Re: [IFWP] Groups Urge ICANN to Keep Promises
Jay Fenello posted: > > HERNDON, VA, November 10, 2000 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name > Rights Coalition (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the > interests of entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in > domain name issues, in conjunction with other Public Interest groups > such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility as well as > influential individuals in the area of Domain Names released a letter > calling upon ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers, to keep their word. Well, now, that should make them sit up and take notice, eh? Their word, is it, by golly? Oh, they will be sensitive to that. Their word has always been good. Hasn't it? Their word about the SOs having user representatives, for example. Yes, indeed, they will not want to be thought to have broken their sacred word of honor. This is a strong threat. Oh, my, yes. > In 1998, ICANN pledged to the Department of Commerce that it would > never change the bylaws guaranteeing direct elections by the Internet > rank-and-file of 9 electors, or half the Board. "We commit that will > never happen," wrote Esther Dyson, Chair of ICANN and one of the > "Interim" unelected Board members, to the Commerce Department in 1998 > as part of ICANN's petition to become stewards of the Domain Name > System (DNS). After receiving the contract to manage the DNS, however, > ICANN reduced the number of At Large Directors from nine to five, and > has announced it will re-examine whether to permit any Internet user > representation after the terms of the newly elected directors expire. Then they haven't kept their word. They are liars. Could it be that they don't care? That they don't give a hoot what we think of them? Astounding! Incredible! > The letter calls upon ICANN to restore the representation promised to > the Internet community since 1998, and renounce its threat to abolish > At Large representation. A call is made. Hear ye, hear ye. We call upon ICANN. We call for fair play. For honesty. For democracy. Hear us, O ICANN! Hear us, and relent! > "When ICANN was in serious trouble in 1998 > and 1999, they promised open elections for all" said Mikki Barry, > President of the Domain Name Rights Coalition. "The Internet > Community relied on their word." Not quite. Only naive fools who "call upon ICANN", who "urge the Board". Who refuse to face the truth. > Barry cited Congressional Testimony of Esther Dyson at an oversight > hearing before the House Commerce Committee in 1999, as well as > letters to the Commerce Department and members of Congress, as > evidence of ICANN's initial insistence it would provide Internet > users the right to elect 9 directors. "But once Congress and > Commerce seemed satisfied and NSI was brought into the fold, > ICANN began a full reversal of their original stance." Naturally. Just like the Department of Commerce itself lied to Congress about half the DNSO being for the users. They lie, and the poor whipped fools in these interminable castrated "Internet democracy" groups believe their lies, until, no longer able to ignore the truth, they "call on" ICANN to "keep its word". What a disgusting spectacle! > Public interest groups warned ICANN that it would risk its legitimacy > if it did not fulfill its promise of nine elected members from the > At Large membership. Well, and they haven't done so. So, what's next? What is the threat that these public interest groups hold over ICANN? How do they plan to de-legitimize it? ICANN never had any legitimacy. Do these poor fools think that the people who created ICANN give a damn whether DNRC or CPSR or anyone else declares them legitimate or illegitimate? > The letter called upon the four remaining > "Boardsquatters," the four unelected "Interim" Directors who have > extended their terms three times, to resign. Ha-ha! The ICANN Board is going to resign because DNRC and CPSR "call on" them to do so. Unbelievable! These people are still infants who think they are the center of the world. They are going to call on mother ICANN to step down, and momma's going to oblige little boo-boo. Isn't that sweet? > It also urged the Board > to follow the recommendations of Professor Michael Froomkin and allow > the five democratically elected directors from the At Large to fill > the four vacancies until new At Large elections could fill them. "Dear ICANN Board, won't you please follow Michael Froomkin's recommendations? Please? Pretty please? Pretty pretty please? Wontcha? Hunh? Please?" > The letter has already sparked a lively debate. Hans Klein, Chair > of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), cited > the letter extensively in a panel discussion at the on-going ICANN > meetings in Marina del Rey Oh, I'll do you And you do me We're all here together Now one, two, three Do the circle jerk Yay, yay, yay Do the circle jerk In Marina del Rey. We'll call on ICANN We'll plead and we'll beg We'll urge them a
Re: [IFWP] Report on ICANN Members Forum
Hans Klein wrote: > > Report on ICANN Members Forum > Marina del Rey, California > November 12, 2000 > > by Andrew Shen, EPIC and Internet Democracy Project > > http://www.ICANNmembers.org > Karl Auerbach spoke briefly about his own background in technology and law. > In particular, he noted his own experience as a businessman, causing him to > be sympathetic to some of their concerns. ? > He encouraged people not to worry > about short-term issues such as domain names but focus on long-term issues > such as address space. ?? ? For the attendees, he suggested not looking too much > at policy issues but concentrating on creating an institution. ??? This is not the Karl Auerbach that I knew. Michael Sondow = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
[IFWP] one last dance with vixie - CERT Advisory CA-2000-20
Here we go again folks - yes another bind vulnerability. will this be vixies last dance - or what. joe -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:24:17 -0500 (EST) From: CERT Advisory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CERT Advisory CA-2000-20 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- CERT Advisory CA-2000-20 Mulitple Denial-of-Service Problems in ISC BIND Original release date: November 13, 2000 Source: CERT/CC A complete revision history is at the end of this file. Systems Affected * Systems running Internet Software Consortium (ISC) BIND version 8.2 through 8.2.2-P6 * Systems running name servers derived from BIND version 8.2 through 8.2.2-P6 Overview The CERT Coordination Center has recently learned of two serious denial-of-service vulnerabilities in the Internet Software Consortium's (ISC) BIND software. The first vulnerability is referred to by the ISC as the "zxfr bug" and affects ISC BIND version 8.2.2, patch levels 1 through 6. The second vulnerability, the "srv bug", affects ISC BIND versions 8.2 through 8.2.2-P6. Derivatives of the above code sets should also be presumed vulnerable unless proven otherwise. I. Description The Internet Software Consortium, the maintainer of BIND, the software used to provide domain name resolution services, has recently posted information about several denial-of-service vulnerabilities. If exploited, any of these vulnerabilities could allow remote intruders to cause site DNS services to be stopped. For more information about these vulnerabilities and others, please see http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind-security.html Two vulnerabilities in particular have been categorized by both the ISC and the CERT/CC as being serious. The "zxfr bug" Using this vulnerability, attackers on sites which are permitted to request zone transfers can force the named daemon running on vulnerable DNS servers to crash, disrupting name resolution service until the named daemon is restarted. The only preconditions for this attack to succeed is that a compressed zone transfer (ZXFR) request be made from a site allowed to make any zone transfer request (not just ZXFR), and that a subsequent name service query of an authoritative and non-cached record be made. The time between the attack and the crash of named may vary from system to system. This vulnerability has been discussed in public forums. The ISC has confirmed that all platforms running version 8.2.2 of the BIND software prior to patch level 7 are vulnerable to this attack. The "srv bug" This vulnerability can cause affected DNS servers running named to go into an infinite loop, thus preventing further name requests to be handled. This can happen if an SRV record (defined in RFC2782) is sent to the vulnerable server. Microsoft's Windows 2000 Active Directory service makes extensive use of SRV records and is reportedly capable of triggering this bug in the course of normal operations. This is not, however, a vulnerability in Microsoft Active Directory. Any network client capable of sending SRV records to vulnerable name server systems can exercise this vulnerability. The CERT/CC has not received any direct reports of either of these vulnerabilities being exploited to date. Both vulnerabilities can be used by malicious users to break the DNS services being offered at all exposed sites on the Internet. System administrators are strongly recommended to upgrade their DNS software with either ISC's current distribution or their vendor-supplied software. See the Solution and Vendor Information sections of this document for more details. II. Impact Domain name resolution services (DNS) can be disabled on affected servers from arbitrary remote hosts. III. Solution Apply a patch from your vendor The CERT/CC recommends that all users of ISC BIND upgrade to the recently-released BIND 8.2.2-P7, which patches both of the vulnerabilities discussed in this document. Sites running vendor-specific distributions of domain name resolution software should check the Vendor Information section below for more specific information on how to upgrade to non-vulnerable software. Restrict zone transfers to trusted hosts If it is not possible to immediately upgrade systems affected by the "zxfr bug", the ISC suggests not allowing zone transfers from untrusted hosts. This action, however, will not mitigate against the effects of an attack using the "srv bug". Although it has been reported that not allowing recursive queries may help mitigate against the "zxfr" vulnerability, ISC has indicated that this is not the case. Appendix A. Vendor Information The Internet Software Consortium
[IFWP] Groups Urge ICANN to Keep Promises
SOURCE: The Domain Name Rights Coalition CONTACT: Jay Fenello, Fenello.com, 678-585-9765 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Public Interest Groups join with the DNRC in Urging ICANN To Keep Promises Given Since 1998 - Elect 9 At Large Directors, and Eliminate "Clean Sheet" Study Designed to Abolish At Large Representation HERNDON, VA, November 10, 2000 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name issues, in conjunction with other Public Interest groups such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility as well as influential individuals in the area of Domain Names released a letter calling upon ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, to keep their word. In 1998, ICANN pledged to the Department of Commerce that it would never change the bylaws guaranteeing direct elections by the Internet rank-and-file of 9 electors, or half the Board. "We commit that will never happen," wrote Esther Dyson, Chair of ICANN and one of the "Interim" unelected Board members, to the Commerce Department in 1998 as part of ICANN's petition to become stewards of the Domain Name System (DNS). After receiving the contract to manage the DNS, however, ICANN reduced the number of At Large Directors from nine to five, and has announced it will re-examine whether to permit any Internet user representation after the terms of the newly elected directors expire. The letter calls upon ICANN to restore the representation promised to the Internet community since 1998, and renounce its threat to abolish At Large representation. "When ICANN was in serious trouble in 1998 and 1999, they promised open elections for all" said Mikki Barry, President of the Domain Name Rights Coalition. "The Internet Community relied on their word." Barry cited Congressional Testimony of Esther Dyson at an oversight hearing before the House Commerce Committee in 1999, as well as letters to the Commerce Department and members of Congress, as evidence of ICANN's initial insistence it would provide Internet users the right to elect 9 directors. "But once Congress and Commerce seemed satisfied and NSI was brought into the fold, ICANN began a full reversal of their original stance." Barry and other critics warned Commerce in 1998, when it first considered ICANN's proposal, that nothing would stop ICANN from changing its bylaws to keep out the public once Commerce approved ICANN's applications. It was in response to this criticism that Dyson pledged on behalf of ICANN that no such changes would occur. Despite Dyson's pledge in 1998, and similar pledges in 1999, ICANN did change its bylaws, extending the terms of the initial directors, reducing the number of elected directors, and creating a "Clean Sheet" study to re-examine whether to allow Internet users any direct representation at all. When the limited elections ICANN permitted elected two of ICANN's vociferous critics, there was a widespread concern that ICANN might use the Clean Sheet study to eliminate At Large elections altogether, or reduce them further. ICANN's bylaws also have been changed to permit elected At Large directors only 2 years service on the Board with automatic removal at term's end, but "constituency" directors receive 3 year terms and sit until further elections are called. "At the end of two years, the Board may well vote to eliminate At Large, and extend their own terms indefinitely." according to Barry. "Internet Users would have zero say in the very organization that determines their rights." Public interest groups warned ICANN that it would risk its legitimacy if it did not fulfill its promise of nine elected members from the At Large membership. The letter called upon the four remaining "Boardsquatters," the four unelected "Interim" Directors who have extended their terms three times, to resign. It also urged the Board to follow the recommendations of Professor Michael Froomkin and allow the five democratically elected directors from the At Large to fill the four vacancies until new At Large elections could fill them. Professor Froomkin's proposal is available at http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/boardsquat2.htm The DNRC letter can be seen at http://www.netpolicy.com/icann111000.html. The letter has already sparked a lively debate. Hans Klein, Chair of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), cited the letter extensively in a panel discussion at the on-going ICANN meetings in Marina del Rey, where ICANN Board will soon decide how to proceed with the study. "The prospect of a clean-sheet study is a significant departure from ICANN's prior commitments," said Klein. "We fear that the so-called "clean slate" study may attempt to make a "clean sweep" of the At Large membership, ending democratic accountability in ICANN." CPSR is a signator
[IFWP] Report on ICANN Members Forum
Report on ICANN Members Forum Marina del Rey, California November 12, 2000 by Andrew Shen, EPIC and Internet Democracy Project http://www.ICANNmembers.org The meeting was opened by Hans Klein, who noted the success of the historic ICANN At Large elections as evidence of public interest in ICANN activities and who urged continued support for democratic process. Klein went on to say that the next task is to build on the At Large momentum. He presented one option - the development of an "enunciation" mechanism that will not speak on behalf of At Large members but would facilitate future public participation. He stated that the meeting was an attempt at member self-organization and a search for consensus. Rather than looking for discussion on substantive issues, he characterized the meeting as a search for next steps. Klein offered, as one option, the formation of an Interim Coordinating Committee. The first panel of the meeting was entitled "Meet the New Directors", moderated by Johannes Chiang. Four of the newly elected At Large Directors - Andy Mueller-Maguhn (Europe), Ivan Moura Campos (Latin America and the Caribbean), Nii Quaynor (Africa), Karl Auerbach (North America) - spoke before the forum. Andy Mueller-Maguhn first spoke about his role as representing a wide region and his own background in computer networking. He began by noting his opposition to ICANN, its relationship to the U.S. government, and a centralized domain name system. He continued by pointing out some of the major future issues for ICANN. First, privacy issues relating to lawful interception and digital signatures. Second, the maintenance of public spaces that remain separate from commercial rules like trademark. Third, the promotion of diversity and decentralization. He ended by urging for greater public participation. Ivan Moura Campos next spoke about the online environment in Latin America. He said that the biggest problem for that region is the uneven Internet penetration. He went on to speak about trying to reach different communities, increasing competition and eliminating monopolies for ISPs, and the great need for funding that will promote more access. He also encouraged working with different groups through joint ventures. He ended by endorsing the proposal for an Interim Coordinating Committee Nii Quaynor next spoke about his perspective from the Africa region. He talked about ensuring that Africa is not left behind and working on behalf of the underrepresented and disadvantaged. He cautioned about moving too fast in favor of a slower, more thoughtful approach. He said he is trying to increase the membership from the Africa region as well as the formation of better supporting organizations. He also added his support for working on common issues with those from different regions. Karl Auerbach spoke briefly about his own background in technology and law. In particular, he noted his own experience as a businessman, causing him to be sympathetic to some of their concerns. He encouraged people not to worry about short-term issues such as domain names but focus on long-term issues such as address space. For the attendees, he suggested not looking too much at policy issues but concentrating on creating an institution. The second panel of the meeting was entitled "Regional Status Reports", moderated by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. Wolfgang began the session by reading from the White Paper and re-asserting that the legitimacy of ICANN comes from the public. He continued that a great deal depends on member self-organization that often starts from particular regions. Pierre Dandjinou spoke about the difficult organizing situation in Africa. He said that most of the African Internet users are from South Africa, there is an overall low numbers of users, and that Internet use is largely confined to email. He also noted the difficulties in explaining ICANN and why participating in that organization is important. He added that there are also a lot of language difficulties although groups are starting to form. Alan Levin continued speaking about the situation in Africa, in particular about the Internet as a way to promote economic development. He added that South Africa feels separate from the rest of Africa. Myungkoo Kang spoke about the situation in Asia. He cited the need for greater voter participation, learning about candidates, and visiting their websites. He also mentioned the difficulty in explaining ICANN to individuals and suggested the development of an "ICANN for dummies" website. As with many other regions, he mentioned language barriers that made it difficult to understand even the concept of At Large membership. Jeanette Hofmann spoke about the experience in Germany where the national media focused, and continues to focus, on ICANN. She also mentioned the lack of ICANN outreach and the development of central listservs like icann-europe. Vittorio Bertola continued the discussion of the Europe region by noting that
[IFWP] The Internet Namespace Cooperative Root Sync Report Mon Nov 13 05:35:01 EST 2000
The Internet Namespace Cooperative Root Sync report for Mon Nov 13 05:35:01 EST 2000 http://www.tinc-org.com/ (c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/ ES - ERROR detected in zone .ES <<< add ns INECO.NIC.ES. to root <<< add ns MUNNARI.OZ.AU. to root <<< add ns NS1.NIC.ES. to root <<< add ns NS3.NIC.FR. to root >>> delete ns CHICO.REDIRIS.ES. from root >>> delete ns RS0.INTERNIC.NET. from root KY - ERROR detected in zone .KY <<< add ns KYNSE01.MESSAGESECURE.COM. to root >>> delete ns DENEB.DOMAINNT.NET. from root
[IFWP] i-DNS.net International Root Sync Report Mon Nov 13 05:30:00 EST 2000
i-DNS.net International Root Sync report for Mon Nov 13 05:30:00 EST 2000 http://www.i-DNS.net/ (c) The dot.GOD Registry @ http://www.dot-god.com/ BE - ERROR detected in zone .BE >>> delete ns NS.DNS.BE. from root DK - ERROR detected in zone .DK <<< add ns NS4.TELE.DK. to root EC - ERROR detected in zone .EC <<< add ns A.I-DNS.NET. to root <<< add ns B.I-DNS.NET. to root <<< add ns C.I-DNS.NET. to root <<< add ns D.I-DNS.NET. to root <<< add ns F.I-DNS.NET. to root ES - ERROR detected in zone .ES <<< add ns INECO.NIC.ES. to root <<< add ns MUNNARI.OZ.AU. to root <<< add ns NS1.NIC.ES. to root <<< add ns NS3.NIC.FR. to root >>> delete ns CHICO.REDIRIS.ES. from root >>> delete ns RS0.INTERNIC.NET. from root KY - ERROR detected in zone .KY <<< add ns KYNSE01.MESSAGESECURE.COM. to root >>> delete ns DENEB.DOMAINNT.NET. from root LA - ERROR detected in zone .LA >>> delete ns B.I-DNS.NET. from root >>> delete ns D.I-DNS.NET. from root MT - ERROR detected in zone .MT >>> delete ns SPARKY.ARL.MIL. from root SE - ERROR detected in zone .SE >>> delete ns SPARKY.ARL.MIL. from root
[IFWP] Re: Reply re: dates (fwd)
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Monday, November 13, 2000, 12:58:51 AM, you wrote: > > > more pleadings for an audience .. > > Hmm, as much as I detest Joe's methods, I have to say that I received > several email from Mr Harris as well, asking to talk to me via phone > many times about his "proposals." I finally had to make it perfectly > clear and spell it out that I was not interested in discussing his > plans, and that they made absolutely no sense whatsoever before he > stopped. Don't forget the ass kissing. I swear the man is the biggest brown noser I ever came across. I would answer my phone and end up getting a litany of ass kissing platitudes as to how great I am. Ass kissing don't work with me - it annoys me. If I need my ass kissed I use my little black book. > In light of that, I believe Joe is telling the truth here, and that Mr > Harris is trying to deny things that he has actually become so well > known for. Joe always tells the truth. I think that's well known by now. Harris is known by almost all the major admins in the loop. What we have here is a wheeler dealer who wants to sell his way into heaven. Do you believe he actually offered me to run this ICANN business. He actually thought I'd find value in it. And I still don't know what an eTLD is. Maybe someday Mr. harris can take us all to lunch and we'll all find out together. -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster
[IFWP] Joe -Urgent - please read. (fwd)
ass licking and a failed attemt to identify with the target - i.e. yours trully. But in the end - how does an eTLD resolve .. only in the imagination of friderick harris ... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:28:48 -0400 From: Frederick Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Joe -Urgent - please read. Dear Joe, Thank you for your memo. I have to respect your wishes, and I do. For that reason I intend to share with you something I share with very few persons. Perhaps this will surprise you, but I am (in a way) somewhat like you are, or say you are. I am a very shy person. I work alone. I struggle mightily each time I do a business trip or a deal with venal capitalists precisely because I prefer quiet and solitude. When you and I last agreed to meet together, I drove all the way up to Huntsville with my wife - and started down the highway toward Ottawa. I then stopped, turned around and came home. I suppose I intuitively understood that it would be a mistake to visit you unannounced - even though I know we will get along terrific. Joseph - the web is ultimately about human connectivity. It isn't about business or profits or corporations or anything of the sort. If you want to discouver the *real* source of the web (in my view) please, look to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit theologian, who wrote about the internet (he then referred to it as the noosphere) - in 1946 I believe. You can find it in "The Phenomenon of Man" P. Teilhard de Chardin (I forget the name of the publisher). It is not for nothing that I have approached you. I realized some time ago that you are (apparently) reclusive. But I also appreciate your apparent genius and I think you have much to contribute to the entire internet. I don't buy any of this stuff about Ester Polyester - and ICANN - and I could care less about ICANN. I know how to bypass ICANN. . Now - what I suspect that God has given you is a deep understanding of "human connectivity" and the implications of what that means for human beings in the realm of technology. I already know that you are probably very gifted man. It is important, therefore, not only to me but to others - and the internet - that the synergy which I know is there be allowed to happen. I am not going to dwell on that part of it here. So please here me out! I am about as easy going a person as you will find. I would like you to please copnside the following - which are your own words from your memo to me last night: Joe: " The only thing I can offer you is to co-ordinate your admins in setting up the service." Okay! I accept your offer! The papers and money $3,000.00 will go out to CIRA today for the .CA registry. I intend to vigorously compete with all the platers in that name space. I will be doiung it, as I told you, in Canada *and* in California, through Valley Corporation, a company I have set up to sell .CA web addresses in the area that runs rougly along the ,ines of the San Andreas Fault from Silicon Valley down through Southern California into The San Fernando Valley. I will pay you for your admin services. Here is what is required from the privacy of your home and in whatever manner you choose to do it. All I ask is that you please follow through. I will Fedex copies of the Idexis application to you. Your job, if you accept it, will be to "ccordinate all the admins" with CIRA up to the point where CIRA approves the Idexis application. I will then form a busines sparnershiup with another company. You can be the grey eminence who fatherly (if you prefer) sees to it that all the administrative and tecnhnical matters are taken care of so we can have the registy up and running by November 1. I will phne you this morning about this. I will respect your need for privacy. I certainly dfo want to meet with you. But I will do it on your terms. I will phone you in a while. Cheers and God bless! Rick Harris Tel: 905-729-4994
[IFWP] Reply re: dates (fwd)
more pleadings for an audience .. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:37:58 -0400 From: Frederick Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: !Dr. Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Reply re: dates Hi Joe, Thanks for getting back to me. I phoned you this morning, but there was no answer at your place. My wife, Merilyn, and I are going to take three days and drive up through Angonquin Park, into Peterborough and on to Ottawa. We leave Tuesday morning. So Wednesday, perhaps for lunch, would be the absolute best time for me. I mentioned that Metilyn would go shopping and, perhaps, you and I can get together over a long luinch and talk about equivalent TLDs and other interesting things. I do hope you will be available. Would you phone me to confirm? Or at any rate reply ASAP? Thanks muchly. Cheers, Rick Tel: 905-729-4994 ++
[IFWP] Re: Reply: The "idea" of the absolute "power" of ICANN is a myth.(fwd)
confusion .. ? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:25:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Frederick Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reply: The "idea" of the absolute "power" of ICANN is a myth. Fred - the internet if simple enough - if you want us to use it - explain it. It's not a lunch thing. Don't try to convence me - convence them. And if they understand so will I. So far all I've seen is marketing and I still have no understanding of it. This is not an invitation for you to explain it to me. Explain it to the group - they are the ones who count. regards Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697 On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Frederick Harris wrote: > Hello Joseph, > I offered to visit with you and tell you how the eTLDs > work. If I rightly understood your reply, you did not wish to meet with me. The > offer is still open. I'm not going to disclose to this list how the eTLDs work. > Why don't you phone me? > Tel: 905-729-4994 > Cheers, R. > > "!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote: > > > Ross at tucows recntly told me that clarity is a part of zen. Maybe we > > should all do some zen. > > > > Rick - everyone here who is without a technical clue has no idea what your > > going on about - simply put those of us with a clue have no idea what your > > going on about. > > > > Could you simply provide the name of an eTLD (or domains) and tell us the > > proceedure for finding it. Becaue have no idea what your talking > > about and the only way we can evaluate this is with technical > > documentation or examples. > > > > regards > > Joe Baptista > > > > http://www.dot.god/ > > dot.GOD Hostmaster > > +1 (805) 753-8697 > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Rick Harris wrote: > > > > > Reply to Michael Sondow: > > > The "Power" of ICANN is a Myth > > > > > > Michael, > > > Others long ago figured out how to bypass > > > ICANN by devising "equivalent tlds" (eTLDS). Etlds > > > resolve inside the root zone architecture of the public > > > internet. In other words, unlike ORSC - which > > > (understandably and rightly) seeks to build the equivalent of a second > > > railway track to offset the monopsony power of ICANN- > > > the actual source of ICANN's power which is > > > monopolization of the "legitimized" root of the DNS, has disappeared with > > > the invention of eTLDs. > > > > > > Apparently the digerati on the DNS Policy List prefer to ignore > > > eTLDs - which is fine. People if they prefer can waste their time and > > > political capital complaining about ICANN procedural > > > matters when ICANN effectively has no further power over > > > the DNS. For that reason - power - ICANN insists on the single-root > > > architecture. However, eTLDs are impervious to ICANN *because* (unlike > > > ORSC) they take the path of least resistance which - in terms of global > > > connectivity - happens to reside for the present *inside* the root. > > > > > > Any physics major, organizational specialist or student of systems theory > > > will tell you the same thing. Innovation (good and bad) always takes the > > > path of least resistance. > > > > > > That being said, the plain fact of the matter is that there is nothing > > > complicated about eTLDs - and they do not require $50,000 to create one. It > > > baffles me that your correspondents on the list do not seem to have grasped > > > that very simple fact. There seems to be a disconnect between the imagined > > > power of ICANN and the reality of the fact that eTLDs effectively make ICANN > > > a political non sequitur. This doesn't defeat the legitimate *technical* > > > argument that having two parallel DNSs might tend to introduce > > > turbulence in the system. But turbulence will happen if - and only if - the > > > two "competitive" systems seek to create universal connectivity from a > > > "single source" or root. > > > > > > The fallcy of the argument that a duality inside the root is a good idea > > > contradicts common sense because any reasonable person understands that more > > > than one *singularity* inside the root will in fact create instability in > > > terms of global connectivity. Therefore, ORSC ought create another root zone > > > if it can - and I expect that with proliferation on the web there will in > > > due course be two or more railway tracks. Which is fine so long as they > > > remain parallel to one another absent a political solution to the problem > > > of accessing the "authoritative" root. > > > > > > Until that solution happens,there is only one doable root. And even then, > > > ICANN still has no real *power* or "authority" in the sense of gatekeeping > > > the authoritative root *because* the idea of eTLDs has been intr
