RE: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jay, You wrote: This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book. Try and discredit a 20,000 word summary, by focusing on a single statement. I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request. If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask for clarification (or modification). If it is a detail, and not a substantial affirmation, it will be easily corrected without losing the sense of the other 19.990 words. Come on guys, you can do better than this! Ken, in the interest of moving on, I suggest that you change one word in your summary: "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by redirecting the root servers, *potentially* destablizing world Internet traffic." OTOH, if you persist in affirming that the action has (or potentially could have) destabilized the world Internet traffic, you are making of this detail a substantial element of the report, therefore discrediting it because a substantial affirmation is false. In fact, if the change of the reference root would (potentially or actually) destabilize Internet traffic worldwide, there would be a serious problem with the architecture of the Internet. It does not do any good to your cause to try to paint Jon Postel as a "potential destabilizer" of the Internet (and to complain afterwards that the world's press is biased because it refuses to follow you down this path). Regards Roberto
[IFWP] November 99 Cook Report -- Icann
ISOC'S ICANN COALITION WIDENS ITS CONTROL ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE DNS - INVITES TRADEMARK, IP, ITU, EC, E-COMMERCE INTERESTS TO EXPAND ICANN SCOPE ICANN ALLOWS PROPERTY RIGHTS TELCO REGULATORY INTERESTS TO STRUCTURE SOS TO ENSURE THEIR MAXIMUM ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ICANN is moving forward inexorably. Whether it is moving toward triumph or ready to fall off the cliff remains to be seen. It has great trouble getting its sense of mission accurately adjutsed. On June 13th IBM Vice President and GIP officer (with the assistance of Esther Dyson, Vint Cerf, and Mike Roberts) wrote privately to Silicon Valley venture capitalists soliciting funds for ICANN. Patrick: "ICANN is trying to get the policy, technical and financial aspects of the Internet moved successfully from U.S. government to the international private sector. Everyone thinks this is a good idea. In fact, I would say that the future of the Internet is dependent on the execution of the plan." Consider carefully his words. Remember that Esther on August 29 chidingly asked Dave Farber not to call ICANN the Internet's "Oversight Board" since ICANN's purpose was nothing more than dealing with a subset of technical coordination issues. Since its establishment last October ICANN has waged a calculated campaign of deception. But in the last two weeks since ICANN's regimented Santiago performance, public perception is shifting. It has waged a stealth campaign designed to get Internet user's hatred of Network Solutions focused on and supportive of its announced purpose of ending the NSI monopoly over .com. With less arrogance on the part of Dyson and Roberts it might have succeeded. However as ICANN has said one thing and done another, people are beginning to catch on that its goal is to establish its own monopoly, in place of that of NSI. In the September 6th issue of Business Week, Mike France wrote: "if Esther Dyson Co. prove that they're able to successfully manage domain names, then they would be in a strong position to handle more urgent policy problems such as protecting intellectual property. While no one is asking ICANN to take on more responsibilities yet, the group could tackle problems more swiftly than the alternative: new and untested Internet regulatory agencies." "The second reason ICANN's influence could grow is that domain names are starting to be viewed as a potentially powerful method of getting Netizens to obey the law. When people buy names for their Web sites, they could be required to sign a detailed contract obligating them to comply with a certain set of rules governing the sale of products, the use of someone else's intellectual property, the display of sexual content-you name it. If they violated the terms of the contract, they would forfeit the domain name. That may not sound like a particularly serious penalty, but on the Internet it's a death sentence." "While this may sound far-fetched, it appears to be the most efficient way of enforcing the law on the Net. Already, ICANN is contemplating forcing applicants for new domain names to agree to a set of rules blocking so-called cybersquatting-the practice of registering well-known corporate brand names as domain names before the actual owners have a chance to do so. [Editor: Blocking much more than just this. According to its March 99 Registrar Accreditation Criteria, ICANN could revoke a registrant's domain name for a wide variety of infractions.]" "''After all the talk over the past few years about how difficult it will be to regulate conduct on the Internet,'' says David Post, a cyberlaw specialist at Temple University School of Law, ''the domain name system looks like the Holy Grail, the one place where enforceable Internet policy can be promulgated without any of the messy enforcement'' problems, France concluded." The battle is not just about NSI anymore. Awareness of the profound reach of the ambitions of Cerf, Dyson, Roberts and Patrick for ICANN is growing. As shown in their private June 99 fund raising correspondence this group is holding ICANN out as the only hope for the continued commercial success of the Internet while, at the same time, warning that the stability of the net and the fate of electronic commerce hang on the balance. ICANN is taking such care not to be legally accountable to anyone that people are beginning to wonder why. Under California law it looked as though ICANN members would have had some real authority by state statue to examine corporate books, and bring derivative actions against the corporation. ICANN had always asserted its accountability to a doubting public by saying that its members would elect half the board. In Santiago however they were deprived of even this right by the establishment of a membership council that they would elect. The council would then select the board members. Never mind the fact that ICANN's shadowy controllers have now decided that
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken Ken, Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Sorry, the previous post was in relation to the earlier draft. It wasn't that it was disruptive to operations. It was POLITCALLY scary... On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Ken Freed wrote: Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken Ken, Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland -- A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -- It's hot and humid here. --
[IFWP] Re: Model rules for UDRP
Diane and all, Thank you Diane. I shall pass this on to our legal staff for further review. I can see some immediate problems on just a first read that I will comment on in a later post. Diane Cabell wrote: I've put them up at http://www.mama-tech.com/udrp.html Ken Stubbs wrote: hope these get thru your filters intact diane... they are all in a word format ken stubbs - Original Message - From: Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 10:14 PM Subject: Re: Model rules for UDRP I'd like to see the Model to know whether the recommended changes have been incorporated. Will someone send me a copy? Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta Lund, LLP Boston, MA 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: Model rules for UDRP
Carl and all, I am also in complete agreement with Carl on his comments here to these "Rules for UDRP". But as I said in an earlier post on this subject, I will have additional comments/suggestions in a later post. Good read Carl! Carl Oppedahl wrote: At 10:57 PM 9/9/99 , Diane Cabell wrote: I've put them up at http://www.mama-tech.com/udrp.html Ken Stubbs wrote: hope these get thru your filters intact diane... they are all in a word format The proposed policy is absolutely terrible for the innocent domain name owner who is the subject of an attempted reverse domain name hijacking. First, it allows WIPO to hide from its decisions (as NSI does) by keeping them secret. "(b) Except if the Panel determines otherwise, the Provider shall publish the decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly accessible website." All decisions by WIPO should be public, so that people can see for themselves if WIPO is getting the right answer when it decides a dispute. Second, it burdens the domain name owner with the problem of raising the money to file a lawsuit in a mere *ten days*. The cost to file a lawsuit of this type is typically $10K for lead counsel and another $5K for local counsel, totaling $15K. This is far worse than NSI's present policy, which at least gave the domain name owner 37 days in which to raise the money to file the lawsuit. It is inequitable in the extreme to force the domain name owner (who may not have counsel already and who may well not have an extra fifteen thousand dollars cash on hand) to raise fifteen thousand dollars, interview counsel, select counsel, pay them a ten-thousand dollar advance, find local counsel, pay them a five-thousand-dollar advance, draft court papers, and file them, all in less than ten days. The domain name owner should be permitted at least the 37 days that NSI presently provides. Third, it repeats the terrible inequity presently imposed by NSI on domain name owners, namely that it forces the domain name owner to spend perhaps $100K to bring a DJ action to completion. Yet for any dispute *other* than a domain name dispute (e.g. a dispute relating to the *text* of a web page rather than the domain name) the burden of spending money to sue would be on the challenger, as it is in all other trademark disputes. More importantly, in a normal court action by a challenger (such a challenge to the text of a web page) the challenger risks Rule 11 sanctions if it later turns out the lawsuit lacked merit. This discourages the challenger with a meritless claim from asserting it. In contrast, this proposed policy eliminates all or nearly all risks to the challenger and permits it to assert a meritless claim without taking any risk. This puts out the "welcome mat" for challengers who have meritless claims and who wish to engage in reverse domain name hijacking. I speak from experience on this. I have studied many, many real-life situations where the challenger has gone to NSI rather than to court for the simple reason that the challenge would have been laughed out of court but will be accepted by NSI. The WIPO panel is essentially proposing to grant preliminary injunctive relief, just as a normal court would. But please remind yourself what you learned in your first year of law school, which is that no normal court grants preliminary injunctive relief except in a document which says the relief is conditional on the posting of a bond, to protect the target in the event that it is later determined that the relief should not have been granted. You want preliminary relief to shut down a factory? Then you should post bond equal to the profits the factory owner will lose during the time it is shut down. In the case of this proposed policy, the challenger should be required to post a bond in an amount equal to the anticipated cost to the domain name owner of filing and litigating a DJ action. Probably $100K is appropriate. Then, if the domain name owner files a DJ action and wins, the bond is paid over to the domain name owner. Otherwise the bond is refunded to the challenger. 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] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Werner and all, I am afraid you are incorrect Werner. The calls into NSI and the NTIA from DN owners were frantic as many DN's were not resolving or doing so very slowly at the time. So much so, that the NTIA had to DIRECT Jon to switch back. He complied reluctantly. Werner Staub wrote: Ken, Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland 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] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
Joe Baptista wrote: Roberto I posted the communication to Mr. Shaw not with the intention of encouraging discussion, but to provide notice. I have no interest in participating in this discussion. I suggest those who enjoy the gossip of common housewives proceed to do so in private. Sorry to have hit a nerve, it was not my intention. Frankly, I thought your letter to Mr. Shaw was a joke, but since you seem to take it seriously, may I ask you to provide notice of your further "appropriate actions", as promised in your message: You have 24 hours to comply. If you should fail to comply we will take appropriate action. We also reserve the right to legal action in the event you default on our demand. I am asking this because, according to housewives gossip ;), Mr. Shaw has failed to comply with your request for apologies. So, the world is watching you and holding its breath to see if action follows the words. Regards Roberto (on second thoughts, maybe my first reading was correct, and your letter to Bob *was* a joke?!?)
RE: [IFWP] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry to have hit a nerve, it was not my intention. You didn't. I just hate to repeat myself. I think I made that clear. Frankly, I thought your letter to Mr. Shaw was a joke, but since you seem to take it seriously, may I ask you to provide notice of your further "appropriate actions", as promised in your message: You have 24 hours to comply. If you should fail to comply we I am asking this because, according to housewives gossip ;), Mr. Shaw has failed to comply with your request for apologies. So, the world is watching you and holding its breath to see if action follows the words. You are correct, he has not complied. Understand, we don't consider Mr. Shaw a priority matter. We will provide notice in the fullness of time. (on second thoughts, maybe my first reading was correct, and your letter to Bob *was* a joke?!?) No. I hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Another country heard from. The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone. Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door. And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was replaced by the White Paper (statement of policymaking) as a natural step in the government's rainbow hierarchy. Ken Freed wrote: Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
[IFWP] [Fwd: New Generic Top Level Domains]
All, Comments? -- 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 Dear Raul and all: 2) New Generic Top Level Domains. Do we think that more gTLDs are need or not? I believe that we should discuss it and take position of our constituency. 1. New gTLDs should be created. Which ones? I think they should create gTLDs that represents subjects of interests and proffessionals. 2. New gTLDs that represents states within USA...or force to USA to use ccTLD .US. Why? Because, as all you know, there are companies that buys ccTLDs because they have commercial value for doctors, proffessionals, and also because are the same than codes used for USA post office to identify their states. I think ICANN should reorganize ccTLDs issue. I think that such ccTLDs that are used for other purposes than identify a country code should be exchanged for the proper gTLD. Also I think that ccTLDs technical and administrative office have to be located in the respectively country and managed by a local organization or bussiness. Best regards Vany :-) Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales Especialista en Tecnologia de Informacion/Asistente Administrativa Programa Red de Desarrollo Sostenible/Panama Tel. (507) 230-4011 ext 213, (507) 230-3455 Fax: (507) 230-3646 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
Roberto and all, I don't see where Joe owes Bob Shaw an apology. Rather the reverse would be more appropriate. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Baptista wrote: Roberto I posted the communication to Mr. Shaw not with the intention of encouraging discussion, but to provide notice. I have no interest in participating in this discussion. I suggest those who enjoy the gossip of common housewives proceed to do so in private. Sorry to have hit a nerve, it was not my intention. Frankly, I thought your letter to Mr. Shaw was a joke, but since you seem to take it seriously, may I ask you to provide notice of your further "appropriate actions", as promised in your message: You have 24 hours to comply. If you should fail to comply we will take appropriate action. We also reserve the right to legal action in the event you default on our demand. I am asking this because, according to housewives gossip ;), Mr. Shaw has failed to comply with your request for apologies. So, the world is watching you and holding its breath to see if action follows the words. Regards Roberto (on second thoughts, maybe my first reading was correct, and your letter to Bob *was* a joke?!?) 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] November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role inenabling ICANN
Editor's Note: If one does not understand how ICANN came to be, one will not grasp the complex interaction of forces that are powering it. It will remain the mysterious black box that can be interpreted differently for different audiences. The tiny group directing it has found it desirable to run it in a way that gave lip service to transparency while obscuring the coalition of trademark, regulatory and e-commerce interests behind it. Without the road maps provided by ICANN's private fund raising correspondence and an unpublished analysis of ISOC coalition building, the self-interested nature of the glue holding together the forces behind ICANN is unclear. ICANN is not the disinterested technical coordinating body for "Internet plumbing" that Esther Dyson claims it to be. While it is clear enough to its critics that ICANN is bad what, at heart, it really is has generally been obscure. ICANN has been such a jungle of groups and committees operating in secret that policy makers have had no other choice but to throw up their hands and accept ICANN's public relations rhetoric. The first part of this long article intends to give a framework for understanding what is happening by looking at the evolution of what came to be ICANN over the past five years. It does this with the hope that, for the first time, it should therefore become possible to formulate cohesive policy for dealing with ICANN. It has been possible to do this thanks to the insights of an analytical framework laid out in an unpublished paper by someone I know and consider to be an authoritative source. I have read his paper and written my own summary taking into account its key ideas. What follows is not an abstract of this paper and its conclusions. It is my own work that owes a strong debt to the arguments and events recounted in the paper. It also gives my own insights into the coalition building carried out by ISOC. While the paper reminded me of many details, I am indebted to it primarily for two reasons. One is its emphasis on ISOC's coalition building, and two is its analysis of how the lack of legal foundation for the administration of the Internet's new technology made DNS an extremely attractive area for the trademark interests to ally with ISOC in establishing control over intellectual property on the Internet by means of ICANN. I am in the awkward position of not being able to identify the author of the paper publicly because, shortly after mentioning the paper on a small mail list, he has gone on travel and been incommunicado. I have tried through numerous emails and phone calls from September 4 through September 9th to contact him. He is not expected to be reachable before September 13. Given the speed of events, it looks as though if I wait to publish until Monday what I have written will be in need of significant up dating by then. I have decided therefore to go ahead and publish in such a way that will leave him the option of not being identified should he not wish to be identified at this point. Next week, if he agrees to be identified, I will give him full public credit. At any rate it is the ideas that are important -not the particular personality. Since last Saturday I have done due diligence and asked several other people to read and critique the introduction that follows. Agreement with it was general . Where my commentators had reasonable suggestions I have incorporated them. The framework that follows shows how ISOC, under the leadership of Vint Cerf and Don Heath, wanted to establish itself as the private, focal point of Internet governance. However, ISOC soon found its efforts to institutionalize its control disrupted by the trademark interests. The trademark community saw DNS control as a Nirvana by which it could extend and protect its private property interests in cyberspace for a fraction of what it might otherwise cost. At this point ISOC went forward through additional rounds of coalition building to achieve in ICANN a governance structure that may be accountable to their coalition partners but leaves the interests of those not a part of this narrow coalition process at risk. Part One Introduction: A Framework for Understanding ICANN The ICANN crisis can be traced directly back to ISOC's 1995 plan to take over domain name space. [Published in August 1999 COOK Report, pages 19-20.] Trademark, and intellectual property interests went into the DNS arena, at first, out of fear of the loss of their enforcement capabilities. Very quickly ISOC realized that an alliance with them could provide the economic and political muscle necessary to enable ISOC's own ambitions which were to become responsible for the administration of the technical aspects of IANA functions. If such functions were to be exercised on behalf of the trademark interests, the act of doing so would create a backlash on the part of those with businesses
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo
[IFWP] PICS and domain names
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] RE: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] concluded that: ...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those interested in the continued operation of an Internet whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and innovators. I don't share Mr. Cook's confidence in being able to predict the future. Even if ICANN disappears, the issues that led to its creation are still there, including - No competition in domain name registration. - Expensive and cumbersome mechanisms for resolving conflicts between trademark holders and domain name holders. - An unmet need of Internet users outside of the U.S. to help determine domain name issues. - No process for adding new top-level domains. If ICANN gets knocked off, something will rise to take its place. What will it be? Will it be better than ICANN or worse? Or if nothing fills the void, how will the issues be addressed? And if government(s) rose to fill this vacuum, would we end up satisfied with the outcome? Pete Farmer ___ Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications Strategies Unlimited http://www.strategies-u.com Mountain View, CA +1 650 941-3438 (voice) +1 650 464-1243 (mobile voice mail) +1 650 941 5120 (fax)
Re: [IFWP] RE: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's criticalrole in enabling ICANN
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Pete Farmer wrote: On Friday, September 10, 1999, Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] concluded that: ...in fact a collapse of ICANN will best serve those interested in the continued operation of an Internet whose doors are not closed to entrepreneurs and innovators. I don't share Mr. Cook's confidence in being able to predict the future. Even if ICANN disappears, the issues that led to its creation are still there, including I think it's still possible to work within the icann framework. The only problem with icann is how it's been managed to date. - No competition in domain name registration. - Expensive and cumbersome mechanisms for resolving conflicts between trademark holders and domain name holders. - An unmet need of Internet users outside of the U.S. to help determine domain name issues. - No process for adding new top-level domains. If ICANN gets knocked off, something will rise to take its place. What will it be? Will it be better than ICANN or worse? Does it really matter - as long as the majority agree to it. If ICANN fails we should look at it as an opportunity to rebuild, and be prepaired for it. Or if nothing fills the void, how will the issues be addressed? And if government(s) rose to fill this vacuum, would we end up satisfied with the outcome? Governments did not build the net - but they could do alot of damage to it and themselves. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo 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] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Ken Freed kenfreed@kf.com]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:52:23 -0400 (EDT) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 10 13:52:22 1999 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from dodo.prod.itd.earthlink.net (dodo.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.99]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A12F01B for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:52:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [38.31.4.175] (ip146.denver22.co.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.4.146]) by dodo.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA09588 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: v03110719b3fef06f58d9@[38.31.4.175] In-Reply-To: l03130300b3fed93c8984@[204.188.254.77] References: v0311070cb3fe8002eea2@[38.31.4.175] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] v03110702b3fd8faa7638@[38.31.5.21] v03110702b3fe3ce32947@[38.31.4.131] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:31:39 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king Okay. One last revision: "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that temporarily "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. While no harm was done, by asserting his power over the root zone (in alliance with root server operators), his act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the momentum behind the Green Paper proposal. Back to the drawing board." Now, let's talk about ICANN legitimacy and Internet privatization without a public vote. -- ken Another country heard from. The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone. Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door. And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was replaced by the White Paper (statement of policymaking) as a natural step in the government's rainbow hierarchy. Ken Freed wrote: Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010(oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo 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] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Dr. Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote: So, basically what you are saying is that you "talk the talk", but you don't "walk the walk". Put up or shut up. No Brian. What it means is what it says. We at PCCF are busy little beavers, and unfortunately there is no beaver available just this minute to serve Mr. Shaw. But I assure you Brian once a beaver becomes available one will be appointed to Mr. Shaw's file. Again I assure you Mr. Shaw is not a priority. We have appropriately censored him and will proceed to the next step just as soon as we can move Mr. Shaw up on our priority ladder. Maybe something next week. Regards Joe I am asking this because, according to housewives gossip ;), Mr. Shaw has failed to comply with your request for apologies. So, the world is watching you and holding its breath to see if action follows the words. You are correct, he has not complied. Understand, we don't consider Mr. Shaw a priority matter. We will provide notice in the fullness of time. (on second thoughts, maybe my first reading was correct, and your letter to Bob *was* a joke?!?) No. I hope that addresses your concerns. -- Brian C. Hollingsworth Senior Legal Analyst Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 This E-mail was sent from http://www.law.com
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. -riz At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo 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] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
I didn't inhale. Honest. I was just being polite. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote: Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. -riz At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo 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: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
Gordon, My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated world -- it is hard. Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it was not for trying. I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. MY OPINION, Dave
Re: [IFWP] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
On 10-Sep-99 J. Baptista wrote: Again I assure you Mr. Shaw is not a priority. We have appropriately censored him and will proceed to the next step just as soon as we can move Mr. Shaw up on our priority ladder. Maybe something next week. If you aren't going to make a "federal case" out of it until sometime next weekish, then maybe you should give Mr. Shaw the same timeframe to pony up an apology. If your acts aren't going to sync up with your threats, people are apt to not take you very seriously. You want an apology by close of business friday or legal action ensues? Your lawyers should be filing the papers first thing monday morning. "Do this NOW OR ELSE...we'll do something back...sometime...when we get around to it..." Doesn't exactly light a fire under anybody's ass to make things right. -mark What's this have to do with domain-policy again? --- mark jeftovic(MJ177) http://SlingShot.to/StuntPope/ easyDNS Technologies Inc. http://www.easyDNS.com/ -- dns hosting / domain registrations / web forwarding / mail forwarding / etc --
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself How would we know? It's never been tried. The cabalesque dealings so far, hardly count. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Let us vote!! -rizzz
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
I have no argument on this Let us VOTE and push them hard till we get the vote. Seems to me I remember something like a cry "no taxation with out representation" side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) dave At 12:01 PM -0700 9/10/99, Frank Rizzo wrote: At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Let us vote!! -rizzz
[IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November CookReport - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enablingICANN
Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one point on which I STRONGLY disagree with it. you say: If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. Vint, Esther, John and other have said the same thing.the internet will be in danger, ecommerce will fail, etc is the additional undertone that has gone along with these warnings from senior net people. Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own opinions which is just a different way of saying to you: please be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make. In the absence of such reasoned debate there are far too many other reasons to read into what then begins to look like the self-serving nature of what's going on. So look Dave. Do us a favor and let us know in detail *WHY* you fear what happens will be so much worse than ICANN. Myself - I cannot imagine what could be worse. Dyson, Cerf, Roberts, Patrick are pushing their own agenda pedal to the floor and are doing it in such a way as to rigg things so that participation of other people with other ideas is done in such a way as to render anything but the ICANN party line irrelevant. Government has requirements for openess and accountability that have been neatly and tidily surgically removed from ICANN. How can you not realize this? How can you keep defending them? Give us substance and not assertions please. Gordon, My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated world -- it is hard. Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it was not for trying. I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. MY OPINION, Dave 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) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish. --gregbo] Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Franky! ROFLMAO! Unfortunatly no. I don't smoke that rope! Frank Rizzo wrote: Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. -riz At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo 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 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: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC'scritical role in enabling ICANN
At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. If a public vote had the same outcome, I could live with it. I believe in democracy. Though I highly doubt that a vote would come out with the same cast of characters as ICANN is today. And if they knew that they could be voted out in 12 months, they'd do a better job of being accountable to ALL of their constituents, not just "the coalition of trademark, regulatory and e-commerce interests behind it". -riz
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Franky and all, Oh no we can't have any of that voting nonsense!!! (Sarcasm intended) Poor old Capt. Roberts would have a stroke! ;) And that would put a damper on his free skiing trips via ICANN. That would be a travisty wouldn't it? Frank Rizzo wrote: At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Let us vote!! -rizzz 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: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Franky and all, Good argument! Unfortunately the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board and the GIP http://www.gip.org know this which is why they have continued to thwart any VOTING from taking place from the Stakeholders. Frank Rizzo wrote: At 12:43 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. If a public vote had the same outcome, I could live with it. I believe in democracy. Though I highly doubt that a vote would come out with the same cast of characters as ICANN is today. And if they knew that they could be voted out in 12 months, they'd do a better job of being accountable to ALL of their constituents, not just "the coalition of trademark, regulatory and e-commerce interests behind it". -riz 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: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the corporations are often willing to put aside their differences, particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them financially. Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader might be an example of a netizen's angel. I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying afloat during the early 1980s. I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Greg and all, Exactly right regarding Corporations having a better financing to do lobbying collectively or independently. This is why I put together, along with others, INEGroup. We now have the financing to compete with the best of them from a $$ standpoint. Greg Skinner wrote: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the corporations are often willing to put aside their differences, particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them financially. Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader might be an example of a netizen's angel. I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying afloat during the early 1980s. I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business. --gregbo 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] [Fwd: CPT answers to questions regarding ICANN and Internet DSN management]
All,
This might be of some interest. Concerns gTLD's
--
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
These are the answers to questions we submitted to the House of
Representatives today, as a follow-up to the July 22, 1999
hearings on ICANN. Jamie
James Love
Director
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
http://www.cptech.org
September 10, 1999
Fred Upton
Chair
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Commerce
US House of Representatives 20515-6115
Dear Chairman Upton:
The following are my answers to the subcommittee questions
regarding ICANN and the privatization of the management of the
Internet domain name system.
1. Regarding the possible addition of new generic Top Level
Domains ("gTLDs"):
a. What concerns do you think trademark holders have regarding
the addition of new gTLDs?
Trademark owners aggressively seek to protect the use of
names, including for new gTLDs. IBM probably wants to
prevent anyone but IBM from using IBM.web or other possible
gTLDs that might be created. However, trademark owner
concerns must be balanced by other public interest
considerations. For example, in many cases there are lots
of different firms or organizations that use the same name,
and the existence of additional gTLDs will permit more than
one organization to use the name. This will often be
appropriate, as consumers will have opportunities to tell
the difference between different firms who use the same
name, with different gTLDs. For example, the journal Nature
owns nature.com. The Nature Company owns natureco.com. I
don't think Nature, the journal, would be harmed if the
Nature Company could buy nature.web or nature.biz or any
other gTLD using Nature. There are countless examples like
this. Indeed, in our view, any proposals to add new gTLDs
should seek to expand the name space available to firms,
organizations and individuals, and discourage hoarding by
firms. I might add that there are already technologies
under development to make it easier for the public to find
firms by their true names, regardless of their domain name,
further reducing confusion among like sounding domain names.
It is also important to protect the right of parody and free
speech in the allocation of domain names, and to protect the
rights of individuals and non-commercial organizations.
b. How would the addition of new gTLDs increase competition in
the registration and use of domain names?
New gTLDs should be created. However, governments should
decide now who will "own" a gTLD. It is our view that the
gTLD is a global commons, and should not become the property
of any private party. If the gTLD is a global commons, it
would be appropriate to create an international governance
structure to manage the resource for the benefit of the
public.
c. Does ICANN presently have the authority to add new gTLDs?
We are unsure if ICANN has the legal authority to do
anything with regard to gTLDs.
2. Regarding the registration of one of the so-called "several
dirty words" as part of a domain:
a. Should registrars have the right to refuse to register
domain names containing any of these words?
No.
b. Should registries have the right to refuse to accept a
registion containing any of these words?
No.
3. Does the department of Commerce have the authority to
recompete the .com, .net and .org registries? How would
such recompetition affect the Internet's stability and
competition for domain name registration and related
services?
We assume the Department of Commerce does has the authority
to recompete the .com, .net and .org registries, and we urge
the Department of Commerce to do so as soon as possible.
The recompetition should enhance the Internet's stability,
and indeed, the purpose of the recompetition should be to
create a system that cannot be held hostage to a private
body. This may require more redundancy, posting of bonds,
backup of key data with trusted third parties, changes of
financial incentives or other management measures.
4. Regarding domain name disputes among legitimate trademark
holders, is this an appropriate area of policy for ICANN to
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Greg and all, I don't find or see a great possibility of what you say Farber is saying will happen. It is possible yes, but highly improbable given that the USG has failed so many times already and a major election is in the offing soon. Hence there is plenty of time for another stab at all this, be it through a revamped ICANN or something else. The EU may be the only major stumbling block however... Greg Skinner wrote: It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo 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] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote: fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. Like what? Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as pathetic and wrong-headed as ICANN-GAC. The "process" we're dealing with here is in fact something cooked up within the Beltway and whatever encircles Brussels. --tony
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Tony and all, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote: fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. Like what? Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as pathetic and wrong-headed as ICANN-GAC. True, but it doesn't mean they couldn't invent something... The "process" we're dealing with here is in fact something cooked up within the Beltway and whatever encircles Brussels. "Encircles"! Good word. Did I ever tell you the story/joke about the "Circle-fly"? If not let me know, I fill you in off list. Brussels and Geneva fit the scenario... ;) --tony 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] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Tony Rutkowski wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. Like what? Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Re: [IFWP] your allegations of a PCCF NSI conspiracy
Mark: I know everone is getting hot under the collor in anticipation of the PCCF Shaw tango. You'll have to wait boys and girls. I wonder where the people on this list studied law. There is never a need to rush. Only lemings rush, and they end up flying off cliffs. We have the advantage of time. Mr. Shaw is in default and we can now act on it when ready. Regards Joe On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote: On 10-Sep-99 J. Baptista wrote: Again I assure you Mr. Shaw is not a priority. We have appropriately censored him and will proceed to the next step just as soon as we can move Mr. Shaw up on our priority ladder. Maybe something next week. If you aren't going to make a "federal case" out of it until sometime next weekish, then maybe you should give Mr. Shaw the same timeframe to pony up an apology. If your acts aren't going to sync up with your threats, people are apt to not take you very seriously. You want an apology by close of business friday or legal action ensues? Your lawyers should be filing the papers first thing monday morning. "Do this NOW OR ELSE...we'll do something back...sometime...when we get around to it..." Doesn't exactly light a fire under anybody's ass to make things right. -mark What's this have to do with domain-policy again? --- mark jeftovic(MJ177) http://SlingShot.to/StuntPope/ easyDNS Technologies Inc. http://www.easyDNS.com/ -- dns hosting / domain registrations / web forwarding / mail forwarding / etc --
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. This cannot be overstated. Content restrictions and "copyright" violations will likely be the new vehicles for "making the net safe for e-commerce." Look at the make up of the Intellectual Property Constituency and the demands that copyright and other intellectual property rights be included in domain name issues. (How copyright can be included in domain name issues and individual domain name holders excluded is beyond me.)
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Many thanks, yes yes yes At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
- Original Message - From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN () Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. --gregbo The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta Lund LLP Boston, MA
Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names
Mikki and all, I have wondered when ICANN and was going to get around the the "Content" issue with respect to DN's and their related information that they contain. As I recall we had some lengthy discussion about this some time ago now. I also have wondered what "Excuse" ICANN was going to use to "Make the net safe for e-commerce". I can only suspect that this means no more porno sites or sexually related sites on the net. That is a dam shame. But I guess this would also include ladies lingerie a no-no as well. So that means Esther won't have a place to shop online for her designer Sup-hose! ;) Mikki Barry wrote: Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. This cannot be overstated. Content restrictions and "copyright" violations will likely be the new vehicles for "making the net safe for e-commerce." Look at the make up of the Intellectual Property Constituency and the demands that copyright and other intellectual property rights be included in domain name issues. (How copyright can be included in domain name issues and individual domain name holders excluded is beyond me.) 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: please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Gordon, I will try to outline such a set of concrete scenarios. It will take some time. I have no staff, it is the beginning of our term and I will take what time is necessary to do a good job. So don't expect it this week but I will do it soon. Dave At 3:27 PM -0400 9/10/99, Gordon Cook wrote: Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one point on which I STRONGLY disagree with it. you say: If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. Vint, Esther, John and other have said the same thing.the internet will be in danger, ecommerce will fail, etc is the additional undertone that has gone along with these warnings from senior net people. Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own opinions which is just a different way of saying to you: please be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make. In the absence of such reasoned debate there are far too many other reasons to read into what then begins to look like the self-serving nature of what's going on. So look Dave. Do us a favor and let us know in detail *WHY* you fear what happens will be so much worse than ICANN. Myself - I cannot imagine what could be worse. Dyson, Cerf, Roberts, Patrick are pushing their own agenda pedal to the floor and are doing it in such a way as to rigg things so that participation of other people with other ideas is done in such a way as to render anything but the ICANN party line irrelevant. Government has requirements for openess and accountability that have been neatly and tidily surgically removed from ICANN. How can you not realize this? How can you keep defending them? Give us substance and not assertions please. Gordon, My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated world -- it is hard. Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it was not for trying. I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. MY OPINION, Dave 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) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta Lund Boston - Original Message - From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 07:26 PM 9/10/99 , Diane Cabell wrote: The amount of trademark-friendly legislation that has sailed through Congress recently is certainly strong evidence of that. That's entirely separate from "Internet governance." The major intellectual property players in Washington have always played a dominant role irrespective of the technology, and will continue to do so. Any Internet related regimes will be determined by Congress and the Judiciary. Nothing else matters, so it may as well be partitioned off, and forgotten. They are also not the problem. --tony
[IFWP] Net Privacy Study Included In RD Bill
All, FYI: http://www.cnnfn.com/news/technology/newsbytes/136087.html The House Science Committee Thursday voted 41-0 to approve the $4.8 billion federal research fund that includes an amendment calling for a study on ways to increase online privacy protections. 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] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:56 -0400 (EDT) From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Sep 10 19:15:55 1999 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.bayarea.net [205.219.84.13]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96185F015 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shell2.bayarea.net (shell2.bayarea.net [205.219.84.7]) by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA87699; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:07:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: (from dcrocker@localhost) by shell2.bayarea.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) id QAA11965; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:05:54 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN Cc: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: v04210108b3ff069c3525@[192.168.0.1] References: v04210127b3ff025b5e1d@[207.245.95.183] v04210106b3fed7621c64@[192.168.0.1] v04210127b3ff025b5e1d@[207.245.95.183] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:27 PM 9/10/99 , Gordon Cook wrote: Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own opinions which is just a different way of saying to you: please be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make. The information has been publicly shared many times. The problem is that the information has been rejected many times, apparently with the feeling that those rejecting understand these systems better than those doing the explaining. Cliche's about leading horses to water come to mind. To re-fill the trough, a bit: The DNS and IP addressing have strictly hierarchical assignment and use, with a single authority at each "level" in the hierarchy. Remove the top of the hierarchy and there is then no structure for administering these systems. Given that they are both integral to the operation of the net, failure in the process of assigning them will cause the Internet to cease function. fullstop. 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] -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
[IFWP] False sense of security?
All, FYI: http://www.cnnfn.com/1999/09/09/technology/feature_security/ 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] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
At 07:17 PM 9/10/99 -0400, David Farber wrote: At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo Many thanks, yes yes yes Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
Richard Sexton wrote: Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional government. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
At 07:20 PM 9/10/99 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: Richard Sexton wrote: Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. That and the senior technical community not being wholly convinced ICANN is a good thing, that is. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: Richard Sexton wrote: Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. It's a very salient point. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: the people behind ICANN see approval from the Commerce Dept., the EU, etc. as the key to success. While paying lip-service to the Internet community with talk of non-existent "consensus-building", transparency and representation, the goal is to garner government(s) approval, not do what is in the interest of the members of the community. However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional government. ICANN is indeed not a creature of "Internet self-governance." It is the result of a few large commercial interests and mid-level bureacrats attempts to avoid and abrogate the rights that citizens hold under the laws of their respective nations. The main reason that ICANN has enjoyed any success whatsoever is that ICANN has a convienent and willing "villian" in NSI, whose own ineptitude and ignorance of the Internet community has made it a convincing excuse for any action ICANN might take. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
where then are the scenarios? Re: [IFWP] please give us substanceand not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC'scritical role in enabling ICANN
Dave Farber noted his agreement with Greg Skinner's assertion below. Many thanks, yes yes yes At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo I say, comm'on Dave lets apply some logic here. What is the process then that you defend?? What is it going to take before you say: Esther and Mike - you have failed the process. You and ICANN are outta here. How about doing some basic explaining? 1. Why do we need ICANN in the first place? 2. Why do we need a protocol supporting organization? When did the IETF break? 3. Why do we need an Address Supporting Organization? If Arin, Ripe and APNic are not sufficiently responsible to the ISPs that pay their bills, they will be over thrown. 4. Why do we need a DNSO captured by CORE and the tradmark interests? We don't. If one is serious about bringing competition rather than control to DNS, support an association of registries and an organization that will facilitate multiple roots coordinating with each other. I see that you are offering to write some scenarios. Good thank you. but when you finish them, please don't hand them down from on high like stone tablets. Quite frankly I think we should be quite dismayed that Vint Cerf and John Patrick and Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts don't have such scenarios already written. And if they *DO have them* why didn't they turn them over to congress along with their inane fund raising emails? Then the leaking might have made these people look credible rather than foolish. Seriously if they are going around to Venture capitalists asking for money for ICANN and asserting that the internet is in danger if the VC's don't fund them, where are their scenarios about the danger? This is like going to a VC and asking for money for a real hot business with out having a business plan. This bespeakes a level of competence that is rather shockingly low. Quite frankly scenarios ought to have been written long ago and been publicly debated -- assuming that these people are sincere in their assertions and not trying to use a campaign of stealth and deception to create a platform of unaccountable authority to benefit special friends. I am not questioning your personal sincerity, but quite frankly I think if there really were solid scenario's that could withstand informed debate, they would have been written long ago. I published one such scenario in my recent long piece along with some commentary one what i saw as its short comings. This line of justification is centered so far on fear of the unknown rather than substance. I await substance most eagerly. I also wonder why, if these issues of why the internet will fail if ICANN doesn't have its way have been well thought out and are passionately believed in, it's not possible to take an extra hour or two and put them into ascii. I had a task to do and stayed up until three AM to do it last night. Am I the only one with the conviction that this debate is serious enough to become a bit sleep deprived? I'd be very surprised if my source for the framework that I portrayed doesn't go public quite soon. When this happens, if you disagree with what he has written, I would be honored if you would take the time to debate its author. 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) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta Lund Boston Then give us substance Diane. Use you lawyerly skills to back up these vague assertions instead of always excusing ICANN's heavy handedness. Some remote NGO. Isn't that just precisely what ICANN is? a very remote NGO unless one joins in making excuses for its actions. - Original Message - From: Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo 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) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
[IFWP] Looks to me like a likely scenario should icann succeed Re:[IFWP] PICS and domain names
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. This cannot be overstated. Content restrictions and "copyright" violations will likely be the new vehicles for "making the net safe for e-commerce." Look at the make up of the Intellectual Property Constituency and the demands that copyright and other intellectual property rights be included in domain name issues. (How copyright can be included in domain name issues and individual domain name holders excluded is beyond me.) 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) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml
