Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote: Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. But that's not the whole problem, here. ICANN may be, arguably, subject to I didn't say that this was the whole problem. I said that it demonstrated a (one) basic flaw. On the other hand, I didn't say that the problem simply involved US law. In this case the problem seemed to be pressure from the executive branch. "those laws," but it isn't clear that those laws (per se) were responsible for the disconnection. Is there a law, somewhere, that said "anybody who we determine appears to be violating the law in America, we 'unaddress' them before they get a trial." That certainly isn't normal procedure: There are probably over a thousand Internet Casinos who are (the thugs would argue) in violation of some American law, yet they are still accessible to us. There is a very large world outside of the United States. There is no reason why issues involving .UK, for example, should be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts. Britain is not a colony of the United States, nor is it a California county. Nor is there any justification for US government control over the allocation of IP address space within Europe. But when you look closely at ICANN, this is what you are getting. ICANN was supposed to replace IANA. IANA had a narrow technical role that depended upon voluntary cooperation. Having IANA arbitrate decisions about .UK actually worked, because IANA did not claim any ultimate legal authority. It was just obvious to everyone that if they didn't cooperate the Internet would not work. It may seem odd, but because IANA was gossamer thin, it had real power and legitimacy. ICANN doesn't and shouldn't. ICANN needs to be taught a very painful lesson: "Even if you feel that you must obey a specific law, you must not do it without initiating a legal process and continuing it through any valid appeal. Given that the election was only a few days away, it is obvious that no such process would be completed before the point becomes moot. You screwed up." ICANN is a California corporation subject to state and US laws. It has an obligation to obey those laws. There is or should be no question about this. ICANN is after all a legal fiction, a body whose very existence rests upon the authority of the state of California. The question is whether the domain name system, the IP address space, and other fundamental Internet infrastructure should be subject to US and California law. These are global, not local, resources. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
[IFWP] As Worlds Collide
As Worlds Collide By Jay Fenello An Aligning With Purpose(sm) Column As I sit here and watch the days go by, I am constantly amazed at the many ways that the Internet is changing our world. Today, most of these changes are subtle, and not so easy to recognize. Tomorrow, these small changes may quickly lead us into a brave new world. Just what this world might look like, remains to be seen. For example... Today, I can legally record a song off of the radio, and give it to a friend. I can legally record a TV show when I'm out, and watch it when I return. Tomorrow, I may not -- Napster is challenging our concepts of copyright protection and "fair use" in a digital world. Today, I can legally write almost anything I want, and distribute it to thousands of people for $19.95 a month. I can legally use almost any word in a sentence, without worrying about my entire article being censured. Tomorrow, I may not -- the trademark lobby is challenging our concepts of trademark use on the World Wide Web. Today, I can vote for someone to represent me in the world's first Internet governance body. Tomorrow, I may not -- ICANN is challenging our concept of self governance in cyberspace. What we have here is a collision between two worlds -- the "real" world and the "cyber" one. And even though these worlds are similar, what seemed to work in the real world, doesn't seem to apply in the cyber one. Is it because the Internet allows us to see things we never saw before? Is it because the Internet includes people who never participated in these decisions before? Whatever the reason, trying to solve our cyber-world problems with traditional real-world solutions, often results in more questions about both! As an example, and in case you haven't heard, for the first time in recorded history, people from around the world have voted for someone to represent them in a world governance body -- namely, ICANN. Now granted, ICANN is a very bad form of governance. It makes its decisions in smoke filled rooms, it pursues an agenda that favors insiders, it makes up the rules as it goes, and it changes the rules it doesn't like -- usually after it has already violated them. Even so, the vote was relatively fair (as certified by the Carter Center), and it was relatively surprising -- out of the five designated regions, two of the representatives elected have been labeled "radical" by the press. By radical, I presume they mean someone who wants to drastically change the current situation. But what's so radical about protecting people's rights, anyway? About following rules, and living up to people's best expectations? Why are *these* radical concepts? If they are radical concepts, what does that say about our "traditional" values? And if they aren't, what does that say about our press? Once again, when we try and solve our cyber-world problems with traditional real-world solutions, we often end-up with more questions about both! Why did we elect radicals to the ICANN board? Maybe it was because we had a choice -- not just a few token candidates dressed up in different parties (i.e. the Gush and Bore syndrome). Or maybe it's just a backlash against the corporate excesses that have driven the ICANN takeover to date. Or maybe, it's because we are about to go pop! We are about to understand things about our world, that we have never understood before. And maybe, just maybe, we are about to create a better one along the way. Until next time . . . +++ Jay Fenello, New Media Strategies http://www.fenello.com 678-585-9765 Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World "Wake up, Neo... The Matrix has you..." -- Trinity Copyright (c) 2000 Jay Fenello -- All rights reserved Permission is hereby granted to 1) redistribute this column in its entirety via email, discussion lists, and newsgroups, and 2) publish this column in its entirety on non-profit web sites. To join in the discussion on the topics in this column, subscribe to the Aligning with Purpose(sm) discussion list by sending a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To receive future issues of this column, subscribe to the Aligning with Purpose(sm) announcements list by sending a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[IFWP] Roots servers on rise - ICANN's golden egg cracking
Last year alternate roots supported 0.3% of internet traffic. This year alternate roots are supporting 5.5% of internet traffic. The BIND study this year to date has ennumerated 60,513 dns (15% of 399,937 dns) of which 3,331 report they are using non-USG roots. In my opinion - this is significant. And it puts a whole new twist on the song - what a difference a day makes. -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697
[IFWP] Re: Roots servers on rise - ICANN's golden egg cracking
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: Hello Ron, Sunday, November 05, 2000, 5:28:03 PM, you wrote: At 06:34 PM 11/5/00 -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: Last year alternate roots supported 0.3% of internet traffic. This year alternate roots are supporting 5.5% of internet traffic. I wonder how long this will be permitted to continue before ICANN, DoC, WIPO, etc *require* everyone to use USG roots...? His statistic is bogus. He has absolutely no real basis for saying how much of the internet traffic is using the alternative roots in this way. Anyone interested in verifying my results is welcomed to do so. The claim is as follows, of the 60,513 dns surveyed 3,331 reported using non-USG roots. A sample of this size has a standard error of +/- 1.6509% with a 95% confidence. So I'm very confident were seeing a trend away from ICANN. William if your willing to provide me with an undertaking that you will verify my data then i'll send you the ip's already tested and you'll see the results are correct. If not - shut your uneducated pie hole. The bottom line here is that my predictions that ICANN would lose market share are right on. Last year it was at 99.7% and this year it's at 94.5%. Regards Joe -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster
[IFWP] Re: Re[2]: Roots servers on rise - ICANN's golden egg cracking
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: That is not what you said in the original post, this is: Last year alternate roots supported 0.3% of internet traffic. This year alternate roots are supporting 5.5% of internet traffic. You have no basis for saying how much traffic the servers that may not be using the USG roots are supporting out of the whole internet traffic in the method you used to survey them. The percentage of nameservers does not automatically equate to the percentage of internet traffic. I understand. In fact the estimate is correct. Unfortuantely I don't have the time to teach you statistical analysis. But we can be confident that 5% of internet traffic is non USG. My results are representative and can be extrapolated accordingly with some confidence. I know this is a shock to you william. But thats' life and it don't surprise me. The bottom line here is that my predictions that ICANN would lose market share are right on. Last year it was at 99.7% and this year it's at 94.5%. Again, your statement doesn't jive with the actual results of your "survey". In other words, Joe, you are trying to make this number appear to be more substantive than it is. But I understand why perfectly :) But let's make sure we stick to the actual facts in evidence, ok? The facts are very simple. Of 60,513 dns surveyed, 3,331 reported as non USG. This is a big change from last year. Those are the facts and I can support them. In fact what I have is more then "facts" - it is evidence and proof. Like I said - anyone willing to undertake to test and confirm my results is welcomed. Because evidence like this William can be tested and verified. All your doing is jive turkey talk. If you want to challenge my stats William - accept the undertaking and test them for yourself. We call that process William - the scientific method. regards joe -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697
[IFWP] Re: Re[4]: Roots servers on rise - ICANN's golden egg cracking
On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: I understand. In fact the estimate is correct. Unfortuantely I don't have the time to teach you statistical analysis. But we can be confident that 5% of internet traffic is non USG. My results are representative and can be extrapolated accordingly with some confidence. You have absolutely no basis for making that assumption. The number of nameservers queried is in no way directly representative of the number of nameservers actually used for end user name resolution, nor of the number of queries made on a per server basis. No it in fact does. There are some 300,000 dns in the dot.com file, to date 60,513 have been surveyed (15%). It's easy and completely acceptable to extrapolate from there. And furthermore the existing population enumerated is more then enough to extrapolate from. To make the claim you made, you would need a lot more data than you can get from doing the simple queries you are doing, and as a matter of fact this would require the co-operation of the nameserver operators. Your method is not scientific, and it no statistician would ever make the leap in logic you tried to make here. Get yourself a statistician and I'll be happy to provide him with the numbers. Like I always say - talk is cheap and evidence dont lie '=) regards joe -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697
