Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ? At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed, yes. Does that structure carry out a public function? Indeed, yes. If that particular piece of hardware was not doing it, some other box would be. It does not matter a bit if every bit of plastic and metal by which the internet operates were owned by individuals or companies, and not the government or ICANN or whoever. The fact remains, all that stuff functions within a framework that grew out of the efforts of the USG, for a public purpose, and if the current hardware and software twiddlers don't want to play the game, others will. If a private network -- 206.5.17.0 or whatever -- wants to set itself up and do whatever, then that's fine; it has both the structure (the hardware) and its own internal function, but as soon as it joins the real world (which of course it already has since it is from the real world that it got 206.5.17.0), it becomes a part of the "internetworking" which is the "Internet" and, like USENET, it becomes a part of and subject to the rules of this new civilization, the Internet, within which the members have the need to ensure that the civilization is run for the good of all, neither deteriorating into an absolute dictatorship (which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to oppose dictatorship. Bill Lovell Dear Rhonda, And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". ... The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, it is private. Most others are. The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential function? The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. Can't a private medium be used for communication among the general public? --tony This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Jim Dixon wrote: snip In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames. Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that non-restrictive policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to the conclusion that I believe Nominet to be non-restrictive. While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion after reading what you wrote. I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I know who Ivan is. snip. And unfortunately, given the small size of the registries concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to afford the investment necessary to take action. NSI is of course a different proposition. Its market in Europe is relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a monopoly within the European Union. In short, it's an easy target. I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion. It is not an easy target, it is the priority target. As you have described, the problem with NSI is: - qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country - quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution. Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address the "smaller" problem? Regards Roberto
[IFWP] The public internet
The argument as to whether the net is public or private has been going on for years with such notables as Stephen Boursey et al claiming it's public. One common theme is, the people who claim it is public own no infrastructure. It is as if sombody buys a magazine subscription then claims the publishing company is a public utility. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Hello. Jeff Mason wrote: The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening comments. The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of international agreement. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations, or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate, but the direction seems pretty clear to me. Regards Roberto
[IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S. A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played an important role in reporting a story about some problems in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as long as it was limited to a certain number of words. At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard to write something short that is also specific. However, I finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run. Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions he gave me. I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me back that he wouldn't run it. I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints. It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the computer trade magazine that I was working with. Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine. Ronda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit corporation to take over ownership and control of certain essential functions of the Internet. These functions include among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root server system, and the protocols. It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation behind the scenes of ICANN. Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its operation. At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being set up to assume. The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN. Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished" entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks which makes communication possible among these diverse entities. Scientific and grassroots science expertise continue to be needed to identify the problems and to help to figure out the solutions for the Internet to continue to grow and flourish. A crucial aspect of the governance structure for the first 12 years of the life of the Internet had to do with being a part of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of the research agency in the U.S. Department of Defense known an ARPA or the Advanced Projects Research Agency. ARPA/IPTO was created to make it possible for computer scientists to support computer
[IFWP] It ought to be a bumper sticker
My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations, or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate, but the direction seems pretty clear to me. Remember the backbone cabal. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
Consorship != editorial control. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
At 10:44 AM 8/4/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of international agreement. Of course he intended it as a threat. Ever since Paul took over the NOIE organization for Alston and tried to find a life in Aussie politics by becoming Internet relevant, he's leveraged a string of threats. Try doing some search engine trolling and you'll find them all. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations, or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate, but the direction seems pretty clear to me. Roberto - this threat has been around for the last 20 years. Many of us spent some of our careers dealing with it. Under much more favorable circumstances to these players, they tried and failed spectacularly. That's why they are trying to reinvent themselves playing the same game. There is no way - let me reiterate, there is no way - they could pull it off with an aggregation of 1 million private networks, 50 million hosts, and several billion server applications shared via tcp/ip - - which is what the Internet is. The real threat is in the area of Internet taxation, and all this DNS stuff is just a quid pro quo. --tony
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
Ronda: The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print the op ed. That does happen at the last moment. Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you recieved a definate no on this. Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press? Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote: U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S. A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played an important role in reporting a story about some problems in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as long as it was limited to a certain number of words. At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard to write something short that is also specific. However, I finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run. Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions he gave me. I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me back that he wouldn't run it. I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints. It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the computer trade magazine that I was working with. Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine. Ronda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit corporation to take over ownership and control of certain essential functions of the Internet. These functions include among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root server system, and the protocols. It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation behind the scenes of ICANN. Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its operation. At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being set up to assume. The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN. Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished" entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks which makes communication possible
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: Roberto - this "threat" has been around for the last 20 years. Many of us spent some of our careers dealing with it. Under much more favorable circumstances to these players, they tried and failed spectacularly. That's why they are trying to reinvent themselves playing the same game. There is no way - let me reiterate, there is no way - they could pull it off with an aggregation of 1 million private networks, 50 million hosts, and several billion server applications shared via tcp/ip - - which is what the Internet is. Actually - the estimates are 200 million users, 43 million hosts, 6 million domains, 500,000 nameservers, 150,000 DNS administrators and 1 ICANN. Looks top heavy to me. I wonder who will get crushed first? Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
At 12:37 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: Ronda: The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print the op ed. That does happen at the last moment. Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you recieved a definate no on this. Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press? Regards Jeff Mason Yeah, well this is my problem with these recent press censorship allegations. Mags have deadlines and demands that have to be flexible - eg Tina Brown cramming in an 'essay' about JFK Jr at the last minute to shift a few more copies. Sure it might be a global conspiracy, it could also just be the regular timing problems associated with publishing magazines, especially physical ones where printers and distributors are involved. As Jeff, says ask them again and see what they say. Nick -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote: U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S. A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played an important role in reporting a story about some problems in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as long as it was limited to a certain number of words. At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard to write something short that is also specific. However, I finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run. Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions he gave me. I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me back that he wouldn't run it. I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints. It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the computer trade magazine that I was working with. Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine. Ronda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit corporation to take over ownership and control of certain essential functions of the Internet. These functions include among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root server system, and the protocols. It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation behind the scenes of ICANN. Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its operation. At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such safeguards for the kind of economic
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
Hello: I think it's important your opinion be published. If you have problems with this magazine, maybe some of the list memebers can send in some email supporting the issue and asking that it receive appropriate exposure. Maybe they were giving you the run around, so let's put on some pressure make it know the issues are important and that your not alone in your concerns. Jeff Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit corporation to take over ownership and control of certain essential functions of the Internet. These functions include among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root server system, and the protocols. It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation behind the scenes of ICANN. Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its operation. At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since a an individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being set up to assume. The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN. Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished" entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks which makes communication possible among these diverse entities. Scientific and grassroots science expertise continue to be needed to identify the problems and to help to figure out the solutions for the Internet to continue to grow and flourish. A crucial aspect of the governance structure for the first 12 years of the life of the Internet had to do with being a part of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of the research agency in the U.S. Department of Defense known an ARPA or the Advanced Projects Research Agency. ARPA/IPTO was created to make it possible for computer scientists to support computer science research like that which gave birth to and made it possible to develop the Internet. This early institutional form made it possible for people of different nations to work together to build the Internet. How this was done needs to be understood and the lessons learned for designing the institutional form to support vital Internet functions today and for the future. The U.S. Congress needs to be willing to raise the real questions and to look for the answers wherever they are to be found. --- * URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html See also: URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T:
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Ah yes, what bliss ignorance isthanks for reminding me why I filtered both these people. Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ? At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed, yes. Does that structure carry out a public function? Indeed, yes. If that particular piece of hardware was not doing it, some other box would be. It does not matter a bit if every bit of plastic and metal by which the internet operates were owned by individuals or companies, and not the government or ICANN or whoever. The fact remains, all that stuff functions within a framework that grew out of the efforts of the USG, for a public purpose, and if the current hardware and software twiddlers don't want to play the game, others will. If a private network -- 206.5.17.0 or whatever -- wants to set itself up and do whatever, then that's fine; it has both the structure (the hardware) and its own internal function, but as soon as it joins the real world (which of course it already has since it is from the real world that it got 206.5.17.0), it becomes a part of the "internetworking" which is the "Internet" and, like USENET, it becomes a part of and subject to the rules of this new civilization, the Internet, within which the members have the need to ensure that the civilization is run for the good of all, neither deteriorating into an absolute dictatorship (which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to oppose dictatorship. Bill Lovell Dear Rhonda, And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". ... The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, it is private. Most others are. The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential function? The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. Can't a private medium be used for communication among the general public? --tony This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] 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] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion after reading what you wrote. I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I know who Ivan is. This was one of my points at the beginning of this sub-thread: if you don't know Ivan, you might misunderstand his point. snip. And unfortunately, given the small size of the registries concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to afford the investment necessary to take action. NSI is of course a different proposition. Its market in Europe is relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a monopoly within the European Union. In short, it's an easy target. I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion. It is not an easy target, it is the priority target. As you have described, the problem with NSI is: - qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country - quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution. I don't know if you have ever done any shooting. Easy targets are big targets. In a war, easy targets are also targets that can't shoot back. NSI is an easy target because (a) it's big, (b) they are a bunch of foreigners (to a citizen of the EU) and therefore there isn't much risk in shooting at them. If the Commission were to take action against, let's say, either the .DE registry or the .FR registry, there would be significant backlash from powerful forces in Europe, people who could do harm to whoever at the Commission was responsible. NSI has no similar power. Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address the "smaller" problem? I have no objection to the European Commission investigating NSI. They are a monopoly, they are doing business within Europe, they are large enough in revenue terms, or nearly so, to justify DG IV's attention. What I have a problem with is abuse of power. I don't believe that NSI is being investigated because they are a monopoly and so forth. I think that they are being investigated because certain elements in the Commission have a vested interest in damaging NSI. They are not acting on behalf of the people of the European Union. They are acting on their own behalf. This is plain old-fashioned corruption. One of the problems with the Commission is that this is not considered a problem. When I have discussed this matter with people knowledgeable about the Commission, no one was at all interested in the facts of the case. Instead they warned me that if I highlighted what was going on, everyone at the Commission would be against me. This is how people think and behave in a corrupt institution. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
At 12:53 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: At 12:37 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: Ronda: The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print the op ed. That does happen at the last moment. Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you recieved a definate no on this. Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press? Yes, Jeff, I've been involved in the DNS wars for two and a half years, and I've seen many examples of media bias. In fact, I just recently posted several examples of media bias to this list. More below . . . Regards Jeff Mason Yeah, well this is my problem with these recent press censorship allegations. Mags have deadlines and demands that have to be flexible - eg Tina Brown cramming in an 'essay' about JFK Jr at the last minute to shift a few more copies. Sure it might be a global conspiracy, it could also just be the regular timing problems associated with publishing magazines, especially physical ones where printers and distributors are involved. As Jeff, says ask them again and see what they say. It's a two and a half year timing problem? Sorry Nick, I don't buy it. It's amazing how many people believe that the press is not biased. We have a long history which suggests otherwise. Yesterday, I posted the story of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". It's one of my favorite movies, and it highlights the power of the press from way back in 1939. Even so, many will refuse to believe that this level of coordination can exist in a free press. I guess it is because it challenges everything we believe about the way our world works. But, you can't deny the evidence! Here's what a reporter from the Spotlight wrote: At 01:33 PM 7/29/99 , spotlight special wrote: There is nothing theoretical about a biased press. Evidence is in mountains that even the blind can "see." As one newsman who covered the Weaver-Harris trial with me said, "Freedom of the press belongs to its owners." I didn't think there was a single individual left on the planet who didn't understand the total bias of the establishment press. There are hundreds of journalists who quit because they became tired of their non-politically correct stories being spiked at the top, more often by the publisher than the editor, even. Get real. Tony Blizzard For the un-initiated, the Spotlight is an Alternative Press outlet: http://www.spotlight.org/ They, along with other Alternative Press outlets, were added to my private distribution list earlier this year, when I suspected that we were going to have another media blackout shortly. Obviously, they *are* reading my email. Hopefully, they will do a full expose shortly. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." -- A.J. Liebling Nick -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote: U.S. Press Censorship of any Criticism of ICANN Press Censorship of criticism of ICANN is rampant in the U.S. A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played an important role in reporting a story about some problems in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as long as it was limited to a certain number of words. At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard to write something short that is also specific. However, I finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run. Then 2 hours before he would be running it, he told me to rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions he gave me. I did so. Got it back to him in the 2 hours. And he wrote me back that he wouldn't run it. I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints. It became clear from my experience in accepting an invitation to do an op ed that that isn't true, particularly for the computer trade magazine that I was working with. Following is the op ed I ended up writing, as a result of all the rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine. Ronda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet
[IFWP] ICANN Update: ICANN Responds to House Commerce Chairman Bliley
Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like comments from someone with ICANN. Sincerely, Joseph S. Sheffo 415-923-1660 == August 4, 1999 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman The House Committee on Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bliley: I am writing to answer your letter of July 28, 1999, asking for information about communications between ICANN and the Department of Justice. As several members noted during the recent hearing of your Committee at which I was privileged to testify, the creation and operation of ICANN is a complicated undertaking, and we appreciate any opportunity to better educate and inform the Congress and the public about what ICANN is doing and what we hope to achieve. Your inquiry apparently was prompted by an e-mail message that was one of many provided to the Committee by ICANN in response to your earlier letter of June 22. Your statement that the conversation reported in this e-mail "appear[s] to be highly inappropriate" is puzzling, and appears to be based on a misunderstanding about the nature of the conversation described in this message. The right to petition government is constitutionally protected, and indeed is one of the freedoms that has distinguished the American form of government. Members of the Board, staff and counsel of ICANN have had a number of discussions with various members of the executive and legislative branches of government since ICANN's formation in late 1998. The common focus of those conversations has been ICANN's mission and objectives, and the obstacles that remain to accomplishing those objectives. In this particular case, ICANN's counsel was urging the Department of Justice, which as part of its official mission is the principal advocate for competition within the Executive Branch, to urge the more rapid transition of domain name registration services from a single monopoly government contractor to a competitive market. The Department's representatives listened to this request, and agreed to consider it; that was the entire sum and substance of the conversation. We do not believe that this exercise of the constitutionally-protected right to petition government could even arguably be considered inappropriate. Indeed, I assume you and other members of this Committee receive regular requests to consider various actions, perhaps even related to this same subject. As the e-mail in question indicates, this discussion did not involve the pending antitrust investigation of NSI, which had been ongoing for some time. But if it had, that would certainly also have been completely appropriate. ICANN is charged, both by its Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce and by a clear Internet community consensus, with replacing the current non-competitive domain name registration system with a competitive system, where price, quality of service and other important criteria relating to domain name registrations are determined by the marketplace, not by a monopoly provider. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing the antitrust laws. One possible avenue from monopoly to competition in domain name registration services is through enforcement of the antitrust laws. Thus, it is appropriate for ICANN, through its counsel, to discuss with representatives of the Department of Justice ICANN's views of the antitrust enforcement issues associated with the current monopoly name registration situation, and for ICANN to advocate antitrust enforcement action if it believes such would be appropriate. ICANN is entitled to express its views on such subjects, just as any other person or entity may. With this background, let me respond on behalf of the Initial Board of Directors of ICANN to your specific questions. 1. Provide a listing of all communications between the Department of Justice and ICANN. We are unable to provide such a listing. We are not aware of any records of such communications other than the e-mail message previously provided. Nevertheless, we can state that there have been a number of discussions between counsel for ICANN and Department of Justice lawyers over the several months of ICANN's existence. Those conversations have generally concerned the antitrust and competitive policy issues relating to domain name registrations. We are aware of no other substantive conversations between a representative of ICANN and any official or employee of the Department of Justice. 2. Provide all records relating to such communications. The Committee is already in possession of all such records. 3. Discuss the ICANN Board's knowledge of, or subsequent authorization of, the communication by counsel reflected in the e-mail message previously provided. To the best of my knowledge, the ICANN Board was
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Jay Fenello wrote: Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). I applaud your efforts, several years strong, to educate the journalists and interested parties. My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. Contributing to the confusion is the "divide and conquer" factor. It's hard to get a profile of the situation because so many issues are being debated simultaneously in a rush to the endgame. Into the middle of what we are told is a bottom-up consensus based decision making process, we have DOJ investigating NSI, Congress investigating ICANN, and the EU entering the melee. This is headspinning activity, even for the most devout followers of the process. It reminds me of the towns that, seeing opportunity for raising their property tax revenue base, develop their hillsides in a mad sweep of construction while the old timers lament the destruction of views and clogging of traffic arteries. Years later, when the building subsides and the policymakers take a breath, they may regret their haste but by then there's a new paridigm in place and a new generation of residents who don't remember what the town looked like when its now densely populated hillsides were open space. I lament that it took eight months of dischord and, finally, involvement of the DOC to get ICANN to hold open meetings; that this is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-based structure but that there is no representation in current decisionmaking of the non-commercial Internet users (a substantial body); that working groups are proceeding to final recommendations although they are not constituted in accord with the ICANN bylaws; that recommendations will be forwarded to an unelected, unaccountable, incomplete and interim body. So, Jay, we pick our battles. But claiming a biased press on these complicated issues simmply isn't one of those I wish to pursue. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] ICANN Update: ICANN Responds to House Commerce Chairman Bliley
At 12:07 PM 8/4/99 -0700, Sheffo, Joe wrote: Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like comments from someone with ICANN. Sincerely, Joseph S. Sheffo 415-923-1660 Sure, ask them why they havn't aswered Jonothon Zittrain's question in over a month despite being asked half a dozen times. And ask how this jives with Eshters recent quote to Nader "we respond when we're asked a question" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IFWP] "When we are asked direct questions we answer them." - E. Dyson. Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Hi Ellen, I too applaud your efforts, several years strong. In actuality, none of us have a monopoly on truth, and it is only through an open exploration of these issues, that a collective truth may emerge. Please continue to fight your battles, just as I will continue to fight mine :-) Jay. At 05:42 PM 8/4/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Jay Fenello wrote: Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). I applaud your efforts, several years strong, to educate the journalists and interested parties. My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. Contributing to the confusion is the "divide and conquer" factor. It's hard to get a profile of the situation because so many issues are being debated simultaneously in a rush to the endgame. Into the middle of what we are told is a bottom-up consensus based decision making process, we have DOJ investigating NSI, Congress investigating ICANN, and the EU entering the melee. This is headspinning activity, even for the most devout followers of the process. It reminds me of the towns that, seeing opportunity for raising their property tax revenue base, develop their hillsides in a mad sweep of construction while the old timers lament the destruction of views and clogging of traffic arteries. Years later, when the building subsides and the policymakers take a breath, they may regret their haste but by then there's a new paridigm in place and a new generation of residents who don't remember what the town looked like when its now densely populated hillsides were open space. I lament that it took eight months of dischord and, finally, involvement of the DOC to get ICANN to hold open meetings; that this is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-based structure but that there is no representation in current decisionmaking of the non-commercial Internet users (a substantial body); that working groups are proceeding to final recommendations although they are not constituted in accord with the ICANN bylaws; that recommendations will be forwarded to an unelected, unaccountable, incomplete and interim body. So, Jay, we pick our battles. But claiming a biased press on these complicated issues simmply isn't one of those I wish to pursue. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
[IFWP] [Fwd: NCDNHC Considers unwise potenitaly extralegal membership exceptance provision
All, In several exchanges with Eric Johnson and others on the NCDNHC mailing list some consideration is being given to the allowance of NON-PROFIT entities that may or may not be NON-COMMERCIAL as members of the NCDNHC. Contrary to several warnings of other members of the NCDNHC mailing list there are some that are considering this "Extralegal" allowance for membership. As such, we [INEGroup] along with our legal review board are concerned as to the damage this would eventually cause the Constituency model for the DNSO on a much broader and legal scale to the stakeholders of the internet. 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 Eric and all, This would be very unwise and legally both inappropriate as well as extralegal... Eric S Johnson wrote: I think we should equate non-commercial with not-for-profit. As long as the organization does not remit money to its owners, stockholders, or members, it should be considered as non-commercial. agreed. --- 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] RE: Coincidence?
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. Anxiously awaiting your reply . . . Jay. Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Ken and all, To my knowledge, I don't believe that the IDNO or the ICIIU have made such a claim. However I have noticed that YOU make the claim that they have. Reference please? ;) Ken Stubbs wrote: i wonder how many people believe that your little pet ICIIU or IDNO with its ALMOST 150 members WORLDWIDE speak for the internet users of the world ken stubbs - Original Message - From: Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI I wonder how many people in the USG, for example in the DOC, have been fooled into believing that Christopher Wilkinson was speaking for the European Internet? 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: Coincidence?
At 05:54 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive! I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved, explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would. I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this subject" etc. He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length. Nick Anxiously awaiting your reply . . . Jay. Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome,
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive! I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved, explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would. Well, thank you for proving my point. It's not that reporters aren't trying, it's that the editors and publishers aren't allowing these stories in their publications. And even when a good story is written, it is not picked up by the wire services. It's exactly as the Spotlight reporter alleged. Jay. P.S. Nick is one of the best reporters covering this debate. None of my comments are directed at him personally. I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this subject" etc. He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length. Nick ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Who will even know
Antony and all, How come I am not surprised that almost half of the pNC are not subscribed. It might also be of some interest to some as to WHICH ones are not subscribed as well... Very interesting and reveling! Antony Van Couvering wrote: I am concerned to know how the Names Council proposes to measure the consensus of the General Assembly, since this is the metric by which recommendations to the ICANN Board must be approved by the Names Council. However they propose to do this, I see that only ten of the eighteen Names Council members are subscribed to the GA list: Javier Sola (Business) Theresa Swinehart (Business) Richard Lindsay (Registrar) Amadeu Abril i Abril (Registrar) Nii Quaynor (ccTLD) Bill Semich (ccTLD) Jonathan Cohen (IP) Ted Shapiro (IP) Hirofumi Hotta (ISP) David Johnson (gTLD) The following NC members are not subscribed: Don Telage (gTLD) Phil Sbarbaro (gTLD) Fay Howard (ccTLD) Ken Stubbs (Registrar) Caroline Chicoine (IP) Tony Harris (ISP) Michael Schneider (ISP) Jon Englund (Business) The full list is at http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html That's 10 to 8. Perhaps that's passing for consensus these days. Shouldn't NC members be required to read the General Assembly mailing list? Antony 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] ICANN Update: ICANN Responds to House Commerce Chairman Bliley
Joe and all, And now of course, we know know that the ICANN lied to congress on questions 1 and 2, don't we as several news reports posted a week ago show very clearly... What surprises me is why the Subcommittee has not issued a congressional order to hold the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board in contempt of congress by now. Joe Sims has lied to them already twice and that is well documented! Go figure... Sheffo, Joe wrote: Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like comments from someone with ICANN. Sincerely, Joseph S. Sheffo 415-923-1660 == August 4, 1999 The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Chairman The House Committee on Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bliley: I am writing to answer your letter of July 28, 1999, asking for information about communications between ICANN and the Department of Justice. As several members noted during the recent hearing of your Committee at which I was privileged to testify, the creation and operation of ICANN is a complicated undertaking, and we appreciate any opportunity to better educate and inform the Congress and the public about what ICANN is doing and what we hope to achieve. Your inquiry apparently was prompted by an e-mail message that was one of many provided to the Committee by ICANN in response to your earlier letter of June 22. Your statement that the conversation reported in this e-mail "appear[s] to be highly inappropriate" is puzzling, and appears to be based on a misunderstanding about the nature of the conversation described in this message. The right to petition government is constitutionally protected, and indeed is one of the freedoms that has distinguished the American form of government. Members of the Board, staff and counsel of ICANN have had a number of discussions with various members of the executive and legislative branches of government since ICANN's formation in late 1998. The common focus of those conversations has been ICANN's mission and objectives, and the obstacles that remain to accomplishing those objectives. In this particular case, ICANN's counsel was urging the Department of Justice, which as part of its official mission is the principal advocate for competition within the Executive Branch, to urge the more rapid transition of domain name registration services from a single monopoly government contractor to a competitive market. The Department's representatives listened to this request, and agreed to consider it; that was the entire sum and substance of the conversation. We do not believe that this exercise of the constitutionally-protected right to petition government could even arguably be considered inappropriate. Indeed, I assume you and other members of this Committee receive regular requests to consider various actions, perhaps even related to this same subject. As the e-mail in question indicates, this discussion did not involve the pending antitrust investigation of NSI, which had been ongoing for some time. But if it had, that would certainly also have been completely appropriate. ICANN is charged, both by its Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce and by a clear Internet community consensus, with replacing the current non-competitive domain name registration system with a competitive system, where price, quality of service and other important criteria relating to domain name registrations are determined by the marketplace, not by a monopoly provider. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing the antitrust laws. One possible avenue from monopoly to competition in domain name registration services is through enforcement of the antitrust laws. Thus, it is appropriate for ICANN, through its counsel, to discuss with representatives of the Department of Justice ICANN's views of the antitrust enforcement issues associated with the current monopoly name registration situation, and for ICANN to advocate antitrust enforcement action if it believes such would be appropriate. ICANN is entitled to express its views on such subjects, just as any other person or entity may. With this background, let me respond on behalf of the Initial Board of Directors of ICANN to your specific questions. 1. Provide a listing of all communications between the Department of Justice and ICANN. We are unable to provide such a listing. We are not aware of any records of such communications other than the e-mail message previously provided. Nevertheless, we can state that there have been a number of discussions between counsel for ICANN and Department of Justice lawyers over the several months of ICANN's existence. Those conversations have generally concerned the antitrust and competitive policy issues relating to domain name
[IFWP] Re: Internet stability
Richard Sexton wrote, Show me where is says the internet was created as a public resource. Or, if it was created as a private resource, show me where this was made into a public resource. Even Canadian civics classes fall short, I guess. Public 'resources' -- what used to be called the public domain until it got to be too confusing -- do not need an enactment in order to exist. On the contrary, AFAIK, everywhere it has been the concept of private property which had to be legislatively created against the common ground. Perhaps quoting Bill L will help: De facto becomes de jure, and that is how the common law comes about. No end of statutes refer to "accepted business practices" or "community standards" or the like as the standard against which some specific conduct is measured, so people who write RFCs or set up protocols or distribute roots in whatever way are in fact writing the "law" on which future decisions will be made, whether they know it or not. I think it's safe to say that when private interests get together to *accept some 'acceptable' business practice or to uphold some standard of community conduct, they are (re-)creating/ defining public space whether they know it or not. I might add, its a bit discouraging to see so many imaginative types react unthinkingly to a mere word, instead of adopting it as part of their arsenal - I mean, repertoire. kerry
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
Heather and all, Very nice rebut to "Dcrock". My kind of lady! Whew! You gave it to him very nicely... Heather Islip wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: What I have a problem with is abuse of power. I don't believe that NSI is being investigated because they are a monopoly and so forth. I think that they are being investigated because certain elements in the Commission have a vested interest in damaging NSI. They are not acting on behalf of the people of the European Union. They are acting on their own behalf. If you have no objection, then it would make more sense for you not to make statements which are designed to undermine the activity. Politics is about self-interest. You are saying that they are taking the right action, but for the wrong reasons. In fact, their reasons are But the people taking these actions aren't politicians. They are civil servants -- unelected civil servants, need one say -- who are acting purely for personal gain. No, it's plain old fashion politics, working in exactly the constructive way it is supposed to. Balancing self-interests is exactly how real-world politics works, not through some sort of idealism. Rubbish, Dave. When civil servants act to carry out personal policies, it isn't politics, it's corruption. But then, sneering at idealism is right up your street, is it not? Do tell Mr Crocker, would you recognise a principle if it got up and bit you on the backside? d/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464 675 Spruce Drive http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Heather Islip VBCnet GB Ltd +44 117 929 1316 http://www.vbc.netfax +44 117 927 2015 Taxation _with_ representation isn't so great, either 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: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws relating to the DNSO Names Council. Most notably, the proposed amendments are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative on the DNSO Names Council. A couple of points: 1. These proposed changes were not in effect during the Berlin meeting. Indeed, at the time of the Berlin meeting, the By-laws gave all recognized constituncies the power and right to designate three people to the names council of the DNSO. Yet when that was tried by one recognized constituency, those people were excluded despite the presence of ICANN's CEO and legal counsel at that meeting. ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of this amendment. This amendment does not have retroactive effect. It is evident that the the gTLD Constituency was acting within its rights at the time of the Berlin, and that the exclusion of its designated names council representatives was an act by ICANN in contravention of ICANN's bylaws. Given that the DNSO has proceeded into substantive issues, this failure taints everything that the DNSO has done to date. 2. This amendment cites an "evident consensus". How was that "evident consensus" ascertained? Certainly at the time of the Berlin meeting this question had neither been clearly asked nor discussed in any forum. And having listened into the Berlin meetings, I can attest that I did not perceive any discussion of these matters, much less the "clear sentiment of the attendees and online particpants." If I don't make myself clear, let me be blunt: I perceive no evidence to support the claim that there was such a consensus in existance at the time of the Berlin meeting, in particular at the time of the exclusion of the gTLD's designated representives to the Names Council. I do agree that at the present time there may indeed be such a consensus, a consensus that has evolved *after* the exclusion occurred. But this is merely a guess based on exactly the same evidence as is available to ICANN's board. And I, like the ICANN board, could be utterly wrong whether such a consensus actually exists at the present time. Rather than the blind and unsubstantated claim of "evident consensus" made in the ICANN anouncement, may I suggest that ICANN actually take an explicit poll of the various mailing lists to elicit actual opinions pro and con on this question. I will begin the process: I think that this amendment is a useful improvement to the ICANN by-laws. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of the burden of government. Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive cooperation to make it work. Once the vague 'authority' of the USG is withdrawn from IANA in Sept. 2000, what will take its place? How do we account for the fundamentally cooperative nature of the Internet, yet avoid the awful p-word? Isn't it just possible that what makes this whole damn thing work is something a little more than private? We don't have to use the dirty word 'public,' but can't we find some way to account for the cooperative action which the Internet needs for all of our benefit? Everybody seems to deny the importance of the USG-funded predecessor networks, but nobody can convince me that what we now know as the Internet could have arisen without the groundwork laid by the ARPANET and NSFNET. AOL arose, like GEIS and all sorts of VPN services and closed content services like Nexis, on a completely different model to the Internet. Here's a question, without the predecessor networks, whose basic architecture we still use, just how would something like the Internet, as opposed to something like AOL, have arisen? Think about the instant messaging war going on and think about how far 'private network' thinking will get us as we try to defend the Internet from the @Homes, AOLs, and Microsofts of the world, who have a lot more money than any of you private network owners out there. Craig McTaggart Graduate Student Faculty of Law University of Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Once the vague 'authority' of the USG is withdrawn from IANA in Sept. 2000, what will take its place? How do we account for the fundamentally cooperative nature of the Internet, yet avoid the awful p-word? Isn't it just possible that what makes this whole damn thing work is something a little more than private? We don't have to use the dirty word 'public,' but can't we find some way to account for the cooperative action which the Internet needs for all of our benefit? Hi Craig, The USG is irrelevant to this. IANA helped coordinate three disparate administrative functions that are predominantly done by others. You can look at the Internet as something akin to the economy. It works because there is a common incentive to make it work, and everyone finds ways to accommodate the various disparate systems. Everybody seems to deny the importance of the USG-funded predecessor networks, but nobody can convince me that what we now know as the Internet Who denies this? Sure it was important. However, what does this have to do with what we're discussing here? Here's a question, without the predecessor networks, whose basic architecture we still use, just how would something like the Internet, as opposed to something like AOL, have arisen? AOL was a single private network. The Internet is not a network at all, but a means of sharing resources across networks - largely due to the vision of Bob Kahn. That paradigm is what's important, and what the wannabe controllers don't understand. Think about the instant messaging war going on and think about how far 'private network' thinking will get us as we try to defend the Internet from the @Homes, AOLs, and Microsofts of the world, who have a lot more money than any of you private network owners out there. ditto the paradigm. --tony
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
... Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive cooperation to make it work. I disagree that it needs "massive cooperation to make it work". There is a need for coordination of things like TCP port numbers and other things that go on at the transport level and below. The IETF, W3C, and IANA have done a fine job of that. All they need is a bit of money to pay for a couple of people at IANA to keep track of this. These are non-contentious issues. ISP's have a self-interest in making sure that routing of IP packets work -- an ISP that is unreachable or which can't reach the outside world is going to lose its customers really fast. So there is no need for top-down regulatory coordination of this, nor has there been to date other than the sanity check on address allocation performed by ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. There can readily be a multiplicity of domain name systems. (See http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm ) The DNS systems that give answers that don't keep people happy is a system that will rapidly fall by the wayside. So there is no need for a top-down regulatory body such as ICANN to sit on top of the DNS. The issue that may require coordination is one with some really tough technical, economic, and political issues - inter ISP peering/transit/billing policies. It is unclear whether the current inter-ISP sitution isn't one being used by the "big guys" to squeeze the "little guys". On the other hand, the small guys aren't screaming that loudly (or I'm not hearing 'em.) There is an increasing need for better operational coordination to hunt down denial-of-service attacks. But I don't think we yet need an imposed apparatus for that to form. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
Karl and all, I think you make some very good and well commented upon points sense the Berlin Conference. Let me also agree that overall I think this proposed amendment is a good "Rough Draft" as an improvement to the ICANN bylaws. I have already forwarded it to our Legal/judicial review committee at INEGroup. A public response in detail will be forthcoming... I would add that 6 days is a very short time to adequately evaluate this proposed amendment, and such and amendment should be VOTED upon by ALL of the stakeholders before adopted. Karl Auerbach wrote: > The ICANN Board has posted a proposed set of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws > relating to the DNSO Names Council. Most notably, the proposed amendments > are intended to limit any one company or organization to one representative > on the DNSO Names Council. A couple of points: 1. These proposed changes were not in effect during the Berlin meeting. Indeed, at the time of the Berlin meeting, the By-laws gave all recognized constituncies the power and right to designate three people to the names council of the DNSO. Yet when that was tried by one recognized constituency, those people were excluded despite the presence of ICANN's CEO and legal counsel at that meeting. ICANN was acting beyond its then-existing bylaws, and in advance of this amendment. This amendment does not have retroactive effect. It is evident that the the gTLD Constituency was acting within its rights at the time of the Berlin, and that the exclusion of its designated names council representatives was an act by ICANN in contravention of ICANN's bylaws. Given that the DNSO has proceeded into substantive issues, this failure taints everything that the DNSO has done to date. 2. This amendment cites an "evident consensus". How was that "evident consensus" ascertained? Certainly at the time of the Berlin meeting this question had neither been clearly asked nor discussed in any forum. And having listened into the Berlin meetings, I can attest that I did not perceive any discussion of these matters, much less the "clear sentiment of the attendees and online particpants." If I don't make myself clear, let me be blunt: I perceive no evidence to support the claim that there was such a consensus in existance at the time of the Berlin meeting, in particular at the time of the exclusion of the gTLD's designated representives to the Names Council. I do agree that at the present time there may indeed be such a consensus, a consensus that has evolved *after* the exclusion occurred. But this is merely a guess based on exactly the same evidence as is available to ICANN's board. And I, like the ICANN board, could be utterly wrong whether such a consensus actually exists at the present time. Rather than the blind and unsubstantated claim of "evident consensus" made in the ICANN anouncement, may I suggest that ICANN actually take an explicit poll of the various mailing lists to elicit actual opinions pro and con on this question. I will begin the process: I think that this amendment is a useful improvement to the ICANN by-laws. --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
Re: [IFWP] Press censorship on issue of ICANN - Op Ed
Jeff Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The magazine you were dealing with could just of run out of space to print the op ed. That does happen at the last moment. Nope Jeff, the op ed Editor told me they decided *not* to use it. That was after he had told me they would use it. I wrote asking the editor who sent me to the op ed editor to ask about it and he said yes they wouldn't use it. Have you tried asking them to run it again, in another issue, or have you recieved a definate no on this. I received a definite *no*. Has anyone else had this sort of problem with the press? And they kept me working on it through three days of my time, claiming they would use it. They also encouraged me to go to the Washington Congressional hearing and add my observations from the hearing. And I had gotten a definite that it would be run, but it might take a few weeks. That was before the hearing. While after the Congressional hearing they kept telling me to make changes. The online version of the trade journal printed the standard fair story of how the hearing turned out to be a challenge to NSI. That wasn't what my op ed said. My intuition is that that was the accepted line for any report that was to be allowed describing the Congressional hearing, and my story didn't fit in that mold and thus was not *allowed* to be printed. Sadly this is very far from the broad ranging public discussion that the press should be encouraging on this issue to help Congress to recognize the problem and to take on to try to figure out how to solve it. Ronda -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Ellen Rony wrote: Nick Patience wrote: Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. (...) Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I agree with Ellen. I wrote an op ed for a trade paper. I explained ICANN, all the functions, etc. in 630 words as they said I had to do. They said they would use the story. Then they said rewrite it all over again in 500 words. They gave me 10 new questions to answer and told me I had 2 hours to do so. I even did that. And they told me they decided *not* to use it. The point is that the story is being *censored* and kept out of the U.S. press. There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the problem isn't that the story is complicated. The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the dark. Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
[IFWP] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has hit a nerve. Tom Lowenhaupt The Communisphere Project MAAt 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: MA MAIt can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of MAthe Internet. MA MAIf you want a private network, have your private network. MA MAOh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion, MAdoes not work anymore. You might want to set your WayBack machine to 1967 MASoviet Union. It might work there. MA++ MAGene Marsh MApresident, anycastNET Incorporated MA330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:27 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the problem isn't that the story is complicated. Agreed. There are far more complicated storie in the paper every day. The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the dark. ...and so far, successfully. Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
Tom and all, I agree I believe in this instance she has indeed, though few would openly admit it [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has hit a nerve. Tom Lowenhaupt The Communisphere Project MAAt 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: MA MAIt can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of MAthe Internet. MA MAIf you want a private network, have your private network. MA MAOh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion, MAdoes not work anymore. You might want to set your WayBack machine to 1967 MASoviet Union. It might work there. MA++ MAGene Marsh MApresident, anycastNET Incorporated MA330-699-8106 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
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
Wednesday, August 04, 1999, 5:10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has hit a nerve. No, not at all. The response is that Ronda (no "h") has placed herself in a position to not be taken seriously by many in this process. Her extremist views and insistent that anyone with any common sense MUST see it her way or they aren't listening, not to mention her insistence at using her own statements to prove her own statements, has seriously effected her credibility. The responses are most annoyances that after all this time, she continues to use the same bad references to support her own bad conclusions. -- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 (IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
[IFWP] Simple questions
Esther, Still waiting for your/ICANN's response on these items. Gene... Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:01:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gene Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esther, I have tried on several occasions to re-establish some form of communication with you and ICANN. You have committed to me your response on several issues, but have ignored my requests and your commitments. I ask again publicly for you to address, directly, the following questions: - Why have you not responded to the formal request to you and the ICANN board to re-evaluate the TLDA position as a gTLD DNSO Constituency? You committed to me an answer on this topic in the first week of June. - Why have you ignored requests from Diebold Incorporated and other corporations for clarification on the constituency position for corporations? - Why have you not followed the ICANN Bylaws regarding DNSO constituency? - Why has there been no recognition of existing new TLD registry interests by ICANN? These are straight-forward questions. I expect them to be answered, as you have committed to do. ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
[IFWP] Bylaws changes
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:44:34 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gene Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bylaws changes ICANN Board, As representative for anycastNET Incorporated, Diebold Incorporated and the Top Level Domain Association, I hereby request that action on Bylaws changes, as detailed below, be deferred until after ICANN responds to prior correspondence regarding the validity of the existing gTLD Registry Names Council representation. Detailed information has been forwarded to Esther Dyson and the ICANN board regarding the makeup of the gTLD Registry Names Council structure, along with several suggested alternatives, by yours Network Solutions Incorporated and yours truly. Correspondence from Esther Dyson clearly indicated she would respond directly to those suggestions in short order. It is my opinion, and that supported by the groups I represent, that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to take action changing the bylaws while the aforementioned items are yet open. A formal request for reconsideration of the current ICANN Names Council position has been submitted per instructions found on ICANN web pages. Please refrain from action until that reconsideration has been pursued. Gene Marsh anycastNET Incorporated Diebold Incorporated Top Level Domain Association ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
[IFWP] Obstruction of justice and suppression of evidence
Sheffo, Joe wrote: Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28. No, it is not Chairman Bliley's letter. It is Esther Dyson's letter. If Ogilvie is not paying any more attention than this slip would seem to indicate, maybe Ogilvie should not be involved here. Dear Chairman Bliley: snip The right to petition government is constitutionally protected, and indeed is one of the freedoms that has distinguished the American form of government. Collusion and conspiracy to place unelected persons who represent special interests in control of an entity regulating commerce for the benefit of those interests is no part of the American form of government. On the contrary, it is a violation of the antitrust laws. Is that why Joe Sims was made the counsel of ICANN: to protect ICANN from the antitrust laws? The keynote to that protection would be the use of NSI as a shield, a smokescreen, to divert attention from ICANN's own much more serious anti-competitive activities and violations of law. snip In this particular case, ICANN's counsel was urging the Department of Justice, which as part of its official mission is the principal advocate for competition within the Executive Branch, to urge the more rapid transition of domain name registration services from a single monopoly government contractor to a competitive market. "Urge" a transition by investigating and harrassing NSI with antitrust charges that were left in abeyance for good legal reasons? And a transition to what? To a registrar system totally dominated by CORE, via an illicit registrar accreditation procedure clearly biased in favor of CORE and its constituents? Is that your idea of competition, Ms. Dyson? The Department's representatives listened to this request, and agreed to consider it; that was the entire sum and substance of the conversation. Of course they listened to it. Joe Sims used to work there. They're all friends. Isn't that why Joe Sims was chosen as ICANN's counsel. let me respond on behalf of the Initial Board of Directors of ICANN to your specific questions. 1. Provide a listing of all communications between the Department of Justice and ICANN. We are unable to provide such a listing. We are not aware of any records of such communications other than the e-mail message previously provided. The Commerce Committee ought to issue subpoenas and search the homes and offices of the ICANN board, and especially the hard disks of Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, and Joe Sims, where they are quite likely to find many communications between ICANN and the DOJ, unless they have been destroyed by now. The email revealed to the Commerce Committee wasn't a one-off. It's evident from the tone of it. That was a message about an on-going relationship between Sims and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ, a relationship that probably began long ago, possibly even before ICANN was created. That email is the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, we can state that there have been a number of discussions between counsel for ICANN and Department of Justice lawyers over the several months of ICANN's existence. Those conversations have generally concerned the antitrust and competitive policy issues relating to domain name registrations. And how ICANN could avoid being charged with antitrust violations, which is Mr. Sims' expertise and why he is ICANN's lawyer? To protect ICANN from the Sherman Act? Through his long-term relationship with the DOJ? We are aware of no other substantive conversations between a representative of ICANN and any official or employee of the Department of Justice. Unaware of them, or that there were none? "I am unaware", "I can't recall". How many times have these hollow phrases been heard in the courtrooms of the U.S.A.? Such communications are part of the ordinary activities of ICANN's counsel and would not require nor normally generate prior notification or approval. Questions about the ICANN Board's reaction to the conversation after the fact appear to be based on the premise that this communication, or others like it, was somehow inappropriate; since we do not believe this is the case, we had no reason to instruct counsel to avoid such communications in the future. here, at last, is the beginning of the truth. Esther Dyson, if not the entire ICANN board, is unconscious of wrong-doing. She and they have no sense of right and wrong, no moral sense, and no awareness of the law. These are people who have been spoiled and protected all their lives, and think they can do whatever they like, anything at all, regardless of how it affects others, with utter impunity. They need to be taught a lesson. Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
[IFWP] Re: Fraudulent postings by Brian Hollingsworth @ Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth brianhollingsworth@LAW.COM
Everyone, Yes, these posting coming from "Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth" [EMAIL PROTECTED], are indeed fraudulent if he is attempting to represent myself. Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote: To all, Please ignore the postings from "Brian C. Hollingsworth" who has a sig which says that he is a "Sr. Legal Advisor" for the "International House of Justice". This person is a fraud. I am the *real* Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth, and I no longer work for the International House of Justice. Whoever is perpetrating this fraud needs to do their research a little more better next time. I am now the Senior Legal Analyst for INEG, Inc. If you know who is perpetrating this fraud, please feel free to contact me at (972) 447-1894. ~~~ Respectfully, -- Brian C. Hollingsworth Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet Communications Affairs and Policy Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European Union
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Mr. Measday and Everyone, I would take several exceptions with several of the statements that you make here. In very general, terms the essence of your comments here are none the less correct, though the predicates for your conclusions are significantly unfounded. I would be more than happy to debate with you on those off-line or on some more appropriate forum at a later time... Mark Measday wrote: ?? Hypothesis: It's not a question of the networks, it's a question of the legal frameworks that have jurisdiction in the final analysis over the networks. Unfortunately, it remains to be proven that the corpus of international and sovereign law is anything other than public, (in the sense of respublica) and that the law administers the networks rather than vice versa. Which would be admittedly much more interesting, I suspect. It is also not to deny that networks can in the long term create and change law, albeit in a slow and frustrating way. As soon as the G8 countries elect network managers rather than lawyers as chief executives rather than presidents, we can all switch. The freedoms you mention are temporary and get closed down if not largely used in furtherance of the perceived respublicae. Please correct me if I am wrong. "Richard J. Sexton" wrote: At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". Prove it. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] Respectfully, -- Brian C. Hollingsworth Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet Communications Affairs and Policy Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European Union
Re: [IFWP] [Fwd: Generalisimo Sola (DNSO) rebuffed.. was: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair]
Jeff and Everyone, Mr. Sola's demeanor and attitude has not gone unnoticed by many in the EU and EC of late. Some private discussions that I have had have expressed much dismay in his attitude and deliberance of dictating "Edicts" as if he were some sort of "Royal Line". I tend to agree with Jeff's and I have noticed of late, others characterization of Mr. Sola a "Generalisimo", as likely appropriate. It may be time for the ICANN Interim Board to take this fellow aside and council him sternly Jeff Williams wrote: Mark and all, Excellent rebuff of the Generalisimo. I believe though I do not know that Generalisimo Sola has either not read the ICANN Bylaws and Berlin resolutions at all of closely enough, or he is attempting to misstate and there fore misuse those resolutions and/or bylaws. I have tried to point this out along with many others to the Generalisimo, and it seems that he is unable to grasp the reality of the facts they currently exist... 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 Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:18:36 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3 August 1999, Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please show some respect for the bylaws and the consensus that they represent. They are the working tool that we have now. It has taken a very long time to reach this agreement. It is very bad policy to start playing with them for the benefit of a specific group, you might get the other groups that have reached consensus on the bylaws very annoyed. Okay! In that case, Mr. Sola, please declare all WG activity null and void, because none of the WGs meet the following criteria, taken directly from the ICANN bylaws, which you tout so strongly: Section 2: THE NAMES COUNCIL (b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building process of the DNSO. It shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. Such bodies shall include at least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency, ^^ and shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances by other interested parties. Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC. No WG is composed of at laest one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency. Furthermore, there is doubt as to whether there exist "recognized" Constituencies: ICANN Resolutions, May 27, 1999: Resolution on DNSO Constituencies The Board discussed the applications received to date from groups desiring to form Constituencies of the Domain Names Supporting Organization. After consideration, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolutions. RESOLVED, that the following Constituencies (as defined in Article VI-B of the Bylaws) are provisionally recognized until the annual ^ meeting of the Board in 1999, to operate in accordance with the proposals received by the Corporation and ordered attached to these minutes: ccTLD registries Commercial and business entities gTLD registries Intellectual property ISPs and connectivity providers Registrars FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to amend their proposals to address deficiencies noted by the Board, which amended proposals must include a commitment of the submitting Constituency to hold a new election of Names Council representatives promptly following the approval by the Board of such amended proposal. FURTHER RESOLVED, that, when
Re: [IFWP] [Fwd: Generalisimo Sola (DNSO) rebuffed.. was: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair]
Brian and all, I believe that I have made a similar sort of suggestion to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board before. However I am extremely doubtful that such a event is likely to take place given the errant behavior of that very ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board itself, nor, if done, would I trust that it would be sufficient. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote: Jeff and Everyone, Mr. Sola's demeanor and attitude has not gone unnoticed by many in the EU and EC of late. Some private discussions that I have had have expressed much dismay in his attitude and deliberance of dictating "Edicts" as if he were some sort of "Royal Line". I tend to agree with Jeff's and I have noticed of late, others characterization of Mr. Sola a "Generalisimo", as likely appropriate. It may be time for the ICANN Interim Board to take this fellow aside and council him sternly Jeff Williams wrote: Mark and all, Excellent rebuff of the Generalisimo. I believe though I do not know that Generalisimo Sola has either not read the ICANN Bylaws and Berlin resolutions at all of closely enough, or he is attempting to misstate and there fore misuse those resolutions and/or bylaws. I have tried to point this out along with many others to the Generalisimo, and it seems that he is unable to grasp the reality of the facts they currently exist... 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 Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:18:36 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3 August 1999, Javier SOLA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please show some respect for the bylaws and the consensus that they represent. They are the working tool that we have now. It has taken a very long time to reach this agreement. It is very bad policy to start playing with them for the benefit of a specific group, you might get the other groups that have reached consensus on the bylaws very annoyed. Okay! In that case, Mr. Sola, please declare all WG activity null and void, because none of the WGs meet the following criteria, taken directly from the ICANN bylaws, which you tout so strongly: Section 2: THE NAMES COUNCIL (b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building process of the DNSO. It shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. Such bodies shall include at least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency, ^^ and shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances by other interested parties. Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC. No WG is composed of at laest one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency. Furthermore, there is doubt as to whether there exist "recognized" Constituencies: ICANN Resolutions, May 27, 1999: Resolution on DNSO Constituencies The Board discussed the applications received to date from groups desiring to form Constituencies of the Domain Names Supporting Organization. After consideration, the Board unanimously adopted the following resolutions. RESOLVED, that the following Constituencies (as defined in Article VI-B of the Bylaws) are provisionally recognized until the annual ^ meeting of the Board in 1999, to operate in accordance with the proposals received by the Corporation and ordered attached to these minutes: ccTLD registries Commercial and business entities gTLD registries Intellectual property ISPs and
Re: [IFWP] Simple questions
Gene and all, Good thing you aren't holding your breath, Eh? ;) But of course Esther ALWAYS answers any and all questions, just as she did to congress! Sure, right! Gene Marsh wrote: Esther, Still waiting for your/ICANN's response on these items. Gene... Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:01:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gene Marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Esther, I have tried on several occasions to re-establish some form of communication with you and ICANN. You have committed to me your response on several issues, but have ignored my requests and your commitments. I ask again publicly for you to address, directly, the following questions: - Why have you not responded to the formal request to you and the ICANN board to re-evaluate the TLDA position as a gTLD DNSO Constituency? You committed to me an answer on this topic in the first week of June. - Why have you ignored requests from Diebold Incorporated and other corporations for clarification on the constituency position for corporations? - Why have you not followed the ICANN Bylaws regarding DNSO constituency? - Why has there been no recognition of existing new TLD registry interests by ICANN? These are straight-forward questions. I expect them to be answered, as you have committed to do. ++ 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
