cohesive Internet to remain whilst taking into account ALL the World's population: ICANN needs to become a UN body. nonsense - as constituted today, ICANN is a better forum for interested constituencies to debate policy FOR THOSE AREAS THAT ARE IN ICANN'S PURVIEW (not shouting, just emphasis on limited purview of ICANN). The problem with the arguments I have heard, including yours, is that you may be thinking of Internet Governance in the large while ICANN's role is small and should stay that way. We need other venues in which to deal with the larger problems and perhaps UN or some of its constituents have a role to play. Probably WIPO and WTO do as well. general. So, while ICANN, IMO, continues to need careful watching -- most importantly to be sure that it does not expand into governance issues that are outside its rational scope-- I don't see give it to XXX or everyone runs off in his own direction as viable alternatives. Neither do I, but ICANN have clearly demonstrated: 1. They don't listen to us, or those parties who have a genuine vested interest in the Internet, UNLESS that party is a US Commercial or Governmental entity. I disagree - please consider the last ICANN meeting in which the Board went some distance to making changes in its policies in response to international constituency inputs. 2. Their incompetence at politcal levels has actually caused a delay in making the Internet available to those countries that need access to affordable communications infrastructures the most. Sorry, it is a lot more complex than you seem to think - the question of who should have responsibility for a CCTLD is often very complex - it is sometimes not even clear who the government of country X is. 3. Putting Computer Scientists in charge of anything is fundamentally a bad idea. In fact, they have shown they are worse at being in charge than politicians and lawyers... they will never get another chance after this god-awful mess. The Board is not made up of computer scientists alone; nor is the staff of ICANN. By your assertion, IETF should not be in charge of anything either. I disagree with that, too. In ICANN's support, the alternative - the ITU idea - is *horrible*. The ITU is not about open communications infrastrucutres - it's about *closed* infrastructures with contracts and licensing and costs and the
Re: national security
At 03:39 PM 11/29/2003 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote: I strongly object to your characterization of ICANN as abandoning the operation of roots and IP address allocation. These matters have been the subject of discussion for some time. I can't seem to recall during my 2 1/2 years on ICANN's board that there ever was any non-trivial discussion, even in the secrecy of the Board's private e-mail list or phone calls, on the matters of IP address allocation or operation of the DNS root servers. Because I was the person who repeatedly tried to raise these issues, only to be repeatedly met with silence, I am keenly aware of the absence of any substantive effort, much less results, by ICANN in these areas. The fact that there were few board discussions does not mean that staff was not involved in these matters. Discussions with RIRs have been lengthy and have involved a number of board members. So, based on my source of information, which is a primary source - my own experience as a Director of ICANN, I must disagree that ICANN has actually faced either the issue of DNS root server operations or of IP address allocation. And ICANN's enhanced architecture for root server security was so devoid of content as to be embarrassing - See my note at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/07.html The DNS root server operators have not shown any willingness to let ICANN impose requirements on the way they run their computers. Indeed, the deployment of anycast-based root servers without even telling ICANN in advance, much less asking for permission, is indicative of the distance between the operations of the root servers and ICANN. Sorry, anycast has been out there for quite a while; I am surprised you didn't know that. We had discussions about anycast with the SECSAC and the RSSAC and confirmed that there were few risks. The GAC requested and received a briefing on this as well. [I believe that the anycast change was a good one. However, there is no way to deny that that change was made independently of ICANN.] Anycast may even have preceded the creation of ICANN - perhaps an IETF source or one of the root server operators can say when the first ANYCAST deployments were done. Sure, ICANN prepares, or rather, Verisign prepares and ICANN someday hopes to prepare, the root zone file that the DNS root servers download. But to say that preparation of a small, relatively static, text file is the same as overseeing the root servers is inaccurate. In addition, the root server operators have shown that they are very able to coordinate among themselves without ICANN's assistance. ICANN absolutely recognizes the critical role of the RIRs Again, recognizing the RIRs is an admission that ICANN has abandoned its role as the forum in which public needs for IP addresses and technical demands for space and controled growth of routing information are discussed and balanced. Fortunately the RIRs have matured and are themselves the IP address policy forums that ICANN was supposed to have been. Moreover, the RIRs have shown that they are more than capable of doing a quite good job of coordinating among themselves. The RIRs have agreed to use the ASO as the mechanism for conducting global policy discussions - you seem to think that unless ICANN is dictating everything it is doing nothing. Sorry, I don't buy it. There is still need for coordination of policy among these groups and the other interested constituents and that is the role that ICANN will play. Again, ICANN can not demonstrate that it has engaged, because it has not engaged, in the coordination of IP address policy. Sure, ICANN has facilitated the creation of a couple of new RIRs. But again, there is vast distance between that and ICANN being the vehicle for policy formulation or oversight to ensure that those policies are in the interest of the public and technically rational. I have serious doubts that ICANN will be able to meet its obligations under the most recent terms of the oft-amended Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Department of Commerce. I see no sign that the DNS root server operators or the RIRs are going to allow themselves to become dependencies of ICANN and to allow their decisions to be superseded by decisions of ICANN's Board of Directors. they don't need to become dependencies for this process to work - you are setting up a strawman that I don't buy into, karl. What we are looking for is coordination of policy development in such a way that affected parties have an opportunity to raise issues. That's what the reform of the ICANN process was all about. I am not interested in having the decision of the Board of Directors supersede RIR or Root Server recommendations. I am interested in assuring that any policies developed have input from affected constituencies and that these are factored into the policies developed. vint cerf --karl
Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)
Valdis, I think your example underscores the difference between localization of an interface to make use of local language/script and globalization that permits interworking among all parties, independent of their local language and script. the confusion between these two (familiar user interfaces vs ability to communicate with everyone) makes for a good deal of debate. I hope can keep in mind both of these desirable aspects but most especially our ability to preserve the global communication needed. The dialing of telephone numbers relies on the ability of every party to enter digits while the system does not care much about what language we speak. One might think of Latin-A as the Internet equivalent of digits - however, I don't know whether it is a valid analogy. vint At 11:44 PM 10/29/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION *** *** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key *** Alert:Please verify signer's key before trusting signature. *** Signer: Valdis Kletnieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0xB4D3D7B0) *** Signed: 10/29/2003 11:44:55 PM *** Verified: 10/30/2003 2:02:59 AM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:32:46 +0800, James Seng said: to your opinion but please do so in other place, and not here. The group is suppose to work on Internationalization of Email address (identifiers), not debate whether we need it or not. Any group that addresses how and for which contexts without having a good grasp on why is inventing solutions in search of problems. Mark actually *does* have a *very* valid point - on today's internet, if you cannot recognize and enter the glyphs for at least c, h, m, o p, t, w, ':', '@', '.', and '/' you are effectively unable to use the internet. It may not make any sense to you, but you can at least recognize and enter them (note that this same issue was one of the biggest arguments against the .biz domain). So.. having established that if they're currently using the internet, they can at least recognize and enter the Latin glyphs, this raises a number of *very* important questions: 1) Is there reason to *not* expect said knowledge of Latin glyphs in the future? If not, what user group(s) will be literate but not know the Latin charset? 2) Is a community approach acceptable? Is usage of Han OK as long as you're interacting with other Han users, or are the issues of leakage too high? 3) What *are* the issues of leakage? What am I expected to see if I get some Han, and how am I to interact with it? Equally important, what does the Han user do with my leaked Latin-A characters? 4) Here's a somewhat related issue - looking at the U0100.pdf from www.unicode,org, I had to enlarge page 2 quite a bit before I could see the difference between the glyphs at 0114/0115 (capital/small e with breve) and 011A/011B (capital/small e with caron). And I know my way around most of the Latin characters - our hypothetical Han user is going to be swinging in the breeze if he gets a business card with e-caron on it. And if you can't safely put e-caron on a business card, why are we bothering? *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
RE: conclusion for ALL YOUR WILDCARDS
if you do that, I hope you will edit to manageable and understandable proportions... :-/ v At 10:50 PM 9/24/2003 +1000, Laird, James wrote: Maybe we should put together a summary of the discussion and send it to ICANN? Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: Solving the right problems ...
I am a strong proponent of trying to find a way to create a new set of end identifiers that would be insensitive to the changing of IP level addresses. It seems to me that we would find ourselves working pretty hard to tease apart the current strong binding of IP and TCP (pseudoheaders etc) but it may be well worth the effort. For one thing, it might lead to the ability to carry TCP segments over multiple Source/Destination pairs between the same hosts (labeled by a single end point identifier each) in addition to allowing for rebinding of endpoint identifier and IP address. The rendezvous and signalling problem of concurrent motion is not unlike the challenge of TCP's simultaneous-INIT - you have to get the fixed point right to make it all work. We have other fixed points in the Internet, notably the root hint file, so perhaps it is not unreasonable to consider another fixed point concept to facilitate simultaneous rebinding of IP and endpoint identifiers. I suspect this ge! ts pre tty messy when you start to think about multicast but that's territory that also needs exploring. We would also want to look very carefully at the potential spoofing opportunity that rebinding would likely introduce. Vint At 05:44 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: and of course neither SCTP or TCP would be sufficient by itself. we still need a suitable identifier, a way to map those into locators, and a way to maintain those mappings. I'm still undecided about whether it is better to modify existing transports or to do a mobile-IP like approach. The latter has tunneling overhead but works for all transports and in some sense the changes are simpler. Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: Proposal to define a simple architecture to differentiate legitimate bulk email from Spam (UBE)
At 04:24 AM 9/8/2003 +0800, Shelby Moore wrote: At 11:51 AM 9/7/2003 +0800, you wrote: You can get mail no matter where you are with a POP account also. shelby, that's actually not true. If you have an enterprise email service that requires access to a VPN and the internet service you access it with (e.g hotel room ethernet) has a bad firewall configuration, you may never get to the mail. I speak with personal experience - the hotel I am in right now has screwed up its firewall. I ended up having to find an 802.11 hotspot to get to my email. I understand but that was not my point. My point is that you can put a web-based interface on top of your POP account to access it any where. You still have a POP account which you are accessing any where if that is what you want. The web-based interface is just another form of an email client. that's different - what you said was as quoted above. I agree that if you design the web server properly, you can use a web interface, but you run the risk that with this design, you may never be able to pull the email later, POPStyle, into your computer. Although it is theoretically possible, using POP (rather than IMAP) to leave the mail on the server until you pull it again with POP, many servers appear to clear out the mail after POPing it. I think John Klensin made that observation in an earlier exchange. The point is that you don't need to use a web-based email without an underlying POP account in order to access email from any where. There are even places where HTTP web-based interface won't work (e.g. cell phone) and so you need to use a different form of email client to access. Still you can have an underlying POP account that mail is being drawn from. see above. v Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: Solving the right problems ...
At 08:41 AM 9/2/2003 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Vint, vgc If you look at the instant messaging systems, they map a private vgc identifier space (IM name or handle) into IP addresses and vgc apparently run background heartbeat to re-assign the mapping if the vgc identifier in the heartbeat arrives in a packet with a different IP vgc address than before - I was under the impression that they did not handle mobility nearly so dynamically or automatically. Rather, I seem to need to log in whenever I move. So they seem to do a login-time mapping. (On the other hand, the login for IM is usually automatic.) no at least AIM tracks in real time In any event, I suspect that your domain name-based suggestion is the right one to pursue. That is, use DNS for the public, persistent name, and have a record that points to a dynamic address-mapping registry. (One might even think of mapping to a presence service...) Somehow, dynamic DNS does not seem like such a good idea, for anything that might change this much or this rapidly and serious host mobility. agree d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA USA tel:+1.408.246.8253, fax:+1.866.358.5301 Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)
keith, SIP may have been initially motivated by telephony style applications but it is a very general and extensible negotiation protocol - it was that aspect that grabbed my attention when I first heard about Schulzrinne's work on it several years ago. I think the point really is that SIP is extensible and may be a very reasonable platform on which to build a wide range of peer to peer and distributed application control. vint At 07:43 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: Why in the world should IETF bias a conferencing solution toward the telephony providers? I mean, if SIP turned out to be a good solution for everyone, fine. But the group shouldn't assume a priori that SIP is the right direction. Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)
As a prospective supplier of SIP-based services, I am very interested in seeing SIP-based definitions for the support of a wide range of conferencing tools ranging from voice/video to IM and mixtures that might include a participant with only a phone and a fax machine. This is not to say that I would reject other protocol bases for such service but rather to say that we have a significant investment in SIP-based services and would like to see them expanded in standard ways so as to encourage interworking among parties offering such services. I leave it to the IESG and other interested parties to figure out how best to achieve that objective. Perhaps a SIP-oriented WG is the appropriate vehicle, recognizing that what ever procedures are invented, rooted in the SIP system, might well have counterparts in other signalling enviroments and could therefore be re-incarnated in them. Whether that would confer interworking between the SIP and non-SIP systems is beyond my ability to predict. Vint At 03:29 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote: jon - sorry for the delay in replying. fundamentally, i think it comes down to accuracy in labelling. if the sip folks want to do conferencing, then they should have a working group to do that. however, the charter for that working group should not imply that the scope of the working group is anything beyond sip. a reasonable person reading the charter would conclude that the scope of the working group is somewhat more generic than sip. if the goal for this working group is to be generic, then the charter is likely unacceptable since it assumes facts not entered into evidence, i.e., it is sip-centric, and there is a fair body of deployed work that manages to do conferencing very well without using that acronym. if that is not the intention, then i suggest that the working group be called something like sipxcon to avoid any confusion. as to whether the working group belongs in apps or tsv, a generic conferencing working group clearly belongs in apps. however, a sip-specific working group can probably comfortably reside in either. /mtr Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: non-complain mail system at alcatel.com
I would be interested to know whether Alcatel really believes that DNS behaves in such a way that one MUST delegate at each dot - as far as I know, it is NOT required to do so. vint At 04:01 PM 6/22/2003 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Alcatel.com does not have a functional email system. It believes that all domains must have full NS-record delegations. I.e. that my domain sandelman.ottawa.on.ca must be a delegation from ottawa.on.ca, rather than from ca. (The .CA namespace has a single ccTLD) I have contacted Alcatel repeatedly by email and by phone in the past months, and I have gotten no response to this. A major problem is that I think that only one of their MX's has this behaviour. So, I'm resorting to the only other way I have - embarassment. Specifically, it says: The original message was received at Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:27:27 -0400 (EDT) from IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [192.139.46.2] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (reason: 550 sender ignored: ottawa.on.ca does not have a name server record) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to primary.alcatel.com.: MAIL From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 sender ignored: ottawa.on.ca does not have a name server record 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPvYLIYqHRg3pndX9AQH+1QP/fe0rInX+kaX3QQFFlnF6qNEzDyVGsTcf NptzvtrzSUqQC1TMXYMII25nkvk4G2p73qWDxmoTxGhax/CYhJyZwPfPpLO/AqV9 Nl8wmGE6sLMMCorgsX+O52Q5Rdni/LK/yMz0RYf/wkZnhIBTpqINww6TtANnsAZ5 RkOSQjDwrLc= =7AxR -END PGP SIGNATURE- Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: The spam problem is political (Re: Engineering to deal with thesocial problem of spam)
this is NOT an ICANN problem - ICANN has no jurisdiction at the email level. vint cerf chairman, ICANN At 12:27 AM 6/8/2003 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote: Spam costs nothing. Spam comes from all corners of the world, where the Dutch police doesn't dare to go. And even if they would the Dutch judges would say it is without their jurisduction. Spam can only be fought through a worldwide police and justice system. This cannot by achieved by an RFC. Send this problem to ICANN. Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
Re: Chest congestion
Tony, bless you for your thoughtful concern - please keep me posted - I am scheduled to be in Singapore in early April. vint At 08:42 PM 3/18/2003 -0800, Tony Hain wrote: In the interest of full disclosure I want to let you all know that this evening I developed a deep chest cough. This morning I woke up with sinus congestion, and over the course of the day that seemed to be clearing. At 6 pm I was coughing up significant indications of some kind of respratory infection. It has been about 3 weeks since I left China, so I don't believe this is related to the current outbreak there, but rather than risk exposing everyone to whatever this is I am headed home. I will let you know what the doctor says as soon as possible. Tony Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
that would have to be a decision of PIR and its board - ISOC does not, at least as I understand it, have any direct access to the .org revenues. ISOC does select the PIR board but otherwise there is no financial connection. Vint At 12:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote: Harald, The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current funding methods won't pay for our current work. At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas for improving the situation. At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us who worked on the bid [2] So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB? -rick [1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf [2] http://trusted.resource.org/ Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
the reason for copyrighting the standards produced by IETF is precisely to simultaneously allow IETF to derive new standards documents from the older ones and to have the ability to prohibit others from doing so without specific authorization. Vint At 09:15 AM 1/24/2003 -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: However, unless I'm severely confused (which is always possible), the prohibition against derivative works came from the ITU side of the fence, the prohibition is more not used all that often - two main cases where is is 1/ vendor work publish for the information of the community 2/ republishing a standard from another SDO just like we would not want the ITU fixing an IETF standard w/o our input it seems a reasonable desire to not have the IETF fix an ITU (or ETSI etc) standard w/o their involvement Scott Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
catanet was a term invented by Louis Pouzin, a French researcher responsible for the design and construction of the Cyclades system that included the Cigale pure datagram network. The term appeared in Internet Experiment Note #48 but as I recall was not used thereafter, when the term Internet became the preferred descriptive name of the multiple network system sponsored by ARPA. Vint At 11:21 PM 1/13/2003 -0500, Richard J. Sexton Ph.D. J.D. wrote: How does this relate to Postels catanet work? Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
My first recollection of the documented use of the term Internet was in RFC 675 the specification of the Internet Transmission Control Protocol. ARPA called the project Internetting starting in 1973, I believe. Bob Kahn you know that point for sure. vint At 02:59 AM 1/15/2003 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: PS. Vint, when was the name Internet used for the first time? When you say 'multiple net systems' did you refer by then to mutiple networks, to multiple technologies or both? Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Correction: Re: The 20th anniversary of the Internet
yes, duh. v At 12:16 PM 12/21/2002 +, Peter KIRSTEIN wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] myou write: bob is correct; I left ARPA in Oct 1972 to join MCI. vint You mean 1982. Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Correction: Re: The 20th anniversary of the Internet
bob is correct; I left ARPA in Oct 1972 to join MCI. vint At 07:49 PM 12/20/2002 +, Bob Braden wrote: In my recent message about the creation of the Internet by the conversion of the ARPAnet from NCP to TCP/IP, I incorrectly named Vint Cerf as the Responsible Parent at ARPA. Actually, the Responsible Parent at ARPA during conversion was Bob Kahn; Vint had left ARPA for MCI before that date. There are enough slightly-incorrect facts about the early history of the Internet floating around, without my inadvertantly creating a new non-fact! Bob Braden Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: RFC publish rate
do not confuse effort for progress vint cerf At 08:33 AM 12/19/2002 +0200, you wrote: Hi, Is it just me, or have RFC's been popping out lately like mushrooms in an autumn? Something seems to be working.. :-) Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You
where are these statistics from - I cannot believe that more than a few percent of the net uses non-USG root. Vint At 09:10 AM 11/23/2002 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: The root servers struck by the attack assist computers in translating Internet domain names, such as www.circleid.com, to numeric equivalents used by computers. These servers provide the primary roadmap for 70% of all Internet communications. The remaining 30% of the net now uses competing root service providers who bypass the USG root system. They were not under attack. Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You
joe, this makes no sense to me - the cacheing mechanisms are essentially doing what you suggest. That's one of the reasons the system is resilient. But you need to invalidate the cache to deal with changes to the binding of domain name and IP address. Simply mirroring everything doesn't improve things, in my estimation. In fact, trying to mirror everything everywhere has a massive update problem. Cacheing spreads the update process over time. The USG doesn't actually run the root server (although some of the root servers are in fact housed at USG supported laboratories). The Dept of Commerce in effect delegates the actual operation to the root server operators. The issue is less the size of the file than the problem of updating many copies of it reliably. The root server operators find it a challenge to assure that even the modestly sized root zone file is correctly distributed to all root servers accurately and in a timely fashion. At 09:10 AM 11/23/2002 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: To survive a sustained DDOS attack against the roots, the best solution an ISP has is to run its own system and eliminate any dependence on the US government for basic internet services. It would also be prudent for other primary namespaces like .com. Unfortunately, though, it would require a considerable amount of resources -- the .com zone file alone is well over a gigabyte in size. But the root file is very manageable and can easily be run on an ISP's local domain name servers. Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You
Louis Touton is Vice President and General Counsel of ICANN. ICANN has had a root server advisory committee from early days, working on root server placement to improve resilience; the security and stability advisory committee was created in the wake of 9/11 and has increased the priority of root server security evaluation. At 09:10 AM 11/23/2002 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: The attack, however, should come as no surprise to ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the Department of Commerce contractor responsible for root security. Over the years, ICANN has been warned that the existing root infrastructure was vulnerable to attack, but the warnings have been largely ignored. Now, however, ICANN President Louis Touton insists that the attacks make it important to have increased focus on the need for security and stability of the Internet. ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee quickly moved in to investigate the incident. The committee is expected to produce a report on securing the edge of the USG Domain Name System network. Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
RE: APEX
Louis Pouzin at INRIA coined the term datagram for use in his CIGALE/CYCLADES network around 1974. vint At 07:17 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: At 06:46 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Fred Baker wrote: A packet is a unit of data carried in a packet network, this just moves the question over the definition of a packet network. (I was trying to compress things.) regardless of the layer. For some reason, we generally refer to layer two packets as 'frames' (such as Ethernet, Frame relay, or LAPB 'frames'), X.25 packets as 'packets', and TCP packets as 'segments'. please note your use of the word generally. as I said, use of these terms is flexible. I can point out literature that refers to each of those as 'packets'. that was my point. But a datagram is quite clearly defined. I believe the term datagram predates IP and seem to recall hearing it during the late 70's and early 80's in non-IP venues. The fact that it is well defined for one use does not mean that the definition is, well, definitive. ...from the application's perspective, a wad of data is directed to a specified destination, and the application can essentially fire and forget. I could imagine the APEX folks using the term datagram in that latter sense. indeed locking the term down for Apex is probably the more useful path. (but it is slightly amusing that your definition is the same as I used for packet-switching...) d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TribalWise, Inc. http://www.tribalwise.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
A note from France regarding the Terrorist's attack
Jean-Noel is the senior advisor on Information Technology to the Prime Minister of France. vint Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 17:36:13 +0200 From: TRONC JEAN-NOEL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: TR: with you in this terrible moment. To: vint cerf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Importance: high Priority: Urgent Thread-Topic: TR: with you in this terrible moment. Thread-Index: AcE7n8GMPsEOaPpMSvi57KyXWRHc3gAAIwFg X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2001 15:45:39.0842 (UTC) FILETIME=[F91F0E20:01C13BA1] Dear Vint, It is a fact that the web has been the only mean of communications for hours for those of us seeking news from relatives in NY and W.D.C., telephone lines beeing saturated over the atlantic. You may share my message with who you think appropriate, toutes mes amitiés Jean-Noël -Message d'origine- De : vint cerf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : mercredi 12 septembre 2001 17:29 À : TRONC JEAN-NOEL Objet : Re: TR: with you in this terrible moment. Importance : Haute Dear Jean-Noel, I cannot tell you how much your message means to me. If you will permit, I would like to share it rather widely to others who will be comforted by it. Vint At 05:24 PM 9/12/2001 +0200, TRONC JEAN-NOEL wrote: -Message d'origine- De : TRONC JEAN-NOEL Envoyé : mercredi 12 septembre 2001 17:11 À : Dr. CERF Vinton G. (E-mail) Objet : with you in this terrible moment. Importance : Haute Dear Vint, I'll respond to you again on technical matters, but just a rapid message to express my warmest sympathy in this terrible moment for you. They savagely struck the heart of democracy, and the blow is a blow against all of us. In France, there is a terrible psychological shock, which underlines how close we feel with America and the Americans. In the subway this morning, I had an experience that happens very rarely in our history : every one, not knowing his neighbour, started talking about this unprecedented crime, with a mix feeling of deep sympathy for the American people, horror and strong anger against the criminals. At the prime minister cabinet, everyone I met this morning had spend the night listening to the news, looking for news from friends in NY and W.D.C., with a very strong feeling of total solidarity with America in these tragic hours. I hope that none of your relatives was victim of the tragedy, very sincerely, Jean-Noël Jean-Noël TRONC Conseiller pour la société de l'information Cabinet du Premier ministre Advisor to the Prime Minister for the Information Society 32, rue de Babylone 75007 Paris FRANCE Tél : + 33 (0)1 42 75 88 24 Fax : + 33 (0)1 42 75 89 84 Mél : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] = WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE! http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Deployment vs the IPv6 community's ambivalence towards largeproviders
I hope I will be forgiven for adding another message to this long thread. 1. we have to discuss the practical problems of deploying IPv6 and especially a bunch of corner cases or it won't work. 2. there are still a lot of "holes" in my opinion that need filling in any credible deployment scenario - and we'll learn the most from trying to get serious, operational IPv6 networks up and running. 3. the ietf general list is probably the wrong place for further extended discusssion vint (I'm an advocate of trying to get IPv6 into operational condition) = WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: more on IPv6 address space exhaustion
the commission is not responsible for the assignment of IP address space is it??? vint At 02:53 PM 8/11/2000 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a routeable prefix was given to every human, using a predicted world population of 11 billion, we would consume about 0.004% of the total IPv6 address space. (The actual calculation is 11*10^9/2^48 since there are 48 bits in an IPv6 routing prefix. Or 11,000,000,000 / 281,474,976,710,656 = 0.39 ) I have heard on some local (SF bay area) technology news reports that the Commission on Online Child Protection is looking at dividing the IPv6 address space into regions that can be classified according to their "safety" for child access. Depending on how this allocation is done (if it's done), couldn't this mean we will still need NAT? --gregbo = WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
RE: imode far superior to wap
folks, our current plan is NOT to try to extend a single address space across the solar system. We plan to confine address spaces to planets, satellites, space vehicles and the backbone Internet - but each address space is independent. We plan to use something akin to the domain name system for interplanetary-wide references. It's a little more complex than that, but in any case we concluded that trying to extend the end/end ADDRESS paradigm across the distances of the solar system were unrealistic. The design team is working on a spec it will look forward to sharing with anyone interested. vint At 04:59 PM 8/10/2000 +0200, Steven Cotton wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Barathy, RamaSubramaniam wrote: Soon we need to have the interplanetary ip address allocation methods even for our planet (The work of Vinton cerf colleagues in NASA) for so many devices popping up. This brings up some more problems I don't even want to start thinking about. Yet. -- steven = WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
RE: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
see www.ipnsig.org vint At 09:46 PM 8/3/2000 -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There is already a lot of work being done on the Interplanetary Internet problem. Vint Cerf has lead pioneering work with people at JPL on the problem. I don't remember the URL but it should be easy to find. The current achitecture (last I checked) was for basically independent networks on each planet with gateways at the planetary borders. There are some facinating problems that come up when you think about it. - --- Phil = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announce list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
Greg, I am a strong proponent of developing and implementing accessibility guidelines. The ICANN election has simply overwhelmed the available resources - but I think the follow-on study absolutely should take into account accessibility concerns. vint At 08:02 AM 7/31/2000 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Allen Simpson wrote: The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners are not the target audience for ICANN membership. I do hope this isn't the official ICANN view. I imagine that a disability discrimination lawsuit would soon follow. how many text-to-speech audio browsers support frames well? Support for the disabled does seem to be a concern in some quarters; for example, see http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Internet/World_Wide_Web/Browsers/Lynx/ The secure registration page requires https, which isn't available in lynx as far as I know. I am wondering if it might make sense going forward to allow an email submission. Email is for the most part a queued delivery mechanism, so it is not necessary for the user to resubmit an html form if the server is busy. --gregbo = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
and I replied: Ronda, have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to register? do you know what the planning estimates were before registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations? The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000 people. As of a few days ago something like 145,000 people had sent in raw registrations. Keep in mind also that there is a PIN number that has to be sent by mail. There is a calendar schedule that ICANN is trying to keep for the election itself, so the PINs have to get to the voters in time for that. Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000 a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour) simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations close July 31. We all understand that the demand for this franchise far exceeds our ability to satisfy it in this election cycle. An in-depth study of the whole process is scheduled to begin after this election, Ronda - perhaps you were unaware of that? The board detailed specific areas to be considered. Perhaps the most effective way for your idea to be considered is to arrange for your proposal to be made available to the ICANN board? Vint Cerf At 12:38 PM 7/30/2000 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sent the following to Becky Burr a few minutes ago as a formal complaint about the ICANN abuse of users My proposal is online at the Dept of Commerce NTIA web site and also at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt I welcome comments and discussion on the issues raised by the letter I have sent to Becky Burr and on the actual problem that has to be solved to protect and scale the vital functions of the Internet in the public internet. Ronda [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:34 -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN Becky Burr NTIA U.S. Dept of Commerce Washington, D.C. Dear Becky Have you tried to register for ICANN's membership? First the membership is an ill conceived notion to try to hide that ICANN has been formed to deny the public interest with regard to the Internet's names, numbers and protocols. It's an effort to make it seem that a non profit corporation can be entrusted with the ownership and control of vital functions of the infrastructure of the Internet. A nonprofit corporation can't be entrusted with this. These are vital social and public resources and they can't be put into a private sector entity. However, rather than the US government making it possible to examine the problem of how to protect the vital functions of the Internet and to scale them in the public interest, ICANN was empowered by the U.S. Department of Commerce with unbridled powers and a limited provision was created for so called "membership" of users, i.e. some limited right supposedly to vote for certain so called at large directors. Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are not even making any access available to that. The version to sign up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have a browser with frames are not able to even use that part of the web site. And an alternative web site set up in another country gives a message of "We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded. Please try again when the system is less busy." when I tried to sign up. Clearly the whole ICANN model is not appropriate for the needs of the Internet and its users. I did propose a different model, and a prototype to build this model to you before ICANN was given the U.S. Dept of Commerce contract. Clearly it was crucial that you explore other models and try to determine what was the best proposal for the problem the U.S. government was faced with, namely how to protect the vital functions of the Internet from vested interests and to make it possible for them to scale. It seems that the U.S. government wasn't even interested in trying to identify the problem that had to be solved, let alone in trying to determine how to solve it. I am formerly objecting to the whole process of the creation and development of ICANN by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and requesting that you find a way to have the proposal I provided the Department of Commerce implemented. My proposal provided a means to create meaningful online participation by users and for computer scientists supported by their governments to create an open process that would utilize the Internet and its interactive processes to create the cooperative form needed to safeguard the vital functions of the Internet's infrastructure. That is what is needed not an institutional entity to encourage the "vested interests" to fight over power and control over
Internet vs internet
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 21:16:47 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Defining "Internet" (or "internet") To: "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for deciphering my blurb into something that makes sense. ( can you send this on to the IETF mailing list, so I don't recieve similar mails for the rest of the night correcting me ;- ) Regards Jim "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/07/2000 08:26:07 PM Sent by: "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Stephenson-Dunn/C/HQ/3Com cc: Subject: Re: Defining "Internet" (or "internet") the capital I meant the public Internet - nothing to do with countries - just that this was the global, publicly accessible Internet. "internet" meant a private network that used IP technology. vint At 04:09 PM 7/7/2000 -0700, you wrote: I always thought that Internet with capital "I" meant the Internet between countries, whilst the internet with a lower case "i" is referred to by the press as an intranet within a corporate structure. Both run IP but within different environments. Just my 2 cents. Jim = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Re: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?
ooops, sorry, I guess it was Paul that uncovered my retirement scheme. v At 10:10 AM 5/8/2000 +0100, Paul Robinson wrote: No! We don't want to fix the holes! We want to keep a record of them without telling the admins, and when they misbehave, not only can we pop their kneecaps, set fire to their house, release information to their families they wouldn't want to be released, but also as a grand finale, we can take control of the machine and do what we wanted anyway. Eventually, we as the IETF would have complete control of every machine connected to the Internet, thereby giving us control of the entire planet, which in turn would allow us to park wherever we wanted and *not*get*a*ticket*!! :-) -- Paul Robinson - Developer/Sys Admin @ Akitanet http://www.akitanet.co.uk = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?
At 10:39 AM 5/8/2000 -0700, Jim Stephenson-Dunn wrote: No! We don't want to fix the holes! We want to keep a record of them without telling the admins, and when they misbehave, not only can we pop their kneecaps, set fire to their house, release information to their families they wouldn't want to be released, but also as a grand finale, we can take control of the machine and do what we wanted anyway. Eventually, we as the IETF would have complete control of every machine connected to the Internet, thereby giving us control of the entire planet, which in turn would allow us to park wherever we wanted and *not*get*a*ticket*!! :-) Dang! Jim's gone and uncovered my nefarious retirement plan. Now I'll have to think of something else :-( Jim, you left out the "Nyah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!" part... vint p.s. apologies to IETF list for cluttering with this. It just slipped out. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
that's right - they use iMODE on the DOCOMO mobiles. iMODE and WAP seem to have that in common: a non-IP radio link protocol and an application gateway. Of course, this limits the applications to those that can be "translated" in the gateway, while an end to end system (such as the Ricochet from Metricom) would allow essentially any application on an Internet server to interact directly with the mobile device because the gateway would merely be an IP level device, possibly with NAT functionality. With a JAVA interpreter or other similar capability in the mobile, one could imagine considerable competition for development of new applications. As it stands, only the applications NTT chooses to implement in the translating gateway are accessible. Since HTTP is one of the "applications" served, there is still a lot of room for competition, I suppose. vint At 02:53 PM 4/30/2000 +0859, Masataka Ohta wrote: In Japan, there are more than 5 million non-IP mobile WWW browsers served by a single application gateway. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
RE: IPv6: Past mistakes repeated?
For those of you who don't know, and Jim is too modest to tell you, he was a member of the Stanford team that designed and implemented the first TCP protocol versions. Later he went on to build the first versions for the portable Digital LSI-11s used in the Packet Radio network. Vint = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
big smile - vBNS+ is running IPv6 on a commercial basis. I'd be more than interested in your opinion of a sensible (acceptable) policy on the minimum size of IPv6 space one might expect to allocate to customers. Vint At 09:08 PM 4/22/2000 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote: And yes I have a credit card ready, willing and able to purchase service for an ISP willing to give be a nice block of IP V6 numbers ( 50 will do ) at a reasonable price and the support necessary to implement them. Dr. Cerf ..you have a customer. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000 http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
