Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 11:06 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone >company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist, >to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government >that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds >roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public. The way telco laws work the Internet was in danger of being declared a public utility and therefore subject to ITU regulation and control. Rutkowski made sure it was declared a value added service; besides it dosen't all run over phone lines. >Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself. >Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the >Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance? Oh, there's a guy that knows all about it and can help educate you quite a bit. Write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask for Jim. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist, to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public. Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself. Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance? Thanks for wisdom. -- ken >At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >>And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by >>governments. > >An interesting assertion. Can you back it up? > >First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development" >to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking >of the ARPAnet. > >At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the >TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time >they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet" >it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded. > > >-- > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[IFWP] ICANN failing to meet non-profit status
Feedback please Given that a certain percentage of ICANN's income has to be deemed donations in order to retain its non-profit status, and given that the ccTLD's have withdrawn theirs, and given that ICANN has no other source of income that cannot be deemed as donations, it is failing to meet requirements to retain its non-profit status, unless... a) it receives government funding and/ or b) it generates donations through membership fees of an At Large. In which case, Lynn's roadmap would be a win win situation and the current ALSC cheerleading to hurriedly compile a list of members together with details of their financial pledges would be no more than an attempt to bolster the accounts and hang on to its non-profit status. Any CPA's in the house to kill this theory? Joanna
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by governments. An interesting assertion. Can you back it up? First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development" to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking of the ARPAnet. At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet" it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Joanna Lane wrote:
> It looks like it was ammended
Neustar is acting as if UDRP and Sunrise were in effect. Their contract
offered to locality managers who want to sign up to register the new
2LDs in .us includes both.
Furthermore, the modification document at the URL you gave says:
"The Contractor must proceed with a first-come-first-served ("FCFS")
registration approach following Sunrise...The adoption of the FCFS
approach must not affect the overall timeline for the usTLD startup
phases described on page I-2 of the Contractor's quotation. The Sunrise
process will remain unchanged."
Note that FCFS is in effect "after Sunrise", and that "The Sunrise
process will remain unchanged."
The document says nothing about UDRP.
M.S.
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by governments. The U.S department of commerce had no right to make unilateral choices for them. The best way to get public accountability is to assert the Internet is a public utility, the same as the airwaves, subject to the will of the people, respecting our rights. As of now, we have governnment without the consent of the governed. A sham. It's always productive to stir the pot and get us thinking about such issues -- ken >False. Today's internet is the amalgam of multiple networks with different >histories. Many were private. Stand by what you like. > >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: > >> The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, >> then expanded to universities with government research contracts, >> then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges >> & universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. >> The net always was public property until it was decided otherwise, >> as public as the street in front of your house, which no one has a >> right to declare private without your (our) consent. >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >No they didn't, not mostly. No it doesn't even if they did if they didn't >> >retain title. ICANN comes fromthe government not the private sector. >> > >> > >> >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: >> > >> >> Did not the funds originally come from the government >> >> Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? >> >> I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >> >> private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. >> >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >> >> >>which is (was) public property. >> >> > >> >> >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. >> >> > >> >> >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >> >> >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. >> >> > >> >> >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >> >> >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't >> >> > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >-- >> >Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >> >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 warm here.<-- >> >> >> >> >> > >-- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >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 warm here.<--
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
> Joanna Lane wrote: > > > > They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal > > (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) > > because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against > any of the > > groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. > > UDRP and Sunrise are part and parcel of the Neustar agreement to run .us > that has been approved by the DoC and is now being implemented. And the > "US people" have neither ownership nor control of .us. > > M.S. Michael, I disagree. It looks like it was ammended http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfp/SB1335-02-W-0175-0001.htm Reasons explained by NTIA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Assistant Chief Counsel for Telecommunications and Assistant Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property, the agreement violates both the APA and RFA. http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/doc02_0205.html.; Which is what I said...:-) Joanna
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Joanna Lane wrote: > > They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal > (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) > because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the > groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. UDRP and Sunrise are part and parcel of the Neustar agreement to run .us that has been approved by the DoC and is now being implemented. And the "US people" have neither ownership nor control of .us. M.S. So if the ccTLDs > are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, > that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. > Who owns the 13 root servers? > > Regards, > Joanna > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken > > Freed > > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:06 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public > > elections > > > > > > Did not the funds originally come from the government > > Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? > > I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as > > private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. > > -- ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, > > >>which is (was) public property. > > > > > >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. > > > > > >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet > > >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. > > > > > >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then > > >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. > > > > > > > > >-- > > > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > > > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > >
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, at 16:37 [=GMT-0500], Joanna Lane wrote: > Define "Internet". They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal > (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) > because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the > groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. So if the ccTLDs > are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, > that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. > Who owns the 13 root servers? The IP numbers are under control of: a: networksolutions b: isi.edu (icann?) c: psi.net d: umd.edu e: nasa f: mibh (vixie) g: disa (mil) h: us army research lab i: autonomica.se (= sunet?), sweden j: networksolutions k: ripe, london, uk l: ep.net m: university of tokyo Who owns the root servers depends on your definition and perspective. Who owns the root zone? [...]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Am I mistaken, or did the DoC's White Paper call for management of the domain name system by the private sector? And what was that ICANN Article of Incorporation about "lessening the burdens of government"? Jay Fenello wrote: > At 2/25/02 12:08 PM, Chris Chiu wrote: > >During a private "retreat," the President of the Internet Corporation for > >Assigned Names and Numbers, M. Stuart Lynn, proposed vast changes to ICANN's > >governing structure. These plans call for... national governments to select a third >of ICANN's > >reconstituted Board.
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
>groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. So if the ccTLDs >are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, They aren't. rfc1591 waa skillfully worded to prevent that. >that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. >Who owns the 13 root servers? ^ legacy Private companies, educational institutions (not all in the US btw) and the US military. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Define "Internet". They had to drop URDP and Sunrise from the dotUS proposal (or in the alternative, could have applied to Congress for a variance) because access to a public resource cannot discriminate against any of the groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. So if the ccTLDs are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. Who owns the 13 root servers? Regards, Joanna > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken > Freed > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public > elections > > > Did not the funds originally come from the government > Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? > I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as > private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. > -- ken > > > > > > > >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: > >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, > >>which is (was) public property. > > > >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. > > > >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet > >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. > > > >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then > >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. > > > > > >-- > > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 02:26 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, >then expanded to universities with government research contracts, >then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges >& universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. You can stand by it all you want Ken, but absent some legal document that says it's true, it's just fantasy. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 02:06 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Did not the funds originally come from the government >Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? No. So did the funds for hydrogen bomb research. This doesn't mean you get your own nuke. >I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. No, undue influence has. Different people on the ICANN board would have yielded different results. They were picked behind the scenes, but Roger Cochetti of IBM (not at NSI, err, verisign) and Ira "Healt debacle" Magaziner and one of the criteria was that they not know anything about DNS. Who would have ever have though 4 years later that they still don't. Just as you cannot expect a valid conclusion from flawed premises, the problem is as much the board as it was Sims hopless structure of the current icann (RIP). -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, then expanded to universities with government research contracts, then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges & universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. The net always was public property until it was decided otherwise, as public as the street in front of your house, which no one has a right to declare private without your (our) consent. -- ken >No they didn't, not mostly. No it doesn't even if they did if they didn't >retain title. ICANN comes fromthe government not the private sector. > > >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: > >> Did not the funds originally come from the government >> Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? >> I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >> private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >> >>which is (was) public property. >> > >> >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. >> > >> >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >> >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. >> > >> >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >> >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. >> > >> > >> >-- >> > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't >> > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> > >-- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >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 warm here.<--
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Did not the funds originally come from the government Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. -- ken >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >>which is (was) public property. > >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. > >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. > >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. > > >-- > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >which is (was) public property. No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] another proposal
Here is another proposal currently in progress. http://shutup.cocka.to/proposal2.html
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large publicelections
Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, which is (was) public property. There was never a public vote to give control of public property to ICANN, which remains an illigitimate pretence of being an Internet government. This latest move further proves what I've been saying for years. -- kf >Am I mistaken, or did the DoC's White Paper call for management of the >domain name system by the private sector? > >And what was that ICANN Article of Incorporation about "lessening the >burdens of government"? > >Jay Fenello wrote: > >> At 2/25/02 12:08 PM, Chris Chiu wrote: >> >During a private "retreat," the President of the Internet Corporation for >> >Assigned Names and Numbers, M. Stuart Lynn, proposed vast changes to >>ICANN's >> >governing structure. These plans call for... national governments to >>select a third of ICANN's >> >reconstituted Board.
[IFWP] IFWP Consensus Summary
(thanks Ellen) Hey, anybody remember this? IFWP Consensus Summary 1. Objectives / Principles 1.1. The processes of the new entity shall be open and transparent, utilizing the Internet to this end to the fullest extent possible. 1.2. The entity shall be limited to its enumerated powers. 1.3. The entity shall strive to minimize barriers to entry. 1.4. The entity shall work to assure the stability of Internet. 1.5. The entity should recognize that individuals and organizations have concurrent and legitimate rights in names that are not based in trademark. 1.6. Early consideration by the entity of the creation of appropriately structured new gTLDs, linked to the needs of the business and user community. 1.7. Competition in the registration market and early opening of the InterNIC registries to all qualified registrars. 1.8. Access to the name space should be open on a non-discriminatory basis. 1.9. The Entity shall be a not-for-profit organization. 1.10. Latin America and Caribbean is a region, together with North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, with equal obligations and rights, based on the geographic, cultural and language singularities. 2. Powers of the Entity 2.1. The following consensus were achieved: Fees for the use of Protocols may not be established. It is proposed that different quotas be established according to the Organization or the Region to which it belongs. These differences in quotas will not award differentiated voting rights. Donations that may influence the fulfilling of the mission statements of the Newco may not be accepted. 2.2. The Board of Directors always has the final decision. The initiative for proposing organizational activities can come both from the Board of Directors and from the specific Councils. 2.3. The Board shall have the power to set policy regarding IP numbers through a bottom-up procedure where entity councils make proposals that the Board may accept or veto. 2.4. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures to maintain a coherent root zone system. 2.5. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures for delegating TLDs, including ccTLDs and gTLDs. 2.6. Names Council Alternative Wordings: 2.6.1. All sectors and individuals with legitimate interests in the Internet must be represented therein. The amount of members must be such as to enable it to operate well. No country must have an advantage over another in the resolution of conflicts between domain names within a given gTLD. The council will be empowered to establish policies and general procedures to be fulfilled by the TLDs (gTLDs and ccTLDs). In case of conflicts over the administration rights of a ccTLD, the Names Council will propose resolution mechanisms. The specific norms of administration of each ccTLD will be determined in each jurisdiction following upon consensus of users and stakeholders in the Internet. The Names Council will establish criteria to define the concept of jurisdiction. 2.6.2. The Names Council will handle trademark/domain name interactions; set minimum standards for the contact data required for domain name registrations; consider standards of privacy in relation to registration data; consider issues relating to the protection of the new entity from liability based on Newco recommendations/decisions; make policy recommendations. 2.6.3. All gTLDs to be operated by shared not-for-profit registries on a cost recovery basis. Restoration of the InterNIC registries to a not-for-profit operation on the basis of the announced agreement between the US Government and NSI. Early consideration by the new entity of the creation of new gTLDs. 2.6.4. The Names Council will recommend new gTLDs and gTLD policies; will make points of advice and recommendations to the Board for all TLD matters; will provide a forum for discussion among gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars, and a forum for dispute resolution between and among them; will recommend general and specific conditions for operation and management of TLDs, existing or new. 2.7. The Board shall have the power to set policies and procedures to assign technical parameters. 2.8. The Board shall have the power to set technical policies and procedures including the coordination of the Internet domain name system and the oversight of registrars and registries. 2.9. The entity shall have the power to set policies and procedures to determine its own organizational structure and finances. 3. Structure of the Entity 3.1. The Entity shall have councils with their supporting organizations. 3.2. IETF should be the supporting organization that appoints the Protocol Council. It is expected that the IETF would be likely to appoint the IAB as the Protocol Council. 3.3. There will be a Names Council. The Names Council's powers will be limited consistent with Board powers. The Names Council will have the non-exclusive power to nominate Board
[IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
There goes Internet democracy ... At 2/25/02 12:08 PM, Chris Chiu wrote: >During a private "retreat," the President of the Internet Corporation for >Assigned Names and Numbers, M. Stuart Lynn, proposed vast changes to ICANN's >governing structure. These plans call for the abolition of ICANN public >elections and for national governments to select a third of ICANN's >reconstituted Board. > >See >http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights > >Sincerely, >Christopher Chiu >Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer >American Civil Liberties Union +++ Jay Fenello, Internet Coaching http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765 http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World - "The first step is to penetrate the clouds of deceit and distortion and learn the truth about the world, then to organize and act to change it. That's never been impossible and never been easy." -- Noam Chomsky
