[IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws deals with two issues. On the question of geographical diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC representatives than it has members, I do not agree with limiting the number of nominations a member can make. The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
[IFWP] PLAYBOY LOSES TRADEMARK SUIT
All, FYI: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,39496,00.html In late June, Playboy lost a lawsuit which sought to bar two portal sites from generating hard core sex ads when visitors searched for the term "playboy." Playboy had alleged, in the suit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, that Excite and Netscape Communications violated its trademarks by presenting other companies' banner ads when surfers sought out the magazine's web site. The court found that the trademark had not been infringed because the terms "playboy" and "playmate" are part of the English language and no company can dominate their usage. Playboy has said it plans to appeal. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. What a marked contrast to the BWG and ORSC rules where board members could be removed. Has this become blatently obvious yet as to what is actually going on?
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Milton and all Excellent comments here Milton. I could not agree more. I will pass these on to our [INEGroup] board for review as well, I am fairly sure that they will meet with their approval. IT seems that this ICANN (Initial?) Interim board again, and continues to demonstrate that they care nothing for their responsibilities to the requirements of the White Paper and the MoU as well with this sort of "Top Down" structure. Milton Mueller wrote: The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. The amendment to Section 3(c) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws deals with two issues. On the question of geographical diversity, the ICANN Board has created distrust by its apparent willingness to make exceptions for trademark interests and other big business constituents. Once again, I would prefer not to see discretionary power in the hands of the board. Either enforce geographical diversity or don't. On the second question, while I agree with the provision that a constituency cannot have more NC representatives than it has members, I do not agree with limiting the number of nominations a member can make. The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: The future
Vany and all, Interesting thoughts and they should be expanded upon to be sure. It is the very nature of "Constituencies" to divide and therefore create to one extent or another "Divisiveness" as to the point of also creating "Special Interest Groups" within the structure of the DNSO. This was in our [INEGroup's] opinion a very bad and destabilizing act on the part of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board. It appears that this sort of divisiveness is underway at a rapid and destructive pace, hence leaving many organizations, such as you mention below in your comments nearly no real place of very little place of determination in the policy decisions that will in the future effect all stakeholders of the Internet. Vany Martinez wrote: Hi all: I just woke up this morning and while drinking a cup of tea, I was reading the newspaper. In the enterntaiment section I read about a new organization that is fighting agains piratery of music by means of Internet. They are creating new formats due MP3 is now very popularized and promotes, of course piratery. After I begin to think in the people of Hollywood: the movies industry...The Oscar: Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Sciencies (http://www.oscar.org). Reading the NCDNHC, I saw that also organizations that promotes arts and sciences are welcome to NCDNHC. this one we are talking about promotes the Motion Picture arts and Motion Pictures Sciences. But where is the point??? The point is that I think we are not thinking in the far away future. We are thinking just in the "now". I would think that organizations that fight against piratery (of all kinds) promotes commerical interests, but the fact is that piratery is ilegal and piratery can attack even to non-commercial organizations. Or well, when we think in arts, maybe we are thinking in little associations that are, of course, non-commercial: groups of experimental theater, associations of concerts and arts in every country promoting the people go to such events, schools and unversities dedicated only to arts (public and private). But what about the really big ones??? the ones that seems to serve "commercial interests"??? however when you read what it threats about such academy, in fact, they just claim that promotes the arts. Organizations as: - The Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences (best well known as the people that awards the Oscar) - And the ones that organize Cannes festival - The Academy Music Awards and many more others. And I can follow with other areas: The National Science Foundation??, what about the Militar schools??? All of them are educative, even if their educational area directs to militar ones. What about CERN in Geneva??? While we are worrying about "non-profit" or "non-commercial"...we have a worst problem in the future. Once time someone that I think is well known for all of us, was claimed very angrily about don't allow ISOC to promote and even don't allow ISOC to be member of NCDNHC. Today, when I though in the guys that awards the Oscar, I just think that if such guys wish to be member NCDNHC we cannot deny the membership because the Academy of Motion Picture and Science is for the artists of motion picture community what ISOC is for Internet community. By the way...this is only a very little piece of future...can anyone else produce more examples in other areas??? Best Regards Vany :-) Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales Especialista en Tecnologia de Informacion/Asistente Administrativa Programa Red de Desarrollo Sostenible/Panama Tel. (507) 230-4011 ext 213, (507) 230-3455 Fax: (507) 230-3646 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Mikki and all, One wonders, doesn't one Mikki? It might be worthwile for you to elaborate in your own words as to what your thoughts are here. I know what mine and INEGroups are, in this respect Mikki Barry wrote: The most objectionable proposal is the amendment to Section 2(f) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws. This allows a vote of the ICANN Board to remove duly elected Names Council members from office. Even with a 3/4 majority requirement, I see no justification for placing such power in the hands of the Board, at the expense of the DNSO constituency. Constituencies can develop their own methods for removing or disciplining errant NC members. There is too much potential for discrimination and abuse in this provision, which allows the ICANN Board on its own motion to reach into a constituency and remove one of its elected members. What a marked contrast to the BWG and ORSC rules where board members could be removed. Has this become blatently obvious yet as to what is actually going on? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: [bwg-core] Proposed by-law amendments
The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. I would suggest that perhaps the ICANN board already has the power to do this anyway. According to one J. S., ICANN's board is responsible that the entity operate according to its charter. (Not that this board has done this, i.e. operated according to its charter, but I'm speaking about theory, not practice.) Since the NC is simply part of ICANN, the board has the innate power to reach in to *any* part of ICANN and make any changes it sees fit. That is unless there are specific prohibitions against it in the organic documents. And, and here is where I really feel it is getting ugly, is that apparently ICANN feels that even if there are specific provisions, that the nature of the board's plenary power requires that those provisions be read to be useless and meaningless. Remember my argument with Sims about those sections in the ICANN by-laws that specify that the board "shall" accept SO decisions unless certain exceptional situations are found? Well that language isn't there because it looks pretty, it has meaning. Yet ICANN says "hooey, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on because the board has to have the power to do what it needs to do." (What is ironic is that the BWG proposals for a strong board vis a vis the SO's were resisted by those who are now ICANN, yet now they want the strong board.) The problem with all of this stuff is that ICANN has made its self so mutible that it makes itself look like whatever it wants to look like. --karl--
[IFWP] Internet stability
Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 06:24 PM 8/1/99 , Dan Steinberg wrote: Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? I would go one further and ask why and under what authority the US Dept of Commerce is involved in details of name server operations for an enhanced information service on private computer networks. Does the Commerce Department intend to begin managing the operations of even more critical network functions of the Internet? --tony
Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg-core] Proposed by-law amendments
Karl and all, Karl, very interesting points. ANd ones that have been made nearly countless times and questioned, most especially directly to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board directly with only Joe Sims replying, although very cryptically and evasively... (See more below your comments) Karl Auerbach wrote: The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. The amendment to Section 2(a) of Article VI-B of the Bylaws allows the ICANN Board to resolve disputes about which member of a constituency is recognized as a Names Council member. Such disputes should be resolved by the constituency itself, according to their own rules. I would suggest that perhaps the ICANN board already has the power to do this anyway. Indeed it does. According to one J. S., ICANN's board is responsible that the entity operate according to its charter. (Not that this board has done this, i.e. operated according to its charter, but I'm speaking about theory, not practice.) Many times that are already very well documented in the ICANN "Public Comments" archives, it has been pointed out that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board also HAS NOT acted in accordance, in fact to the contrary to it's own bylaws. It seems that Joe Sims was being at least honest that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board, views it's bylaws as practically worthless. Hence they feel that they can adjust their unilateral decision making abilities anyway they may choose... Since the NC is simply part of ICANN, the board has the innate power to reach in to *any* part of ICANN and make any changes it sees fit. Indeed it can and has... Without I might add with the benefit of a constituted membership, which is in direct conflict with the White Paper and the MoU specifically... That is unless there are specific prohibitions against it in the organic documents. And, and here is where I really feel it is getting ugly, is that apparently ICANN feels that even if there are specific provisions, that the nature of the board's plenary power requires that those provisions be read to be useless and meaningless. Yep. Kind of a catch 22... Remember my argument with Sims about those sections in the ICANN by-laws that specify that the board "shall" accept SO decisions unless certain exceptional situations are found? Well that language isn't there because it looks pretty, it has meaning. Yet ICANN says "hooey, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on because the board has to have the power to do what it needs to do." I sure remember it quite distinctly! (What is ironic is that the BWG proposals for a strong board vis a vis the SO's were resisted by those who are now ICANN, yet now they want the strong board.) Seems that they can't make up their minds. A very sobering thought, and one that indicates the inadequacy of this ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. The problem with all of this stuff is that ICANN has made its self so mutible that it makes itself look like whatever it wants to look like. Yes, and unfortunate that is to be sure. It is also contrary to stability as well... --karl-- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Mr. Steinberg, The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Becky Burr Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Ms. Burr, That was hardly very helpful. When did you receive the proposal? Where is the text? Or does it have to be FOIAed? When will you complete your review and reach a decision? Why don't you answer Dan's question? Are we to infer that in your opinion these servers have no influence on internet stability? Mr. Steinberg, The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Becky Burr Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebecfax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] When we are asked direct questions we answer them. - E. Dyson.
Richard, My guess is that, since they are unwilling/unable to meet their commitments, the ICANN board has been instructed to not say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to either you or me (and many others). See, the problem is, we expect people to act in a professional and responsible manner. That expectation exposes the ICANN board members. Gene... At 03:52 PM 7/31/99 -0400, you wrote: 28 days and counting... Esther, Mike, Joe, Is there any particular ICANN view on efforts to set up alternative root systems? I'd figured that ICANN would be neutral on it--it's got a mandate to (eventually, if all proceeds a particular way) maintain and manage the contents of the legacy IANA root, without regard to whatever other systems may be in development. Others worry that ICANN would view alternative roots as hostile challenges to its authority. If there's no ICANN policy on it, do you have views on it in your respective capacities? Thanks! ...Jonathan At 05:39 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote: At 05:07 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: purely neutral with respect to it: "We just manage the old IANA root; set up your own if you like and God bless!" ...JZ You're closer to them than we are Jonothon, why don't you ask them. Frankly I expect rhetoric out of them: "renegade", "pirate", "anarchist" and so on and so forth. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] "They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves." Jon Zittrain Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719 ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet stability
At 08:46 PM 8/1/99 -0400, you wrote: Ms. Burr, That was hardly very helpful. When did you receive the proposal? Where is the text? Or does it have to be FOIAed? When will you complete your review and reach a decision? Why don't you answer Dan's question? Are we to infer that in your opinion these servers have no influence on internet stability? Ms. Burr, I would further add that NTIA/DOC is perhaps not the best judge of the impact of new/additional TLD servers on the operation of the Internet. Is there any plan to coordinate the input of those who DO have a more thorough understanding of that impact? Gene Marsh Mr. Steinberg, The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Becky Burr Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Becky and all, Thank you Becky for this update. However it seems a bit incomplete and as such lacking is some sort of idea as to when a publicly available report or answer to Dan's question can be expected. Becky Burr wrote: Mr. Steinberg, The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Becky Burr Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Gene and all, Yes they (NTIA) are most likely conferring with Juni Muari and the rest of the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board at this very moment! ROFLMAO! Or possibly considering a seance with Jon Postel! ;) Gene Marsh wrote: At 08:46 PM 8/1/99 -0400, you wrote: Ms. Burr, That was hardly very helpful. When did you receive the proposal? Where is the text? Or does it have to be FOIAed? When will you complete your review and reach a decision? Why don't you answer Dan's question? Are we to infer that in your opinion these servers have no influence on internet stability? Ms. Burr, I would further add that NTIA/DOC is perhaps not the best judge of the impact of new/additional TLD servers on the operation of the Internet. Is there any plan to coordinate the input of those who DO have a more thorough understanding of that impact? Gene Marsh Mr. Steinberg, The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Becky Burr Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? Dan Steinberg SYNTHESIS:Law Technology 35, du Ravin Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356 Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106 Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] kmm063 II (was: Vixie to RBL NSI?
II, Michael S! The potential consequential damages are pretty dramatic... This is precisely the sort of danger that the entire Internet will be running if ICANN (read "CORE and ISOC") controls the root. The best thing that can happen is that they implement their threat to black hole NSI. That will force the U.S. Government to see that the root must be maintained as a government service, beyond the reach of discriminatory special interests. This is precisely the sort of proof that the entire Net has to be conceived as self-governing. Certainly the best thing that can happen is that NSI is RBLd, to make it clear that daddy (or mommy ;-)) will not maintain the root _for us_ without making it even more frustrating to deal with special interests. We wanted free enterprise; we got free enterprise. Now if we want an accountable government to make seriously wise decisions, we have to do it ourselves and cut the sandbox chat. Now I accept, getting there might well involve a coordinating board. (In view of numerous modern political shenanigans, I would however stipulate as a condition of holding office that *all ones rather than going into immediate debt to the tune of $K/ day, why don't we float an independent currency (e-ducats) on the basis of our real stock in trade, the traffic in knowledge? That is, the Net is the middlemanager, and rather than selling it out to USG or anybody else it only needs to claim the niche that has grown around it. The old concept of communication was that everybody did it for themselves: A 'talked to' B and that was all there was to it. What this continuing furore over pornography and censorship and spam and civil liberties and so on reveals is that A and B both much prefer to talk *through* C, to protect their sensibilities - or, conversely, to disguise their intentions. This is a service the Net, in all its manifestions and degrees of reliability and consistency, is exquisitely positioned to provide. Our client states out there who want their 'information' pure can pay for the privilege; it does take a rather special breed of character to be able to cope with the continual bombardment of unsolicited sensory stimulation, and to take this responsibility on their behalf. Naturally, there will be a sliding scale of services: the ordinary Jo_6pak will hardly be able to afford the 100% insulation which some governments and corporations (who can afford the lawyers to comprehend the kind of contract that would be involved) would likely demand. No, for say $10/mo of access/protection, most folks will settle for a very simple contract, that even I could implement: no hardcore, no blatant comeons, no INSTANT$$$ on one side, and on the other, all the gen on guppies and their discontents that's out there. Heck, I could probably manage a caseload of 20 or 30 clients even if I did it all longhand (which of course is hardly necessary, but the image is one worth inculcating, like slaving over a hot console). And ol Jo_6p, who might come through with about 10 cents a day, figuring to cope with the flood of mis/information on hys own? Hy's our secret weapon, dont you see? Because, due to this app- renticeship, this voluntary surfeit of info-exposure, *hy's going to become just the kind of netizen who can take this same responsibility on others' behalf. Hy'll *know what its worth to have this kind of judgement beng exercised by somebody else instead of DIY. All the II (Independent Internet) has to do is make it worth Jo_6p's while to stick it out and win hys discriminating spurs (aspirations/ apsaras/ aspersions, depending on context) rather than diving under the umbrella of some dirt-spaced/ two-faced employer or empire as soon as hy can afford it. I may be wrong, but something tells me II is (am?) about ready to go (that is *be) public. Oh, you want to know what tells me such things? I'm happy to oblige -- and that'll be an e-ducat for you, too, same as anybody. But (for free!) isnt it clear that 'Each one teach one' is now a paying proposition? II, kerry
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. I just looked at the delegations for .com/.net/.org and they all seem to point to the following twelve TLD servers... A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. Now due to an ancient (and essentially obsolete, but nevertheless still in RFC1035) limitation on the size of UDP packets: 4.2.1. UDP usage ... Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes (not counting the IP or UDP headers). Longer messages are truncated and the TC bit is set in the header. This limits the number of answers that can be stuffed into a DNS response packet when one's software tracking down through the DNS hierarchy. In particular, it limits the number of servers that can be assigned to a zone to 12. (I haven't worked out the math on this myself, so I'm relying on calculations performed by others.) So, if NSI wants to add more servers for .com/.net/.org it isn't going to be able to do so, at least not from the current root system, at least without violating that part of the specification. I understand that this 512 byte limit is being reconsidered by the IETF. I can attest that from a software writer's perspective it is a limit that is easy to change. And from the perspective of network MTU -- The old MTU of 576 is hard to find anywhere except on some PPP links, and even then IP fragmentation and reassembly handles the job and reassembly implementations have become rather more robust than they were 12 years ago. I do note however, that the current delegations for .com/.net/.org have many of the same same computers doing double duty as root and TLD servers. That is bad form and if NSI is addressing that, good for them. As it stands, however, we could easily obtain a further improvement in net stability if we established multiple root systems that pointed additional servers for the current TLDs. That would allow me as a user, ISP operator, or corporate/organizational administrator to select a root system that best met my own needs. And if it went down, I could quickly switch to another root system. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 08:41 PM 8/1/99 -0700, you wrote: As it stands, however, we could easily obtain a further improvement in net stability if we established multiple root systems that pointed additional servers for the current TLDs. Karl, Would you suggest a "common root server" model (where, for example, all roots point to the A server as well as others) or a "mirrored root server" model (where, for example, A, B, and C root servers are identical and used for the common point) for the central control of the root? Gene... That would allow me as a user, ISP operator, or corporate/organizational administrator to select a root system that best met my own needs. And if it went down, I could quickly switch to another root system. --karl-- ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
[IFWP] CORE (ICANN) dispute resolution policy
CORE (ICANN) dispute resolution policy, to be signed by domain name registrants: DISPUTES BETWEEN APPLICANT AND A THIRD PARTY THAT ARE BROUGHT BY THE THIRD PARTY TO MEDIATION/ARBITRATION: The language to be used in the mediation or arbitration shall be English, unless the parties agree otherwise. Where the third party chooses arbitration, the place of arbitration shall, unless the parties agree otherwise, be either the location of the applicant as indicated in the Registration Agreement or the location of the Registrar, at the option of the third party. JURISDICTION: Applicant submits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the country where the Registrar resides for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or intended use of the domain name applied for; and Applicant waives all rights to challenge such personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and/or venue. The language will be English. The place of arbitration will be at the option of the third party. The applicant submits to jurisdiction of the registrar and waives all rights to challenge. ... How many agree with this? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
Re: [IFWP] Proposed by-law amendments
Milton Mueller a écrit: The impact of these amendments is to centralize too much power in the hands of the ICANN Board, at the expense of the DNSO and its constituents. What difference does it make, when the DNSO and all its constituencies are in the hands of the same people who appointed the board? And you're still worried about the bylaws? How much proof do you need that ICANN doesn't give a good goddamn about what its bylaws say? But you're going to go on and on and on, discussing and arguing over their worthless and meaningless bylaws, while they have stolen the DNS and are forcing registrants to give up their constitutional rights? What kind of bloody fool are you? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Becky Burr wrote: The Department of Commerce is currently reviewing a proposal by Network Solutions related to TLD servers. This proposal is referenced in our letter to Chairman Bliley, posted at www.ntia.doc.gov. Beckwith Burr, did you know that Joe Sims has been colluding with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to use the antitrust laws to put pressure on NSI to capitulate to you and CORE and IBM, and at the same time to keep ICANN from being charged with the very violations it is unjustly levelling at NSI? Have you also been colluding with the DOJ and ICANN? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 Dan Steinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01 6:24 PM Ms. Burr, I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that would render these servers operational. Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied?
