Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Gordon Cook]

>Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number?
>



dhcp.sorry


-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Gordon Cook]

>Is this true?

yes it is true



>Does it not depend on _how_ you work inside ICANN?


no it does not depend on how you work inside of icann  since the 
private BWG mail list started in 1998 I have been an active 
participant in that group of people who have all tried to work within 
ICANN and one by one I have watched all of them get screwed by the 
process of working with ICANN

ICANN survives because the net brings it a continual new supply of 
people who assume that it can be trusted and try working with 
it.and one by one by one month after month year after year it 
screws them sucks them dry and spits them to the side


>  I see
>a lot of people active on the ncdnhc list who 'hate' ICANN as much as
>possible. Still they vote for the ICANN board seat (maybe without
>success) if they happen to be on the Names Council. Lets not ostracize
>each other. I am not putting any money on ICANN. Still, I don't see
>why I could not participate in some of its processes and at the same
>time be part of 'alternatives'. I would rather see things in the
>perspective of the wrong party being in power.


end to end means that a party should not be in power in  the middle

>Not the power being so
>entagled in cosa nostra that all I can do is buy a gun and go into the
>mountains.

they are corrupt...hopelessly so.

>Anyway, I live in a country that is flat.
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Gordon Cook]

i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>>  >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
>>  >> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
>>  >
>>  >Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
>>  >so.
>>  >
>>  >Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
>>
>>  Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocols suck and should not be used"
>>  was not effective. Making TCP/IP work, was.
>
>So what is the latest that I missed? Freenet? Where do I get an IP
>number from a non-ICANN authority? One that works?
>
>I am all for alternatives, especially working ones, and I do try to
>participate in those. But can we really _ignore_ ICANN completely?


-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] "working within ICANN"

[Gordon Cook]

>  >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
>>>  cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
>>
>>Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
>>so.
>>
>>Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
>
>Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocols suck and should not be used"
>was not effective. Making TCP/IP work, was.
>

and as stef just taught me yesterday as part of a discussion of end to end
was that by having TCP stacks on both our machines that we control we 
can pass ip datagrams across the network in such a way that a central 
administrator can not control them.  my stack does a checksum on what 
you sent me and if the sum checks i know that the IP bit stream you 
sent is what i received.

the lesson here is that the tools for control reside on the edge 
machine on my desktop and the one on your desktopand the pipe 
connecting our desktops is empty.it is just like one of those old 
air blown pneumatic tubes.

forget laws ken, laws give someone the ability to insert a box in the 
middle to interfere with our ip datagrams.

read lessig on laws and cyberspace if you wanna know what laws are worth

or read the legend of the grands inquisitor from the brothers karamazov
ICANN is the inquisitor sent to rule over us

the inquisitor  explains to christ why he will burn him at the stake. 
christ routes around the inquisitor by kissing him on the cheek and 
sending him out from the dungeon in  seville into the night 
aireffectively ignoring the threat
-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Gordon Cook]

>P.S. Stef:  You keep presuming I'm advocating centralization.
>Please do not pidgeon-hole my ideas to fit your expectations.
>I'm advocating quite the opposite:  Decentralized democracy,
>composed of individuals practicing reponsible self rule from
>a global sense of our deep interactivity, a sensibility that the
>global Internet could help to induce if liberated from ICANN.
>Thanks,
>-ken
>


Good...you are talking end to end... but talking democracy 
suggests that there is something to communicate with in the 
middlethere isn't...forget it!   SCCA is in tthe middle.

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Gordon Cook]

don't be offended, but your method is doomed to failure..
you will NEVER EVER get enough people to understand and to care 
enough to make a dent in the monolith...

what you can do is begin to grasp the end to end problems and see how 
trust fits and see that if end to end can be maintained with trust 
tools at the end the rest of what the bloody control bastards do in 
the middle is irrelevant.



>Hi Stef --
>
>The issue of despots arises because ICANN and all other
>such tyrannies across the spectrum, varying by degree, are
>able to function solely because people want to be ruled by
>despots. It's classic codependency, an addictive behavior,
>this need for saviors instead of saving ourselves, this false
>belief we're too sinful or inadequate to live responsibly free.
>Network democracy can help to induce personal democracy.
>
>My efforts are aimed at helping myself and the rest of society
>mature enough so real democracy can have a chance to work.
>It's quite narcissistic, in a way, my hope to live in a better world.
>I am focusing on ICANN because communication weaves the
>web of culture, and ICANN acts at the "core" of global media.
>Internet despotism tends to perpetuate political despotism,
>so I want our Internet to be ruled to democracy, not whim.
>
>Hope this clarfication helps you understand my motives.
>-- ken
>
\
-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Gordon Cook]

>Which is why we need laws governing the DNS, not committees.
>-- ken
>
>P.S. Richard: Your address:  ("Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>  always bounces as "undeliverable", if that info is helpful to you.




you simply  DO NOT UNDERSTAND ken...

although I admitt I didn't fully understand until I called steff 
voice a couple of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function 
as a tust mechanism for IP.

laws shmaws.. the bloody hell with laws..  yes in grade 
school they taught  us that laws were goodbut any gd laws in any 
gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip 
police want

so don't talk laws.,.. you are wasting all our time..  the 
only way end to end can work is if the ends can trust each 
other.

if someone has enough money to sue department of commerce over icann 
let them do so!  If no one steps up to the plate then turn to 
trust issues and start DEALING with rewality

by the way if you throw out the ICANN roots from your dns


and use the following ip addresses for your name server
204.80.125.130
204.57.55.100
199.166.24.1

richard sextons non standard dns works fine


ARGH  i have used these for about 2 years 7 by 24
-- 

The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com From now 
through Sept 15th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml

Re: [IFWP] The emperor is still naked

[Gordon Cook]

>Wrongaroonie, Einar --
>The goal is a decentralized network of independent democracies,
>just as we need individuals practicing reponsible self rule from a
>common global sense of our deep interactivity. That how genuine
>freedom and democracy can work best. Isn't it time for us humans
>to outgrow our addiction to despots? Or do we still fear adulthood?
>-- ken
>
>Ken Freed, Publisher
>Media Visions Journal
>http://www.media-visions.com
>
>"Deep literacy makes global sense."
>

ken I am sure you mean well but while you are pursuing vour idyllic
VISION the ICANNite mafia is out there building the cage that will
render our wishes irrelevant..   after 3 years ICANN's iron boot
is only getting more and more brazen.

they will laugh at anything we do until  someone either invests in
taking them out by lawsuit or until someone replaces DNS and makes
them irrelevant.

these debates about a better governance mechanism are tiresome
because they do not deflect ICANN one nano meter from the path it is
on.


here is an essay co authored by myself and dave hughes
yesterday...send it where you wish

The Real ICANN, by Gordon Cook and Dave Hughes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


The Australian Smoking Gun

With .com .org .net  and all the other GTLDs under its firm control,
the Real ICANN is now snuffing out independent country code domains
and putting them under the same contractual assurances that GTLDs are.

This has just begun with the Australian country code domain that has
been taken away from Robert Elz, an Australian university professor
who had done the task for free for more than 10 years.  It has been
taken without cause, without hearing, and without due process.

ICANN has established  a ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement. According to
Michael Froomkins analysis  the door is wide open
for any group of people in any nation to form an organization to run
that country's country code domain name.  Such a group can then seek
the government's blessing and, by telling ICANN, it will subscribe to
the agreement, it has likely reason to believe that ICANN will
certify it if the government agrees.  With this pledge of fealty from
the newly formed ICANN country code compliant entity, ICANN can then
take the domain name away from the current administrator and give it
to the new entity that wants to run it on behalf of ICANN.  The
government then is presented with the opportunity to agree to the
ICANN action, which the Australian government has done.  The result
is collusion between the ICANN and the government that permits ICANN
to effectively internationalize a formal national resource and by
saying that it is just following ICANN's request, execute an end run
around any existing due process constraints.

With the .us country code domain the Real ICANN has accomplished that
same goal through Karen Rose who has been positioned in NTIA by
ICANN's corporate founders to give US government blessing to do what
the extra legal forces behind ICANN want.  Karen has executed a bid
for an administrator of the US country code domain.  You can bet the
winner will agree to play by the ICANN rules of the ccTLD Sponsorship
Agreement.  From every thing that we can tell by talking to numerous
sources Karen effectively has become an unsupervised agent operating
largely on behalf of the entities she is supposed to regulate.  Her
'charges' tell her what they want and generally they get it.  The
agreement of the US government to the actions of ICANN has been
reality for three full years.

Bottom line is that in this instance ICANN, in a series of lawless
actions, is about gain the ability to dictate the terms under which
both American citizens and citizens of other countries can hang out a
cyberspace address shingle for a web site.

The REAL ICANN versus the Public ICANN

The public ICANN is being sold as a democratic organization, founded
on the basis of California non profit law, respectful of it broad
consensus of support by Internet users.  This public ICANN is a
deception that is presented to distract attention from the real ICANN.

The Real ICANN is acting on its own authority without the backing of
national law or international treat to take control of the Internet's
naming system and thereby gain a strangle hold over the ability of
individual people and small businesses to work, live and express
themselves in cyberspace.   Having no legal authority  to take away
the property rights inherent in the Australian country code domain it
has nevertheless just done so.

  How could this happen?  It has happened as the result of three years
of gradual accretion of power by its staff -- Stuart Lynn as
President, Vint Cerf Chairman of the Board, Andrew Mclaughlin as
chief policy officer and by counsel Joe Sims and Louis Touton and ex
president Michael Roberts as on going consultant.  ICANN's Board is
there as window dressing and is infor

[IFWP] Rhonda's ravings was On Vint Cerf's comments about Al Gore andthe Internet

[Gordon Cook]

I didn't see this message when it came by  because I have been 
filtering rhonda hauben to my trash for the last two years.

unfortunately I did see it when someone else naively asked it it were true.

I was a participant  and a critic in many of the events she ties to 
describe  without a shred of documentation or interest in any hard 
facts other that what he can see through her rose colored glasses

i am just amazed that some folk are still schnokered by her 
unsubstantiated assertions

>  >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
>>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [IFWP] On Vint Cerf's comments about Al Gore and the Internet -pt2
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Part two of response to Vint Cerf's email about his and Bob Kahn's statement
>>about Al Gore's role in building the Internet.
>>
>>They write:
>>
>>  >1991.  This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
>>  >Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
>>  >spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
>>
>>The NREN initiative was being discussed in the early 1990's.
>>It claimed it would be support for a research and education networking
>>inititive.
>>
>>That initiative somehow disappeared, and instead the NSFNET (the backbone
>  >of the Internet in the US) was given to private interests.

Rhonda was on line during this whole period funny she can't 
support her revisionist history with any facts

I spent from  sept 1990 to march 1, 1992 at the office of tech 
assessment us congress trying to put together an assessment of the 
policy implications of the NREN move.

NREN was a suit of clothes tailored to get the congress to spend more 
money on high performance computing, the goal WAS ALWAY THE 
PRIVATIZATION OF THE NSFNET AND INTERNET.

It was not hidden not secretive and at this point the only one who 
would listen to ms. hauben is someone who has never bothered to do 
minimalist research themselves

>  >
>>A major change in Internet policy


false the whole purpose of NREN was technology transfer from the 
public to the private sector

>  was made without any public
>>discussion of why this would be desirable.

false


>And it was done at
>>a time when there was officially the claim there would be support
>  >for a research and education network.


NO it was

  to be used to increase the speed of privatization



>  >
>>The only public discussion that seems to have been held about
>>this happening was the online NTIA conference held by the
>>U.S. Dept of Commerce in November 1994. During this conference
>>there were many people explaining why it was not appropriate to
>>privatize the public US backbone to the Internet.
>>
>>The official from the NTIA lauded the conference and the citizen
>>participation in it.
>>
>>(See chapter 11 and 14 - http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/)

i have no recollection of such conference



>  >
>>Somehow any trace of the development of a national research and
>>education network (NREN) disappeared in the US and the Internet
>>development in the US was put in the hands of private entities.
>>

there was squabbling in 1993 between NSF and Dept of Energy if i 
remember correctly over the use of NREN monies and by 1994 NREN 
itself had fallen out of favorbeside the high performance 
computing act was finally passed and the real purpose of NREN was to 
get the act passed and more money for tech transfer R&D pograms





>  >There was a mailing list that several Internet pioneers and NSF
>>officials participated in called com-priv (commericalization and
>>privatization) There were people on that list fighting over
>>who would get the spoils of the Internet privatization.


well UUNET and PSI net were unhappy about the benefits that IBM and 
MCI were getting from their nsfnet partnership and over the NSF's 
willing ness to allow ANS to sell commercial access to he NSFnet 
backbone.. I was a VERY vociferous critic of ANS, MCI IBM at the 
time and of steve wolff.   But i have keep an open mind and have 
studdiied the development of the policy making extremely closely 
since then and  have come to understand that it was open and fully 
legal and that what steve wolff did produced perhaps the most 
incredible leverage ever of american tax dollars into the development 
of a new commecial industry .which is one of the basic reasons 
that the nsf exists in the firstplace



>  >I later learned that ANS (a company which involved IBM and MCI which
>>worked with the MERIT network in Michigan) sold their interest
>>in the US NSF backbone to another company,

america on line




>The person mentioned
>>that they got $300,000 for it.

$30,000,000 .none of this was conspiratorial in the slightest rhonda
it was extensively reported in the public press

>  >
>>None of this was discussed openly before the privatizat

[IFWP] Re: You be the Jury (Polling the Lessig- Sondow exchange)

[Gordon Cook]

>
>And open sourced, auditable solution is much preferable over Joop's
>version of "democracy."
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  Williammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



I certainly like an open source auditable  election.  Anyone notice 
yet that with election.com running the ICANN at large we will get no 
such thing!?
-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

[IFWP] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?

[Gordon Cook]

Wow!

You certainly stepped up to the plate and gave a mighty whack Larry!

OK.  So ICANN, born in sin, is reformable.  An ambitious statement. 
I think it deserves to be destroyed but I will also acknowledge that 
the difficulty of doing that could be equal to the challenge of 
reforming it.

So let's assume reform rather than destruction is the agenda.  The 
question is obviously how. And for me personally before I could even 
begin to think of reform, I want some answers to its patrimony and 
presumed authority.

What role does Sims still play?  What about Touton?  Is there a 
shadow cabinet lurking behind these men in formulating their 
strategy?  If so who? Cerf?  ISOC?  WIPO?  Where is the 
accountability in ICANN's actions?  There is none that I can see. 
Roberts and Sims/Touton presume to run the Internet.  And as you just 
pointed out they presume to do so on the actions of bad faith that 
torpedoed IFWP.

So if you are going to reform ICANN, how are you going to do it? 
What will be the basis of your actions for dealing with Jones Day and 
with Roberts?  And I might add Beckwith Burr.  Power was handed these 
people from on high.  We know neither the annoiters of these people 
nor their agenda.  We do know that they DO NOT OPERATE IN GOOD FAITH. 
Dyson as long as she remains associated with ICANN also needs to be 
added to those who cannot be trusted.

So how then are we to deal with them?

What are the goals and the steps to be taken?

How do you deal with people who are usurpers without legitimacy?  Can 
you reform ICANN without dealing with these people? I don't think so! 
how can you reform without any grounds for trust?

I am listening.  You opened the door a crack.  A flood of answers is due.

If you disagree that legitimacy of these people needs to be settled 
before you set about reforming them, please explain in detail why.

DAVID STEELE, PLEASE PUT LESSIG BACK IN BWG.
-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

would you ever again TRUST Esther Dyson? Re: [IFWP] "Regulatorybody"?

[Gordon Cook]

Well DAMN her to hell and gone!  She insults us.  how many time in 
past did she deny that ICANN was a regulatory  body or governing 
body.  Does she not remember her argument with Farber on his very 
point!?

No one with a shred of any clue should ever trust this woman again. 
Let her go off and play with her sponsors from IBM and the 
gingrichites.






>http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/deleteframe.pl?story=/articles/hn/xml/00/08/22/000822hnicann.xml
>
>We made some mistakes early on by taking on the bylaws of a charity 
>and not a regulatory body
>that is accountable to everybody," she said in a keynote speech here 
>at a technology policy
>conference sponsored by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, based 
>in Washington.
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://ph-1.613.473.1719 
>
>This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
>civilized world.  Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
>dollars to send everywhere.  Please be sure you know what you are doing.
>
>Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

[IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN

[Gordon Cook]

if ICANN gave a damn it would have tried MUCH harder.

>At 1:26 PM -0400 7/31/00, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> >It's also worth noting that virtually every other major Internet
>> >service has been swamped by unexpected load.  Predicting load, and
>> >engineering for it without prior experience in that particular kind (and
>> >popularity) of service is just plain hard.
>> >
>> >--Steve Bellovin
>>
>>You really think so Steve? The Porsche mailing lists have 34,000 subscribers
>>and it seems to me the notion of inviting the world to vote on how the
>>Interent will be run (especially in light of all the "outreach" talk
>>that's bandied about) will have a much greater auduience than
>>a bunch of Porche owners. Anticipating 5000 users just weems wacky;
>>if it were me I'd may sure it could work for a million with
>>a contingency plan in place if/whe it exceeded that.
>
>Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was something that 
>was a part of the contract from the beginning. Government contractors generally must 
>abide by the terms of their contract, even if it is difficult.  That is a part of the 
>risk of doing business.  Poor planning is rarely an excuse.

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

Re: [IFWP] Re: [icann-board] Re: You are Turning Away OutsideMembers WhoAttemptTo Register

[Gordon Cook]

Excellent suggestions eric but contarry to the entire pattern of behavior of these 
people who believe that they and only they have the god given right to run the 
internet.

"the Internet is for everyone"

just look at ICANN and savour the flavor of THAT assertion.






>"vinton g. cerf" wrote:
>
>> The trouble is, it is too little, too late - we're already over the
>> top in terms of what we can handle in a reasonable time frame, taking
>> our funding (now expended) into account. More time is more cost and more
>> delay - it doesn't add up.
>
>It is a bad situation.  No good will come of it.  Whatever is done, now, will poison 
>the
>well in the coming elections.
>
>Hindsight is clear.  The membership drive should have occurred sooner and there should
>have been a "shake-down" cruise before the first "race,"  as had been suggested.  That
>water is under the bridge.
>
>So, what is the best bad choice, now?
>
>I suggest extending the deadline; accepting registrations online, only; and 
>distributing
>PINs by email.   If necessary, you can bump the election a few weeks.  That would 
>cause
>minimal harm.
>
>To maximize community confidence and guarantee that all parties have equal access to
>information which might be helpful in the coming elections, I also recommend 
>publishing
>all staff analyses of the registrations (which will surely occur to rule out attempts 
>at
>capture or sabotage) as well as the voter list.
>
>
>Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
>Internet Texoma, Inc.

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

[IFWP] Re: ICANN Concludes Board Meeting in Yokohama

[Gordon Cook]

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> At Large Membership & Elections
>>
>> The Board finalized the process for initial selection
>> of five Directors by its At Large Membership.  Those
>> Directors should be seated in time for ICANN's annual
>> meeting in Los Angeles on November 13-14, 2000.
>> Following is the election schedule adopted by the
>> Board:
>
>>  * Nominations by the Nominating Committee (now - July 31)
>
>So long as there is an ICANN-appointed nominating committee, there
>can be no fair elections. Anyone who has studied the mechanics of
>the Soviet political structure knows the ICANN Nominating Committee
>for what it is.

Ah yes. the Secretariat of the Communist party soviet union, Esther with her 
russian background should know it well.  He who controlled the secretariate  had the 
abiliy to pack the rest of the party bodies of the CPSU with  those loyal to him 
and then in a grand display of democratic centralism they elected their benefactor 
General Secretary just as roberts woked with his isoc buddies to pick the board 
which then choose its capitan.






>
>Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
>Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
>

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today

Re: [IFWP] FWD: Extraterrestrials.com up for Auction

[Gordon Cook]

You just did esther. your first comment to this list in months..  I wish you 
many long happy hours in depositions and the court room



>Ken, as you know, I cannot commment.
>
>Esther
>
>At 11:15 PM 6/25/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>The marketplace in action
>>Any response?
>>-- ken
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Subject: Extraterrestrials.com up for Auction
>>>
>>>You have been identified as a professional in the Science Fiction
>>>Industry, and we know you will be interested in exciting news about your
>>>industry.
>>>
>>>--The Domain name Extraterrestrials.com is available for auction.
>>>
>>>If you, or someone you know, is entertaining a strategic Internet
>>>initiative in the Science Fiction Industry, We strongly recommend
>>>that you visit the auction for the domain name Extraterrestrials.com at,
>>>
>>>http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=auctions&sa=listing&listid=130531
>>>
>>>The closing date for the auction is:
>>>
>>>Friday, June 30, 200017:00:00 EST
>>>
>>>Time is running out - place your bid now. The domain name
>>>Extraterrestrials.com is an ideal name to brand with-- easy to remember,
>>>easy to promote.
>>>
>>>If you are interested in continuing to receive future news from us
>>>relating to the Science Fiction Industry then please click here
>>>http://mainauctions.com/emupd.asp?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&p4=1
>>>
>>>Please click here if your not interested.
>>>http://mainauctions.com/emupd.asp?[EMAIL PROTECTED]&p4=0
>>>
>>>Every day the Internet becomes more competitive and a great domain name is
>>>the most important branding technique you will ever use. The right
>>>domain name will give your business a leading edge and assure that you
>>>will stand out from your competition.
>>>
>>>If you already have a domain name in mind, that you have not yet
>>>registered,why not see if it is available at
>>>http://www.internetregistration.com.
>>>It's quick and easy to register the domain name you want.
>>>Internet Registration offers one of the lowest prices available,
>>>registering domain names as low as $19.50 per year. Other services they
>>>offer include domain transfer, forwarding and parking.
>>>
>>>Over 60,000 domain names are being registered every day.
>>>Register your domain name before your competitors do.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>The Support Team
>>>MainAuctions.com
>>>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Message distributed via media-visions.com
>>>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>For help send a message to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson   Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800--  1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
>PC Forum: 25 to 28 March 2001, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book:  "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age"
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: November 1 to 3 - Barcelona

-- 

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)What IBM & NSOL didn't want
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  you to know about their ICANN role.
January 2000 COOK Report:  http://cookreport.com/icannoverall.shtml

Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Latest Outrage

[Gordon Cook]

>Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > Diane Cabell wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not teach a seminar of any kind for the Association of Internet
> > > Professionals. Your statement is a total fabrication.
> >
> > A total fabrication? Then why does Bret Fausett's website
> > (http://www.lextext.com/news/3-2.html) say ""Diane Cabell, an AIP
> > member and fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Study
> > of Internet and Society, will conduct an online tutorial for persons
> > interesting [sic] in learning about the UDRP"?
>
>A total fabrication.  Where does this announcement by a private 
>person on his own web site imply that the course is offered by AIP or
>to AIP?  It only says that I am a member of AIP.  No more.


THE LADY DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH

Be careful Diane, calling this a total fabrication is misleading. 
This appeared in an AIP newsletter , the AIP NewsFlash as part of a 
section updating AIP members on ICANN activities.  Indeed much of the 
issue is filled with ICANN news and looks like an ICANN press release.


What you omit about this situation is very informative:

This AIP NewsFlash is edited by AIP member Bret Fausett and 
written by the lawyers and
AIP members at the law firm of Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP.

Comments about this AIP NewsFlash or alerts about news to 
include in future issues can
be sent to Bret Fausett at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Editor-in-Chief: Bret Fausett

This text appears in a AIP newsletter edited by this chance private 
person, Brett Fausett.

i submitt Diane it is you who are misleading people on this exchange. 
While the AIP did not directly sponsor the course its listing was 
certainly an implied endorsement.  While to anyone reading quickly 
the question of sponsorship was certainly ambiguous. And you did 
indeed each the course.

  For  nearly two years I have watched you on the BWG mail list where 
you have embraced virtually every move by ICANN.  You were grabbed by 
ICANN for their membership committee and prided yourself on helping 
them set up a global but meaningless membership structure.  Then when 
Johnathon Zitran whose Berkman Center has become the establishment 
legal think tank for ICANN offered to make you a fellow you jumped at 
it.  While many of your fellow attornies (albeit NOT Berkman center 
fellows) have criticized the absurd nature of the UDRP decisions, I 
have never seen you do so  My impression of you for  during over 
18 months of reading your ICANN friendly comments  is one of a cheer 
leader for ICANN who has been rewarded for her work with a Berkman 
Center Fellowship.

As for this "private person"  Brett Fausett - you were a member of 
Fausetts law firm before he moved to LA.  You have had a lengthy 
working relationship with the man.  The web site Lextext:Brett 
Fausett's Internet Printing Press is clearly his own but you despite 
your past ties wish to sever all association?  very strange.  Did you 
not notice that the document that advertises your services *IS* the 
Association for Internet Professionals newsletter.

Of course the Berkman Center was the 'sponsor' of the course.

The Berkman Center's Online Series 2000
The Winter 2000 interactive series have concluded. All 
materials are archived on the
 series websites.

Our most recent offering was a Continuing Legal Education 
course on the Uniform
 Dispute Resolution Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers  (ICANN).  Using ICANN's UDRP with Berkman Fellow Diane Cabell


If you insist be proud of your role in creating a shell organization 
for ICANN membership and hence legitimizing it among those who 
haven't spent hundreds of hours watching and documenting the 
manipulation involved  but next time don't rush to take offense 
over an ambiguity of sponsorship.


>
>Other people may also have posted announcements about it.  I don't 
>control what they say either.  You could have made the same
>announcement to your organization but that would not entitle your 
>members to enroll and it certainly doesn't mean that it is being
>offered by you.  I repeat, this program was offered by Harvard Law 
>School to practicing attorneys.  It was not offered to or for the
>AIP.
>
> >
> >
> > > I
> > > have never stopped anyone from doing anything about his/her 
>outrage.  > I have never been in any position in which I could do so
> >
> > On the contrary, it is precisely what you have been doing, ever
> > since ICANN got started, by pretending to offer people a way of
> > reforming ICANN's faults. You led many people down the garden path,
> > for a long while, with your shenanigans in the so-called Membership
> > Advisory Committee, and you are doing the same thing with the UDRP
> > and whatever other ICANN structures you act as an apologist for. You
> > are a defuser of outrage.
>
>Umm, exactly who are all these people that have been led down the 
>garden path?  I'd love to m

[IFWP] Dave Farber ...Getting the congress involved will backfire. Cook: why?

[Gordon Cook]

Dave Farber writes to his IP list:


"I am, on the average, very impressed with the staff at the FCC. As I 
have said before, they do what they believe is best for the country 
recognizing that they are dealing with powerful industrial players 
who often run to the Hill and the courts for protection if they are 
pushed too hard.  Somehow I think getting the Congress involved in 
what are on the surface technical issues will backfire when 
regulation issues end up being fought with lobbyists."

Cook: note the last sentence.   "Somehow I think getting the Congress 
involved in what are on the surface technical issues will backfire 
when regulation issues end up being fought with lobbyists."


So where are the regulation issues going to play out, Dave?  ICANN 
style according to Andy Pincus?  Andy seems to think ICANN is the new 
correct way to do things?  You don't like congress and lobbyists 
doing it.   So whom do you like?  Industry self regulation a la 
ICANN?  At least with congress and the lobbyists there are some rules 
for the conduct of public policy in an accountable fashion.

As we have seen with ICANN there are none except the "bylaw of the 
day" and/or  the "lie of the day"  as ennunciated by, Esther, Mike, 
and Joe.   Moreover we have even been given an IBM lobbyist put in 
place by the unaccountable "industry self-regulator" to run the 
largest industry DNS player by setting policy for it.  The powerful 
industry players are able to use their lobbyists just as easily to 
set policy for ICANN as they would if Congress were involved.  But 
for them ICANN is better than having to operate in the open.  For 
with ICANN they can focus their attention on fewer people and do it 
out of the glare of public scrutiny they'd likely get if they had to 
play  on capital hill.  So please be more explicit when you use the 
word "backfire."  Backfire from whose point of view?

The Clinton Gore mantra says we don't need any regulation by 
publically accountable bodies.  Why ? Presumably because industry can 
do it and is doing it?  Well who's industry  (in this case ICANN) 
accountable to Dave?  I am still waiting for the answer on this one. 
You Vint and Patrick have said in effect that we can't afford to have 
ICANN fail?  I am still waiting to hear the answer as to why.  The 
closest I have heard from you is that failure will mean  'adult' 
supervision (government regulation) and we won't like that?   Why 
not?  How will it be worse than the present shennanigans?

At least such regulation would have some accountability attached to 
it and some public process rules and regulations

With ICANN  we have trade mark lawyers setting policy for internet name space.
Look at http://www.fibershield.net/ if you haven't already to see the 
absurdity that this is leading to.  Take a stand on the internet, 
and on the future of new companies who want to continue to push the 
envelop with their new technology.  Tell us what task the ICANN board 
was appointed to do and tell us whether you support the continuation 
of policy setting by ICANN rather than congress and tell us why.

You wrote:  "It is now time to engage specific efforts. They will 
most likely focus on issues relating to Broad Band Access (like 
openness issues etc); IP Telephony and wireless. More as it 
progresses.'

Ah yes these are important.  But there is a meta issue. policy 
making for the internet under ICANN.  An effort that is getting no 
whereand it is far more important given the huge investments 
being made in the Internet.  Are you capable or is anyone else in the 
Clinton administration capable of giving leadership here?  Or does 
the operative definition of leadership conclude that ICANN and its 
shadowy masters are doing an excellent job?  Having watched ICANN 
develop up to this point it would be far better for the Congress to 
create a commission with appointed legal and technical staff, 
including some technical staff from Europe and Asia than not to be 
involved at all.

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)What IBM & NSOL didn't want
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  you to know about their ICANN role.
January 2000 COOK Report:  http://cookreport.com/icannoverall.shtml

[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] NSI/Roger Cochetti's registry concept paper

[Gordon Cook]

>Roger Cochetti says:
>
>
>In other words, put into immediate effect a measure which is
>currently being hotly disputed and which runs directly counter to
>the interests of a large percentage of Internet users.
>
> > In the spirit of gaining new experience and as a reflection of the rapid
> > global growth of the Internet, we believe that it would make sense for the
> > new registry organization for ".shop", or whatever name is 
>selected for such
> > an initial TLD, to be located in Europe.
>
>Europe has already decided upon its new TLD. It is to be .EU.
>Perhaps Mr. Cochetti could read a little and try to keep better
>abreast of events before insulting any further the millions of
>Internet users in Europe. And by the way, the Europeans have their
>own ideas about who will run their TLD registry, and I doubt very
>much if it's going to be Richard Foreman and Ken Stubbs.
>


rest assured Cochetti is following the bidding of john patrick and chris caine.

so this is how john patrick is gonna sell IBM 's e-commerce packages 
in europe.  big blue says no .eu for you guys

why cause our ecommerce program's gonna make you a generation ...yea 
a continent of

.shop keepers

brilliant john, brilliant...step forward and take a bow.

ICANN sez no to .eu.   hooray for big blue.


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)What IBM & NSOL didn't want
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  you to know about their ICANN role.
January 2000 COOK Report:  http://cookreport.com/icannoverall.shtml

Re: [IFWP] A rant to far: from an ex-interniccer

[Gordon Cook]

>
>
>It has always been surprising to me that General Atomics and ATT, who were
>part of the initial InterNIC, received no flack for notholding up their
>portion of the Cooperative Agreement.  Maybe ATT did some work but their
>Annual Report of, I believe 1996 didn't even mention that role.
>

Ellen ...general atomics was terminated they were cancelled a 
year earlyfirst time DNCRI office of NSF ever did that to an 
awardee
I certainly consider early termination of an award flak

AT&T's performance was considered acceptable.


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA   at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)What IBM & NSOL didn't want
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  you to know about their ICANN role.
January 2000 COOK Report:  http://cookreport.com/icannoverall.shtml

[IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders -are they represented?

[Gordon Cook]

Mike, david  conrad is correct in what he says about routing 
registries and small isps, they complain vociferously  but there are 
valid technical reasons for what has been done,  and since the number 
of isps has grown from  maybe 1000 five years ago to about 10,000 now 
.  of course the  non portability of small address blocs has meant 
the growth of NAT boxs which prevents an end to end transparency for 
protocols like IPSEC which makes brian carpenter unhappy.  it is part 
of the kludges that scaled the internet so quickly over this period.





>Michael,
>
> > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
>
>Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
>the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing, and
>why it is necessary.  I have been involved in and seen all the arguments and
>counter-arguments more times than I want to recall and have neither the time
>nor the interest in wading through it yet again.
>
>If this is something you are actually interested in (rather than using it as
>yet another rhetorical soapbox to bash ICANN), I suggest you start by reading
>the old IEPG and IETF CIDRD and ALE working group archives.  You might also
>check the APNIC and ARIN archives for the dicussions when they were
>established.  You will find much of the discussion repetitive -- as I
>indicated, this argument has been repeated _many_ times since people
>discovered that 32 bits was not infinite, but hopefully informative.
>
>The executive summary is: addresses are allocated the way they are because the
>folks who work at RIRs are interested in insuring the Internet continues to
>work.
>
>If you do not believe this statement, go read the stuff I mentioned above.
>
> > I've wasted two years reading what ICANN writes or posts. Not a
> > single thing they've said has been put into practice, just the
> > opposite. They are professional con artists, whose sole interest is
> > to take as much power away from individuals as they can. The users
> > have been swept aside, the ISPs have been swept aside, and sooner or
> > later you, too, will be swept aside if you don't wise up.
>
>Hopefully, you'll someday learn that demonizing in this way does very little
>to help your credibility.
>
>Rgds,
>-drc


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

[IFWP] Question re DNS sec and NAT boxes (was BIND security)

[Gordon Cook]

Question for david conrad,

DNSSEC is clearly a good thing.  But  my question is based on my 
recollection of the IETF list December 99 discussion of unencumbered 
host to host connectivity across the internet.  IPSEC if I recall 
correctly  can't get through a NAT box.  Can DNSSEC successfully 
traverse a NAT box?  If it cannot what are the dns security 
implications for the user on the other side of the NAT (network 
address translation ) box?




>Sigh.
>
> > > You don't get it - do you.  Let me try to clarify the state of BIND for
> > > you.  ALL VERSIONS OF BIND UNDER VIXIE CAN BE HACKED.
>
>The DNS protocol suite, as specified in RFC 1034 and 1035 has a bug: the
>sequence space of DNS queries is only 16 bits, thus it is possible to spoof a
>response and insert badness as a response to a query.  As the DNS is (usually)
>based on UDP, you don't even need to be on the local network to do it.
>
>This is a known failure of the protocol and is remedied with DNSSEC (RFC
>2535), which will be fully implemented in BINDv9 (there is a partial
>implementation in BIND 8.2.2-P5 that may be useful to experiment with).  There
>may also be other steps that can be taken to limit the vulnerability to
>spoofing that are currently being discussed in the context of the root
>nameserver operations draft, see the DNSOPS working group in the IETF if
>interested.


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

[IFWP] On DNS as the single point of control for the internet and ICANNas overseer of the problems - part of essay by ed gerck

[Gordon Cook]

 From the executive summary of the April 2000 COOK Report on Internet.
for full summary see http://cookreport.com/09.01.shtml




Essays, pp. 23- 27

Thinking

We present roughly half of Ed Gerck's Thinking Essay in the belief 
that readers will begin to understand why we consider it the single 
best short essay on the topic of information control, DNS Governance 
and ICANN ever written.

"...there is nothing to be gained by opposing ICANN, because ICANN is 
just the overseer of problems to which we need a solution.

My point is that there is something basically wrong with the DNS and 
which precludes a fair solution - as I intend to show in the 
following text, the DNS design has a single handle of control which 
becomes its single point of failure. This needs to be overcome with 
another design, under a more comprehensive principle, but one which 
must also be backward-compatible with the DNS. [. . . .]

So, the subject is domain names.  The subject could also be Internet 
voting. But I will leave voting aside for a while. In my opinion, the 
subject, in a broader sense, is information control. If domain names 
could not be used for information control (as they can now by default 
under the DNS - see below), I posit that we would not have any 
problems with domain names.

But, domain names provide even more than mere information control - 
they provide for a single handle of control. DNS name registration is 
indeed the single but effective handle for information control in the 
Internet. No other handle is possible because: (1) there is no 
distinction in the Internet between information providers and users 
(e.g., as the radio spectrum is controlled); (2) there is no easily 
defined provider liability to control the dissemination of 
information (e.g., as advertisement and trademarks are controlled); 
(3) there is no user confinement to control information access (e.g., 
as state or country borders in the Canadian Homolka case), etc.

But, how did we end up in this situation? After all, the Internet was 
founded under the idea of denying a single point of control - which 
can be seen also as a single point of failure. The problem is that 
certain design choices in the evolution of the DNS, made long ago, 
have made users fully dependent on the DNS for certain critical 
Internet services.  These design choices further strengthened the 
position of DNS name registration as the single handle of information 
control in the Internet. And, in the reverse argument, as its single 
point of failure.  [. . . .]

However, without the DNS there is no email service, search engines do 
not work, and web page links fail. Since email accounts for perhaps 
30% of Internet traffic - an old figure, it may be more nowadays - 
while search engines and links from other sites allow people to find 
out about web sites in about 85% of the cases (for each type, see 
http://www.mmgco.com/welcome/ ) I think it is actually an 
understatement to call the DNS a "handle."  The DNS is the very face, 
hands and feet of the Internet. It is the primary interface for most 
users - that which people "see". Its importance is compounded by the 
"inertia" of such a large system to change. Any proposal to change 
the DNS, or BIND nameservers, or the DNS resolvers in browsers in any 
substantial way would be impractical.

[. . . .] One of other fallacies in email is to ask the same system 
you do not trust (DNS, with the in-addr.arpa kludge) to check the 
name you do not trust (the DNS name), when doing an IP-check on a DNS 
name. There are more problems and they have just become more acute 
with the need to stop spam. Now administrators have begun to do a 
reverse DNS check by default.  Under such circumstances you MUST have 
both DNS and IP.

Further, having witnessed the placing of decisions of network address 
assignment (IP numbers) together with DNS matters under the ruling of 
one private policy-setting company (ICANN), we see another example of 
uniting and making everything depend on what is, by design, separate. 
The needs of network traffic (IP) are independent of the needs of 
user services (DNS). They also serve different goals, and different 
customers. One is a pre-defined address space which can be 
bulk-assigned and even bulk-owned (you may own the right to use one 
IP, but not the right to a particular IP), the other is a much larger 
and open-ended name space which cannot be either bulk-assigned or 
bulk-owned. They do not belong together - they should not be treated 
together.

But, there are other examples. In fact, my full study conducted with 
participation of Einar Stefferud and others has so far catalogued 
more than forty-one essential problems caused by the current design 
of the DNS. Thus, a solution to current user wants is not to be 
reached simply by answering "on what" and "by whom" control is to be 
exerted, as presently done in all such discussions, without exception 
- for example, those led by ICANN. In thi

mistaken identity Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Gordon Cook]

The problem of two Michael's.   I am accusing  Michael Pawlo of WHINING!!!

Not SONDOW.

I am trying to stick up for Mr. Sondow who is also quoting something 
that I did not write

Michael.S. please get a good nights sleeep!

Michael S is one of the best readers of list archives of this planet



>Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > Hey michael, go read the list archives and you can find out a
> > lot.
>
>I don't know what you're talking about, and frankly I don't want to
>know. Go read them yourself.
>
> > stop whining.
>
>You're the one who's been doing all the whining lately:
>
>"We all know, however, where it leads. They did it. No one will
>question it (where it counts via protest or lawsuit) does anyone
>even have "standing"?. That's the end of it."
>
>What's got into you?
>
>
>
>Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
>Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
>


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Gordon Cook]

And I consider myself an ICIIU sympathizer  as well Mr. Pawlo.

Now may we ask you to disclose where your priorities are?




>At 12:29 AM 2/24/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Friends,
> >I've tried to find out how the ICIIU is funded but I can't find this
> >piece of information on their web site. Come to think of it, I can't find
> >any information on the members of ICIIU (with the exception of Michael
> >Sondow of course).
>
>I'm an ICIIU member. I know how it's funded and I ain't telling :-)
>
>In the interest of full disclosure I will say the ICIIU sponsored
>my trip to Berlin with a cash grant.
>
>There is no truth to the rumor the ICIIU is buying Network Solutions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.dnso.com
>It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

Re: [IFWP] http://www.iciiu.org

[Gordon Cook]

Hey michael, go read the list archives and you can find out a 
lotstop whining.



>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> > >Dear Friends,
> > >I've tried to find out how the ICIIU is funded but I can't find this
> > >piece of information on their web site. Come to think of it, I can't find
> > >any information on the members of ICIIU (with the exception of Michael
> > >Sondow of course).
> > I'm an ICIIU member. I know how it's funded and I ain't telling :-)
>(---)
>
>Why is this a secret?
>What are you hiding?
>
>Regards,
>
>Mikael
>
>_
>
>  ICQ:35638414mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  http://www.pawlo.com/


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Questions For Ms. Simons

[Gordon Cook]

Ms. Simons is very plainly muddle headed.


>Barbara Simons wrote:
>
> >Dear Michael,
> >I infer from your note that you approve of my article
> >on government surveillance.  I'm glad to hear that.
> >You may also like the article I've included below,
> >a version of which will be appearing in the next issue
> >of Communications of the ACM.  It was last modified
> >at the end of December, so the discussion of etoy.com
> >ends there.
>
>I and others (e.g. Michael Froomkin) don't agree with your
>assessment, in your article "Trademarking the Net", that ICANN's
>Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy "balances the rights of both
>sides", though it may be less pernicious than HR3028.
>
>Furthermore, your statement in that article that the UDRP was
>"hammered out over years of work and with many diverse parties" is
>untrue. The UDRP was written in a few weeks by a small
>unrepresentative working group of the DNSO, with virtually no public
>input, and was approved by the unelected ICANN Board in closed
>session, as is their custom.
>
>But none of that has anything to do with my original question:
>If you believe what you wrote in your article "Building Big
>Brother", then why do you support the secret organization ICANN,
>which has been put into place by the USG in part to give the U.S.
>intelligence
>community greater control over the Internet?
>
>Are you, despite what you say in "Building Big Brother", in favor of
>allowing the Internet to be used for covert surveillance, which is
>one of tenets of the DOC's ICANN formation?
>
>
>
>Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
>Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
>


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Re: Re: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings

[Gordon Cook]

ayebrother sextonI believe you.but as someone else who 
has been alleged to be a paid NSI agent...   I must assert that it is 
widely known that you are a dangerous man..and do you know the 
filthy rumor mongers come to me and they say that sexton must be a 
buddy of that other well know dangerous man Brian Reidbecause 
forsooth. both of these knaves have MAIL accounts  on  
MEJAC!!




> >On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> >
> >> I believe that Mr. Walsh should be prepared to support his allegation
> >> against vrx.net and its customers, or else do the honorable 
>thing and admit
> >> that he has no idea what he is talking about here.
>
>Again, I deny the rumor that VRx is buying NSI.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>   - Mark Crispin


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

[IFWP] any corporation who would give the lCANN money for its cairomeeting is advertising to the internet that it hasn't got a clue Fwd:Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings @ Call for Sponsors

[Gordon Cook]

these idiots do try don't they?



>From: "icann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Update on ICANN Cairo Meetings @ Call for Sponsors
>Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 09:41:34 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>Importance: Normal
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>UPDATE ON ICANN CAIRO MEETINGS & CALL FOR SPONSORS
>
>On behalf of the local organizing committee, I would like to extend a warm
>welcome to all who plan to attend the 7-10 March ICANN meetings in Cairo,
>Egypt.  Details on the meetings have been posted at
>, including information on
>hotel options, meeting schedules and agendas, and pre-registration.
>
>Hosted by the Egyptian Ministry of Communication, the Cabinet Information
>and Decision Support Center (IDSC), and the Internet Society of Egypt, this
>will be the first ICANN meeting in the Middle East, and the first on the
>African continent.  The local organizing committee is working hard to ensure
>a productive and enjoyable gathering for ICANN and its constituent
>organizations.  In that regard, the committee is seeking sponsors for the
>Cairo meetings.  Sponsorships are available at two levels:
>
> - Meeting Sponsors will be asked to contribute US $10,000.  Meeting
>Sponsors will be prominently recognized at the meetings and in online and
>print materials, and will have the opportunity to distribute informational
>materials to meeting attendees in the hotel foyer.  Most importantly,
>Meeting Sponsors will be highlighted at the gala dinner being planned for
>the evening of 8 March.
>
> - Meeting Co-Sponsors will be asked to contribute US $5,000.  Meeting
>Co-Sponsors will be recognized at the ICANN meetings and in online and print
>materials, and will have the opportunity to distribute informational
>materials to meeting attendees in the hotel foyer.  Each meeting Co-Sponsor
>will be highlighted at one reception, lunch, or event during the course of
>the meetings.
>
>The November ICANN meetings in Los Angeles were sponsored by Compaq;  Jones,
>Day Reavis & Pogue;  Latham & Watkins;  the Communications Industry Services
>business unit of Lockheed Martin;  MCI WorldCom;  NameSecure.com;  Network
>Solutions, Inc.;  and Real Networks.  See
> for details.
>
>If you have any questions about these meetings -- or about sponsorship
>opportunities -- please do not hesitate to contact me.  I look forward to
>seeing you in Cairo.
>
>Warmest regards,
>
>Tarek Kamel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml

[IFWP] NSI SEC filing *does* have indirect admission of the sharedregistry design problem

[Gordon Cook]

Sigh,

  I went to the full filling on edgar and looked again. there NSI 
informs us that


" A failure in the operation of our registration system or other
events could result in deletion of one or more domain names from the Internet
for a period of time.

" A failure in the operation or
update of the master database that we maintain could result in deletion of one
or more top level domains from the Internet and the discontinuation of second
level domain names in those top level domains for a period of time. "


lawyers being lawyers and NSI  can afford the VERY best, I am sure 
that when the shared registry system really blows, nsi could likely 
get adeqate defence out of these statements. However  having defended 
NSI on many past occasions, I am incensed when they pull the stunt 
that they have with a shared registry system that is performing 
miserably and then refuse to allow a member of their own advisory 
board to publish his conclusions


from page 9 of the edgar s3 filing

SYSTEM FAILURE OR INTERRUPTION, SECURITY BREACHES OR OUR FAILURE TO MEET
INCREASING DEMANDS ON OUR SYSTEMS COULD HARM OUR BUSINESS
 
Any significant problem, including any security breach, with our systems or
operations could result in lost revenue, customer dissatisfaction or lawsuits
against us. A failure in the operation of our registration system or other
events could result in deletion of one or more domain names from the Internet
for a period of time. A failure in the operation of our shared registration
system could result in the inability of one or more other registrars 
to register
and maintain domain names for a period of time. A failure in the operation or
update of the master database that we maintain could result in deletion of one
or more top level domains from the Internet and the discontinuation of second
level domain names in those top level domains for a period of time. The
inability of our registrar systems, including our back office billing and
collections infrastructure, and telecommunications systems to meet the demands
of the increasing number of domain name registration requests and corresponding
customer e-mails and telephone calls, including speculative, otherwise abusive
and repetitive e-mail domain name registration and modification requests, could
result in substantial degradation in our customer support service and our
ability to process, bill and collect registration requests in a timely manner.
 
We recently completed a physical separation of our registrar and registry
computer systems and have run the operations of our new systems separately for
only a limited time. Any data integrity, non-compatability or other issues that
may arise from this separation could materially harm our business.
 
Our operations depend on our ability to maintain our computer and
telecommunications equipment in effective working order and to reasonably
protect our systems against interruption and potentially on such 
maintenance and
protection by other registrars in the shared registration system. The root zone
servers and top level domain zone servers that we operate are critical hardware
to our operations. Interruptions could result from:
 
  - fire, natural disaster, sabotage, power loss, 
telecommunications failure,
human error or similar events,
 
  - computer viruses, hackers or similar disruptive problems caused by
employees, customers or other Internet users, and
 
  - systems strain caused by the growth of our customer base and our
inability to sufficiently maintain or upgrade our systems.

The COOK Report on Internet  Index to 8 years of the COOK  Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)  IP Everywhere: Riding the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Tsunami - 392 pages
just published. See  http://cookreport.com/ipeverywhere.shtml

[IFWP] Re: nsol stock split

[Gordon Cook]

I have scanned the NSOL stock filling document.  Does this 
filling have the same legal requirements as an S-1?  The only mention 
discussion of the shared registry system that I saw was on pages 
38-39.  i could find no evidence in the discussion of what look to me 
like some very serious RISKs to investors hidden in the shared 
registry system ...and ticking like a bomb waiting to go off.

item some members of the NSOL   RAB  were exceedingly critical of 
parts of the protocol design.  discussion of the concerns has been a 
recent part of both the IETF list and  the NSOL domain policy 
list...

One of the discussants and RAB members has publicly asked NSOL to 
free him from his non disclosure agreement so that he may publish the 
details of his concerns  in the appropriate fora.  To my knowledge 
NSOL has refused to do so.  By this refusal it looks to me that NSOL 
feels that it must hide the fact that at least one of its experts 
feels that it has implemented  a shared registry system protocol with 
serious operational flaws.

Furthermore NSOL is participating now in a system as shown by 
comments on the domain policy list over the last three weeks that 
from an ordinary common business practice point of view is so flawed 
as to be unworkable over the long run.  the whole bloody thing, if 
not promptly corrected, is waiting to blow sky high.

These risks are KNOWN to those of us who follow this closely. yet 
I see no mention of them in the prospectus that NSOL filed.  why not? 
should not NSOL amend that prospectus immediately!?   What risks is 
it taking if it doesn't do so?

disclaimer:  i have no financial interest of any kind in NSOL or its 
stock.  if i did I'd sell NOW and take my profits while they were 
still there.

>the prospectus is atached. should be required reading for any prospective
>registrar.
>
>-rick
>
>
>Content-Type: APPLICATION/PDF; name="nsol.pdf"
>Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Description:
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nsol.pdf"
>
>


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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] missing URL Re: Is Domain name system Vulnerable to slamming?Network world 1/17/2000 page one

[Gordon Cook]

to those asking i have seen this in hadcopy only its probably on 
their web site but alas I have no url

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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] Is Domain name system Vulnerable to slamming? Network world1/17/2000 page one

[Gordon Cook]

Congratulations to Network solutions for being ripped by carolyn 
duffy marsan in longish article on shared registry protocol 
imbrogliocomplete with good quotes from ed gerck and patrick 
falstrom.  of course she does blow a lot of her accomplishment with a 
quote from the bogus jeff williams near the end.sigh

This should wise up many corporate folk to the thin ice onto which 
the DOC and ICANN and NSI ave brought us all

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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Reasons we need ICANN

[Gordon Cook]

>1) If we don't the ITU will take over. Still waiting for Dave Farber and
>Tamar Frankel for their promised explanations as to why this is true.
>
>2) For the stability of the Interent.
>
>No, I havn't lost my miod, I'm just testing my new signature file.
>

Nice sig richard.

Uncle Dave the Fox is inside the chicken coop now

remains to be seen how he will use his power

if I were Chris Caine at IBM I'd be looking at back ups options in 
case ICANN bombs

I HOPE Dave will do good, but deep down I have no trust of any of 
these people at the moment

Given what they promised with ICANN and given what they delivered why 
should any of us trust hem?




>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
>-- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an
>endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken


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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] here is a lovely example of the sleazy operation which NSI isnow engaged and which ICANN seems willing to allow them to perpetrateFwd: Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

[Gordon Cook]

Lets see if I understand what Is now being debated on the IETF list.

NSI makes shared data base and gets panel of outside experts to 
comment on the code and protocols designed to implement the data base.

The experts tell NSI that what they have designed is a bunch of crap 
that will lead to numerous people's domain names being lost or 
otherwise mis handled mis registered etc.

NSI chooses not to listen to its own experts, implements a system it 
knows or should know is flawed and then refuses to let the comments 
of its own experts warning it about what it is doing be published.

ICANN of course does nothing.








>Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:37:48 -0800
>From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: "David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: Rick H Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Patrik Fältström"
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>Scott Hollenbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to
> Informational
>
>
>
>"David R. Conrad" wrote:
>
> > I was among those who encouraged NSI to publish the
> > RRP as an informational RFC as I felt it would be in the best interests of
> > everybody to have the RRP protocol publically examined and I feel 
>NSI should
> > be commended for documenting their protocol.
>
>I too encouraged NSI to publish the RRP protocol, and I believe I was actually
>the first that said so to NSI.  This is however IMO irrelevant here 
>-- the issue is what
>is being presented by NSI to be an informational IETF RFC, not 
>whether we should
>commend  NSI for doing or not doing anything in their own benefit. 
>This is yet not
>the Internet Marketing Study Group.
>
>Given the secret (but not private) nature of the RAB Meeting 
>Minutes, I am effectively
>barred to comment further  -- even though I would just be repeating 
>my own comments.
>However, to anyone versed in technical work it is clear that if the 
>references to a work
>are missing, and if those references actually *deny* the work being 
>presented, then
>there is  something basically wrong with the entire process. This is 
>what happens here
>and that is why I am not convinced that the NSI RFC should be 
>published by the IETF
>unless the very references to that work which resulted from a US 
>Government contract
>be made available and public as well, as "supporting" documentation 
>missing in the
>RFC.
>
>Note also that the RAB, its meeting Minutes and its Action Points 
>are also not the
>result of an NSI private initiative as we know, Conrad, but an 
>obligation upon NSI by
>an  oversight body and a regulating US agency in a legal contract. 
>I imagine that the
>Freedom of Information Act could be used to make those notes public since they
>were mandated by the direct act of a US agency, who also has copies 
>of them.  And I
>see no benefit to the Internet community if they continue to be 
>secret to some (RAB,
>NSI, USG, ICANN) while the  RRP that they comment on intends to be 
>published by
>the IETF -- without the comments!  So, on a more humorous tone, this 
>is not a RFC as a
>"Request For Comments" ...  this is a "Requiem For Comments" ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed Gerck

and and earlier comment from ed gerck in the same thread

Patrik:

"If I remember correctly from a presentation NSI have had for me" is
a good name for the RAB [1] meetings we attended I presume, in the
euphemisms that these discussions have turned into.

However, IMO it would be unfitting to the IETF to proceed discussions
on NSI's proposed RFC without NSI disclosing and making public all
the RAB meeting minutes, as "supporting" documentation.

Further, reading NSI's RFC and Karl's comments here, I am grateful that
neither the RAB  nor its members were mentioned in the RFC, nor a
cknowledged, even though the RFC is on the very same Shared
Registry Protocol we were called to help verify and provide free but
otherwise professional advice.

You will recognize in Karl's comments a rerun of some of my
own comments and also of Stef's and Steve's, I am sure, just
to cite a few. Race conditions, log traces, actions on log
traces, reliable timestamps, the need for well-defined states
with well-defined variables, slamming precautions, transfer
problems, correct internationalization, UTC time, message
text limit, etc. were also all mentioned and advised about
more than once; and they are in the RAB Minutes.  They
need to be made public since NSI is requesting public
comments.  They are also part of the mandates of Amendment
11, which I wish to interpret technically -- no politically by
euphemisms of  a "presentation NSI have had for me".

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

[1] http://www.nsiregistry.com/history/rab.html :

 Mission Statement The Network Solutions Registry Advisory Board 
(RAB) was formed to provide Network
   Solutions with independent external advi

[IFWP] Photographic satire of ICANN available at

[Gordon Cook]

http://cookreport.com/neptibalb.shtml

these are the costumed buddhist monks of he tengboche monastery  near 
mt everest

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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] register.com sells aol.com to speculator

[Gordon Cook]

Here is the bogus stability that mike roberts and esther dyson, and 
ibm have brought to the internet.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/21/113l-122199-idx.html

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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] January 2000 COOK Report part 2- IBM's ICANN pp. 19 - 40

[Gordon Cook]

In a very long article we summarize our knowledge of the ICANN 
debate.  The article  uncovers participants and some of the details 
of the secret meeting of July 30, 1999.  This meeting sponsored and 
brokered by IBM shows that ICANN, far from being a consensus 
organization, is the creature of IBM's need to control the framework 
of e-commerce in the 21st century.

Those interested in Internet governance should pay careful attention 
to Larry Lessig's new book:  Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace 
(Basic Books, 1999) finds that he who controls the code on which 
cyberspace is founded will control whether freedom can exist in 
cyberspace. Lessig pounds home this conclusion again and again. We 
find it fascinating that Lessig ignores ICANN. For we note the reason 
for ICANN's being in such a hurry. It knows what Lessig knows about 
ownership and control. It must craft its architectural code on behalf 
of e-commerce and government before the rest of us awaken.

Lessig writes "cyberspace [is changing] as it moves from a world of 
relative freedom to a world of relatively perfect control' . The 
first intuition of our founders was right. Structure builds 
substance. Guarantee the structural (a space in cyberspace for open 
code) and (much of) the substance will take care of itself." . . . 
"We are just beginning to see why the architecture of the space 
matters - in particular why the ownership of that architecture 
matters."


Editor's Preface

ICANN is now "fully formed." With Network Solutions signed on as an 
accredited ICANN registrar and obligated to pay it nearly three 
million dollars in domain name taxes per year, ICANN need no longer 
fear bankruptcy. ICANN may now proceed forward with an Internet wide 
system of domain name registration under its control.  It has won act 
one.  Whether it will be able to "win" act two and enforce and expand 
its powers to become for its masters a global Internet regulatory 
agency remains to be seen.

ICANN has gotten to its current position by a complex process of 
lobbying in Washington and Europe.  It is one that we have spent the 
past three years and upwards of 300 pages of the COOK Report in 
documenting.  In this article we review the entire chain of events in 
order to paint as accurate a picture as possible of how a tiny clique 
has managed to put in place a structure that is now positioned to 
become a global regulatory body for the Internet.

This article also covers a July 30 secret meeting run by IBM at a 
Washington DC hotel.  At this meeting two IBM Vice Presidents met 
with NSI's CEO and a Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) 
Vice President in the presence of senior Internet statesmen Dave 
Farber, Bob Kahn, Brian Reid and Scott Bradner. ICANN and NSI had 
spent the previous two months on a collision course over whether NSI 
would have to capitulate to the demands contained in ICANN's 
registrar accreditation agreements.  These demands threatened the 
viability of nearly all of NSI's income stream.  NSI had both reason 
and resources to sue ICANN with both sides having clashed 
acrimoniously in front of Congress less than 10 days before.  It is 
no exaggeration to say that the fate of both ICANN and NSI was at 
stake.

As everyone knows, the suit did not happen and less than two months 
later the collision course had become a marriage as NSI signed an 
agreement accepting ICANN's control and assuring ICANN of the money 
it needed to survive.  It is believed that the July 30 meeting began 
the events that led to the late September marriage. We note that at 
the most critical moment in the struggle for control of the DNS 
system and the future of the Internet the opponents were not ICANN 
and NSI.  It was IBM against NSI with John Patrick VP of IBM's 
Internet division and Chair of the IBM-MCI led Global Internet 
Project backed up by Chris Caine, IBM VP of Government Programs and 
head of IBM's 40 person Washington lobbying office.

It certainly looks to us like the crux of what lies behind the 
"window dressing" is the raw power of IBM. On December 9 we received 
an email containing the following text:

"Gordon: The July 30 meeting was called by John Patrick, who also ran 
that meeting. It was attended by John Patrick, Chris Caine, Jim Rutt, 
Mike Daniels, Brian Reid, Bob Kahn, Dave Farber, Scott Bradner, and 
an ICANN representative. Cerf was not there. It was held at the 
Hay-Adams Hotel. My impression of the meeting was that its entire 
purpose was to bully NSI into signing ICANN's agreement. It was 
entirely Patrick's meeting. Kahn, Reid, Farber, and Bradner were 
there as observers. The only negotiations that took place were 
between John Patrick and Jim Rutt. As far as I can tell the others 
were invited to this meeting for the same reason that Jimmy Carter is 
invited to South American elections." [End of 12/9/99 email.]

We contacted some of the people named in this message. When we 
reached Reid, he confirmed that he was at 

Re: [IFWP] Article: WTO + SDMI = NWO (New World Order)--And ThatSpells Trouble

[Gordon Cook]

hi mark,

sorry, I can't resist.  I think andy's article is a good article and 
therefore found myself agreeing with diane cabel. the only time 
ever.  Diane is ready to cooperate with ICANN I am not

I view the berkman center as an ICANN client and the establishment 
legal think tank for ICANN

Lessig's berkman affiliation doesn't fit well with this take call 
him the berkmann dssident perhaps?

I strongly suggest you read the excerpt from lessig's book in the sig 
files on my web pages..

your summary is over simplified in my opinion

>re: WTO + SDMI = NWO (NEW WORLD ORDER)--AND THAT SPELLS TROUBLE
> by Andy Oram
>   American Reporter Correspondent
>
>CAMBRIDGE, MASS.--WTO, IMF, EU: has one of these changed your life recently?
>How about SDMI, PICS, or CALEA?
>
>This list wasn't intended for big issue discussions. However, two 
>questions on Mr. Oram's article below.
>
>(i) if the institutions designed by people for people don't fit 
>people, what do you do? Go off and help design better institutions?
>
>Has ICANN, a microcosm of the debate below, passed that test, or 
>shown signs of passing that test,  of being a better institution?
>
>If the motives of all the players concerned are egotistic or 
>self-interested, then their reduction to a digital, economic or 
>social logic of necessity is easy. As the writer points out in his 
>commentary on the book, the argument is that the development of 
>technology determines the laws and mores resulting, not the reverse.
>
>If Mr. Lessig has rediscovered this form of 'determinist' thinking, 
>he had rediscovered it in the company of thinkers like Marx who 
>similarly observed the destruction and dislocation of the industrial 
>revolution as a driven economic process, not as a human choice.
>
>Consequently, one would imagine the process of Internet regulation 
>no more controllable than the results of that change. The 
>fundamental presupposition of an organisation like the WTO is that 
>there is no-one in absolute control, although the different trading 
>blocs vie for advantage and hence the problem where visible job 
>losses are balanced by imponderable price level advantages.
>
>The writer also points out that the reductionism of this chain of 
>thought eventually destroys all unmediated contact, each individual 
>entity, whether individual or organisational is an economic agent, a 
>compendium of needs to be satisfied at profit, or ignored. This is 
>fine until it comes to yourself. You believe you are free to choose 
>and at liberty to do so.
>
>However, the final collocation of technology and law implies man, 
>including oneself, is a technological animal reducible to a 
>programming description, whether in code or lexis. Consequently, 
>everyone can, indeed, stop taking responsibility. I am not who I 
>think I am, but what I am described as. Depressing prospect. 
>Apparently, according to the analysis by Professor Lessig, this is 
>what we are. But in being such, we give up any prospect of taking 
>back our own freedoms. Which is what most people want, isn't it? Why 
>they are demonstrating in Seattle?
>
>So, if you believe Lessig's argument, which I have not read, but 
>which is familiar, analysis of what is the case will lead you to a 
>situation where one gets what one doesn't want and the institutions 
>produced will be antithetical to the requirements for their 
>existence, the analysis of ourselves having lifted them out of our 
>own control.
>
>(ii) if we can't meaningfully design institutions (and Mr. Lessig 
>says we can't, for the above reasons, as they are a sort of fungi on 
>the body politic), then (a) why demonstrate against them and (b) 
>what should the representatives of the various governments of the 
>world be doing? In a world which is nasty, brutish and quick, what 
>can one expect except a slow desire to regulate and control?
>
>I though it interesting that Diane Cabell replied to the original 
>post. In my limited experience it is only the Harvard Berkman unit 
>who have addressed these issues, others seeing it as a question of 
>gaining control or preventing others gaining control (which Mr. 
>Lessig points out is useless given our economic and structural 
>self-analysis). I assume Mr. Lessig's move to Berlin is figurative.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Mark Measday
>
>If you are interested in the logic of the argument above, further 
>references may be found at 
>http://www.josmarian.ch/question 
>.htm and a piece if juvenilia at 
>http://www.josmaria 
>n.ch/josmarian/lunch/lunch.htm.
>
>
>Andy Oram wrote:
>
>>Since we've been discussing both Lessig's book and Internet
>>regulation, I thought the following would be appropriate.
>>
>>-
>>
>>http://www. 
>>oreilly.com/~andyo/ar/intergovernmental.html
>>
>>November 30, 1999
>>
>>   

Let's Name Names Re: Dyson's reply RE: [IFWP] Representations toWTO Conference

[Gordon Cook]

> >   This is the unholy alliance that gave us the ICANN board.
>
>We still do not know who was part of that alliance, what criteria they
>used to select the candidates for the initial board, and what quid pro
>quos were made among those doing selecting.

No but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the whole 
disgusting mess was the product of five men.

1. Vint Cerf through ISOC and GIP and MCI
2. Dave Farber through ISOC, and the networking skills and personal 
relationships (including IBM) that got him entry this year  into 
Network World's list 25 most influential people in networking.
3. Mike Roberts through ISOC, Educom, and IBM
4. Larry Landweber through ISOC and the master plan of 10/1/95
5. John Patrick I through IBM and GIP, and  through IBM's earlier 
ISOC participation

You can betcha these men were the core of the alliance.

The alliance that was made with the aide of Marilyn Cade at AT&T, 
and that acquired the services of joe sims and esther dyson.  When 
Mike Roberts buried the IFWP process in August 1998 with his 
statement of withering contempt sent to the steering committee and 
mentioned by Jim Dixon in a comment earlier tonight, Roberts sent the 
comment on to Farber  for publication to Farber's Interesting 
person's mail list.

This mail list represents a really significant cross section of 
decision makers in the field of telecom and information technology. 
The 25,000 List members come from all ranks of academia, government, 
press, laboratories and the corporate computer and telecoms sector 
around the world. Dave Farber uses the list as a kind of current 
awareness service of what's happening.  It is moderated by Dave. 
It's members send Dave items to share with fellow list members and if 
he deems it worthy he sends the item on to the list.  I have observed 
it in action since Dave admitted me in the spring of 1991.  some time 
in 1992 the list burped and sent a message to list members with the 
address of every other  l ist member included.  there were less than 
200 back then... but they were an impressive bunch.

On August 28, 1998 we read on dave's IP list  the follow endorsement 
from Dave farber

The following is sent WITH permission. For those of you who don't 
know Mike, no one would ever characterize him as a flamer or a 
radical. It is worth reading and thinking about.

Dave

From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Ratification" - the IFWP Emperor has no Clothes (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:40:35 -0400 (EDT)

Forwarded message:
From: Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Ratification" - the IFWP Emperor has no Clothes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I'm appalled at the convoluted and narcissistic thinking behind
the so-called "ratification" meeting.  Let's review the bidding,
shall we?
[snip]

==
Cook:  My interpretation.  IFWP had outlived its usefulness and 
Dave's IP list was the best way to get the word out.  I have no iron 
clad, incontravertable proof, but if the ICANN archives are ever 
opened, I am certain it will be shown that the insiders above had 
already selected Roberts to run it.  IFWP was in the way on aug 28th. 
For  in fact it was claiming legitimacy to decide the role, form, and 
function of Newco.  The caball on aug 28 1998 had about 35 days to 
incorporate and launch ICANN.   IFWP had to be buried, and buried 
quickly.  Roberts wrote the burial message and Dave Farber published 
it to those who counted. (the ip list).


let's fast forward 11 months:

There was a very important meeting in washington DC on july 30 1999. 
Dave Farber was there.  It had to do with NSI.  i would appreciate 
recieving any other verifiable information about this meeting 
privately.

Jim Dixon  ( Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd and Telecommunications 
Director EuroISPA) said it very well to this list earlier tonight:

"The original participants in the IFWP process were interested parties
who knew what they were voting about.  They didn't choose ICANN.
They didn't even have the opportunity to choose ICANN.  Mike Roberts
and other representatives of vested interests blocked the wrap-up
meeting that might have given us a legitimate successor to the IANA.
ICANN represents a repudiation of the IFWP and all open processes."

"Did the little secret cabal represent interested parties?  Of course
they did.  Did they know what they were "voting about"?  Sure -- they
were choosing a small band of biddable people to carry out their wishes.
Is this in any sense a legitimate process?  No.  It's about as legitimate
as a bank robbery."

and in a second comment tonight dixon concluded:

  ICANN would not be here
today had it not been for NSI's agreement to pay the Dyson tax.
=

Cook: jim dixon's right.

Jim Rutt came on in june like hell on wheels

on july 22 Rutt screwed up real bad in front of congress

on July 30 Dave Farber was involved  in meeting 

RE: [IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submissionfrom[]

[Gordon Cook]

Tony rutkowski is far better equipped than i to answer questions about NTIA

tony?


>Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
>   >>I came across a description  of the Office of Telecommunications
>   >>Policy set up in the White House during Nixon's Presidency.
>   >>
>   >>The office was to centralize power over telecommunications in
>   >>the hands of the President. The counsel was from a lawfirm
>   >>Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis.
>   >>
>   >>(Now the Jones Day lawfirm has a different is called Jones
>   >>Day Reavis and Pogue so the relation isn't exactly clear, but
>   >>it seems like they are probably related.)
>
>Same firm. It is interesting to see that they've been involved in 
>this for so long. Maybe Jones Day is really the U. S. Governments 
>private branch.
>
>   >>A little booklet that I found about the Office of Telecommunications
>   >>Policy (OTP) put out by the Network Project at Columbia U in 1973
>   >>said that this office would become "the most powerful voice in the
>   >>formulation of national commuications policy." (pg 3)
>   >>
>   >>The booklet mentions a White House report prepared by Peter
>   >>Flanigan, the laison to the corporate community and his
>   >>assistant Clay T. Whitehead. And it described the duties
>   >>of the office to include national telecommunications policies
>   >>and "U.S. participation in international telecommunications
>   >>activities."
>   >>
>   >>It was also to develop executive branch policy on telecommunications,
>   >>including regulatory policies.
>   >>
>   >>I wonder if anyone knows if the NTIA has now taken on these
>   >>powers?
>
>There is no doubt a line connecting the two projects. Perhaps Gordon 
>Cook can connect the dots.
>
>   >>
>   >>I remember at Geneva last year listening to the lawyer from
>   >>Jones and Day saying that all power of ICANN, according
>   >>to the bylaws, would reside in the board, and that the councils
>   >>would be under the board.
>   >>
>   >>The point of all this is that it seems that it is somehow U.S.
>   >>government policy to create this so-called private corporation
>   >>to have centralized in it all the power that result from
>   >>the ownership and control of the essential functions of the Internet.
>
>Yes. It is evidently their plan.
>
>   >>It seems it is more likely a situation where it is executive branch
>   >>policy (U.S. govt policy) to be setting up ICANN and not to allow
>   >>the anti-trust division to investigate.
>
>Precisely.
>
>   >>The U.S. Code prohibited agencies established by Executive order
>   >>from spending governmental monies without explicit congressional
>   >>authorization.
>
>The U. S. Constitution prohibits the executive branch from 
>regulating commerce without legislation.
>
>
>Michael SondowICIIU
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.iciiu.org
>


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)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

[IFWP] extensive excerpts from lessig's Code and other laws of Cyberspace

[Gordon Cook]

now on my web site at url  in sig file below.  and no i havent gone 
soft of icann

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)   Internet Regulation and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICANN --  See Lessig's Code: and
Other  Laws of Cyberspace  http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Gimme shelter

[Gordon Cook]

>At 10:55 AM 11/24/99 -0500, Tamar Frankel wrote:
> >I do not think we disagree. I certainly agree with Larry Lessig, and I did
> >read his book. We disagree on the timing. I am willing to be more patient,
> >and hope that people like you will continue to demand more accountability.
> >I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
> >alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree. Best wishes.
> >
> >Tamar
>
>Tamar;

richard sexton:



>The alternatives that scare you are the very processes that built the
>Internet to the size... and success... that it is now. I can understand
>this is a very scary thing to somebody that lives and breathes law,
>contracts and corporate rules; nonetheless, all the contracts and
>laws in the world would not have made Apache the NS/MS killer
>or Linux the Windows killer. It's the notion of "the good of the
>community" that is so abused by the ICANN apologists that got us
>here (and it's very unpleasant to see this being abused in the
>name of the blaoted, inefficiant and utterly *captured*
>nightmare that is ICANN.



Richard...one of the strengths of lessig's terribly important book is 
that he showsquite conclusively I believe that these issues are 
not the just issues of LAW versus the unfettered net.but rather 
the product of a complex series of interactions of law, with code 
(technology), with norms (mores), and with market forces.   all of 
these can be made to interact with each other and with the internet.

lessig gives some insight into HOW this abomination has happened


>
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** The US has the best government money can buy **


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

Re: Dyson's reply RE: [IFWP] Representations to WTO Conference

[Gordon Cook]

your reply is helpful.

but as far as being scared by alternatives.(too).

  I don't think I follow you here..

i don't see any aternatives to be scared by...except the MORASS that 
lessig bemoans...

the very morass that allows the icanntes to do what they are doing 
and get away with it

but I imagine that you are talking about the alleged instability of 
an internet wih no icann. and not the morass?




>I do not think we disagree. I certainly agree with Larry Lessig, and I did
>read his book. We disagree on the timing. I am willing to be more patient,
>and hope that people like you will continue to demand more accountability.
>I did not conclude that all is lost, so long as I see some progress. The
>alternatives scare me too. So that is where we disagree. Best wishes.
>
>Tamar
>
>At 10:18 AM 11/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Tamar concludes:  But I
> >also recognize that ICANN has to be built.
> >
> >why Tamar **WHY**?
> >
> >what is gained by building the unaccountable public authority that now
>exists?
> >
> >where do you see one shred of evidence that these people are
> >interested in doing with ICANN a gosh darn thing other than using it
> >as a lever to increase their financial winnings in a zero sum game??
> >
> >read lessig's new book please.
> >
> >he finally mentioned  ICANN in passing toward the end  but there
> >is no way it could be taken except very indirectly as an attack on
> >ICANN.
> >
> >what lessig understands with brilliance is the deeply flawed
> >foundation on which ICANN is being built..  in the end he talks of
> >the role of LAW as a persuader and educator rather than as a club to
> >use against an enemy in a zero sum game
> >
> >persuade and reason with us  tell us in detail why you come to
> >such a conclusion.  I am persuadableI am educable...if the
> >arguments are there.  but the architects of ICANN incur wrath because
> >they refuse to persuade and educate and instead speak ex-cathedra.
> >
> >I wasn't going to respond but decided to just now when an ICANN
> >architect forwarded me you message privately and without comment.
> >
> >lessig gets it. The ICANN architects do not.  why is that?
> >
> >Educate the rest of us  please.  the internet is running just
> >fine without ICANN thank you.
> >
> >
> >


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

Re: Dyson's reply RE: [IFWP] Representations to WTO Conference

[Gordon Cook]

>Tamar concludes:  But I
also recognize that ICANN has to be built.

why Tamar **WHY**?

what is gained by building the unaccountable public authority that now exists?

where do you see one shred of evidence that these people are 
interested in doing with ICANN a gosh darn thing other than using it 
as a lever to increase their financial winnings in a zero sum game??

read lessig's new book please.

he finally mentioned  ICANN in passing toward the end  but there 
is no way it could be taken except very indirectly as an attack on 
ICANN.

what lessig understands with brilliance is the deeply flawed 
foundation on which ICANN is being built..  in the end he talks of 
the role of LAW as a persuader and educator rather than as a club to 
use against an enemy in a zero sum game

persuade and reason with us  tell us in detail why you come to 
such a conclusion.  I am persuadableI am educable...if the 
arguments are there.  but the architects of ICANN incur wrath because 
they refuse to persuade and educate and instead speak ex-cathedra.

I wasn't going to respond but decided to just now when an ICANN 
architect forwarded me you message privately and without comment.

lessig gets it. The ICANN architects do not.  why is that?

Educate the rest of us  please.  the internet is running just 
fine without ICANN thank you.





>Ken: I was the one who did not believe in the selection process of ICANN's
>board and who spoke, whenever I could, for membership and election. But I
>also recognize that ICANN has to be built. The current board is composed of
>people whom I respect. It has the support of the government, conditioned on
>changes.
>
>I think that criticism of ICANN is absolutely essential until such time as
>it will be structured correctly, and that you and many others are crucial
>to this process. But I have not given up hope and especially would not ask
>Esther to walk away. The fear, mistrust and disrespect among the various
>group interests in this area is blatant and clear. Each of the groups must
>gain legitimacy in the eyes of the other. I believe and hope that the US
>government will not relinquish control over ICANN until it is satisfied
>that its current deficiencies will be eliminated or reduced. If the
>executive does not do so, the Congress or other government agencies will.
>So, Esther, please stay on.
>
>Tamar


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

[IFWP] some comments on Larry Lessigs ''Code and Other Laws ofCyberspace" & questions for Dave Farber

[Gordon Cook]

Dave Farber  posted to his IP list on friday afternoon, a review of 
Larry Lessig's outstanding new book ''Code and Other Laws of 
Cyberspace.''  Within an hour after reading Simson Garfinkel's review 
I had word from larry lessig (who has moved to to Berlin) and 
confirmation from his publisher that a review copy was on its way. 
Yesterday,  the copy arrived.

The work is superb.  With ICANN an unmentioned case study in Lessig's analysis.

Here is my own review. (Given his own oft stated concerns about 
ICANN, if Dave Farber has read Lessig's work it would be very 
interesting to hear his opinion as well.)

Larry Lessig in his new book Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace finds that
he who controls the code on which cyberspace is founded will control 
whether freedom can exist in cyberspace.   Lessig pounds home this 
conclusion again and again. I find it fascinating that Lessig ignores 
ICANN.  For we note the reason for ICANN's being in such a hurry.  It 
knows what Lessig knows about ownership and control.  It must craft 
its architectural code on behalf of e-commerce and government before 
the rest of us awaken.

Lessig writes "cyberspace [is changing]  as it moves from a world of 
relative freedom to a world of relatively perfect control' . The 
first intuition of our founders was right.  Structure builds 
substance.  Guarantee the structural (a space in cyberspace for open 
code and (much of) the substance will take care of itself." . . . "We 
are just beginning to see why the architecture of the space matters 
-- in particular why the ownership of that architecture matters."

"I end by asking whether we, meaning Americans, are up to the 
challenges that these choices present.  Given our present tradition 
in constitutional law and our present faith in representative 
government, are we able to respond collectively to the changes that I 
have described?"

"My strong sense is that we are not.  We are at a stage in history 
when we urgently need to make fundamental choices about values.  But 
we trust no institution of government to make such choices.  Courts 
cannot do it because, as a legal culture we don't want courts 
choosing among contested matters of values and congress should not do 
it because, as a political culture we so deeply question the products 
of ordinary government."

"Change is possible.  I don't doubt that revolutions lie in our 
future.  The open source code movement is just such a revolution. But 
I fear. . . that too much is at stake to allow the revolutionaries to 
succeed."

"The argument of this book is that the invisible hand of cyberspace 
is building an architecture that perfects control -- an architecture 
that makes possible highly efficient regulation. . . . a distributed 
architecture of regulatory control an axis between commerce and the 
state. much of the liberty present in cyberspace's founding will 
vanish in its future."

Lessigs conclusions decode what ICANN is doing. It is quite clear to 
me  that, on behalf of commerce, ICANN will own that architecture. 
ICANN will control the code. It will allow neither diversity nor open 
source code.  ICANN owns all domains and all DNS.  It has one uniform 
dispute resolution policy. It hammers out its uniform rule in pursuit 
of the facilitation of electronic commerce.  It embodies what Lessig 
fears.

Lessig writes:  "In many [cases] our Constitution yields no answer to 
the question of how it should be applied, because at least two 
answers are possible-that is, in light of the choices that the 
framers actually made."

"For Americans, this ambiguity creates-a problem. If we lived in an era when
courts felt entitled to select the answer that in the context made 
the most sense,
there would be no problem. Latent ambiguities would be answered by choices made
by judges-the framers could have gone either way, but we choose to go 
this way."

"But we don't live in such an era, and so we don't have a way for 
courts to resolve these ambiguities. As a result, we must rely on 
other institutions. My claim, a dark one, is that we have no such 
institutions. If our ways don't change, our constitution in 
cyberspace will be a thinner and thinner regime."

"Cyberspace will present us with ambiguities over and over again. It 
will press this
question of how best to go on.  We have tools from real space that 
will help resolve
the interpretive questions by pointing us in one direction or 
another, at least some of the time. But in the end the tools will 
guide us even less than they do in real space and time. When the gap 
between their guidance and what we do becomes obvious, we will be 
forced to do something we are not very good at doing -- deciding what 
we want and what is right," Lessig concludes.  Lessig has put his 
finger squarely on the reasons that ICANN has won its first round and 
may win successive rounds


=
Hi Dave,

I have followed for months your expressions of both concern about and 
support for ICA

Re: [IFWP] Representations to WTO Conference in Seattle next month

[Gordon Cook]

>We are not sending anyone (or if we are, it's news to me, and I should
>know). Why should we?
>
>Esther Dyson

Because ICANN is the WTO of the Intenet esther




>At 04:40 pm 11/22/1999 +0100, Mark R Measday wrote:
> >Is is possible to know what representations ICANN has made, or which
> >observers have been sent by ICANN to the WTO conference in Seattle next
> >month?
> >
> >MM
> >Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> > name="measday.vcf"
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >Content-Description: Card for Mark R Measday
> >Content-Disposition: attachment;
> > filename="measday.vcf"
> >
> >Attachment Converted: C:\EUDORA\measda11.vcf
> >
>
>
>Esther Dyson   Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800--  1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
>PC Forum: 12 to 15 March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book:  "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age"
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 2000, where would you like it?
>Barcelona, Edinburgh, Istanbul, other?


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

Re: [IFWP] Another ICANN article

[Gordon Cook]

How delightful!

nice going esther...

accurate ellen?


Rony asked -- as have many, many others -- why
  the "interim" board was in such a rush to 
pass the UDRP. Dyson, ICANN's Chairman of the Board,
  countered that the outcome would have been 
the same anyway because "the new board members are
  in fact more representative of big moneyed 
interests than the original [i.e., interim] ones." That's not
  very comforting; nor is the fact that the 
quip is absent from ICANN's official "scribe's notes" [23]
  but present in the video [24].

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

Re: [IFWP] new ITU proceeding

[Gordon Cook]

Tony. I tried to get

http://www.itu.int/itudoc/gs/council/c99/docs/docs1/051.html

and was asked for a TIES user name and password.

what am i doing wrong?





>The ITU General Secretariat has launched a proceeding
>on its role involving the Internet and DNS.  This was
>contained in a 21 Oct 1999 Circular Letter from the
>ITU Secretary-General to the ITU's Member governments.
>
>It touches upon a great many areas and implicates
>a number of fundamental issues concerning the ITU's
>jurisdiction and authority.
>
>The US Dept of State is recirculating the circular
>information and soliciting inputs by a yet undetermined
>process.
>
>Most of the material is non-public ITU material.  However,
>everything can be found under Sec. 3 at the wia.org site
>
>
>
>--tony


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

[IFWP] Clausing would seem to know what Farber doesn't

[Gordon Cook]

Dave Farber wrote:

[Does Jerri know something I don't know about the state of the ICANN 
or is she just being sloppy calling ICANN "The Internet's governing 
board" djf]

I reply:

Dave:  she knows full well what you seem unwilling to admit..  Of 
course it is the the governing board.  i would not make a point of 
this except I can still well remember your posts of propaganda from 
ISOC hot shot George Sadowsky and a couple of others a YEAR AGO to 
your IP list screeds that dumped all over clausing for allegedly 
biased reporting.

she gets it DAVE..  Esthers heated denials not withstanding. 
the ICANN ilk are the internet's would be self appointed regulatory 
agency.   time to take a stand. "sir".



From: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IP: Internet Group Approves Domain Registration Rules
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: U

[Does Jerri know something I don't know about the state of the ICANN 
or is she just being sloppy calling ICANN "The Internet's governing 
board" djf]

November 5, 1999
Internet Group Approves Domain Registration Rules

Ends Monopoly Over Popular `.Com' Suffix
By JERI CLAUSING


OS ANGELES -- The Internet's governing board today approved terms for 
opening the network's address registration businesses to full-scale 
competition. Enactment of the landmark document ends the six-year 
monopoly that enriched Network Solutions Inc.

Just as important, it marks a victory for the oversight group, the 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, whose 
first year has been rocked by dissention and controversy.
ICANN unanimously approved the agreement, which spells out the terms 
under which Network Solutions will open its business to the more than 
80 companies around the world already approved to compete in the 
registration of Internet addresses, or domains, that end in the 
popular .com, .net and .org suffixes.

..

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/11/cyber/articles/05icann.html

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

RE: [IFWP] RE: [ga] Fwd: ICANN prepares a Congressional fix with Rick White' s GIP inspir...

[Gordon Cook]

>Mikki Barry wrote:
> >
> > At 2:20 PM +0200 10/12/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >Maybe I didn't pay attention - I already wrote to
> > Mikki/Gordon that I might
> > >have missed something - but where is it written that the person to be
> > >nominated has to be a member of the GA?
> >
> >
> > Hey guys, all I did was forward.  Please write directly to
> > Gordon.  Thanks.
> >
> >


and robert in the meantime others have quoted the by law chapter and verse.

I leave for nepal in 4 hours so you will hear a lot less of me 
between now and november 7.

>
>Hi, Mikki.
>
>I understand that, that's why I put Gordon in copy of my reply.
>
>I appreciated you forwarding the post, and I hope that it is clear to you
>that my reply was to who wrote the text, not to the "messenger".
>If not, I apologize.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>P.S.: long list of cc: deleted


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

[IFWP] Job One, Stiffle ICANN - thoughts Rick White and the history and the organization of the ICANN

[Gordon Cook]

As ICANN moves to break its by laws one more time by nominating and 
then placing ex congressman Rick White on its  board lets look one 
more time at its origins.

They begin with Larry Landweber's October 1, 1995 memo to the ISOC 
board detailing an ISOC master plan successfully carried out over the 
past 4 years to place ISOC at the center and control of DNS and the 
IANA functions.  I published this memo in my report 
http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml

Who was at the table?  Nick Trio of IBM and ISOC.  Mike Nelson, long 
time aide to Al Gore and about to be moved to the FCC for 
"safekeeping" until the beginning of a Gore Administration.  I can 
pesonnally attest to Nelson's loyalty to IBM from my 1990-1992 
experience with him at OTA.  And how shocking when he finally went to 
work for Cochetti and Patrick as part of the Global Internet project 
earlier this year.  Among his early duties fund raising for ICANN.

Who else?  Ira Magaziner who, in early 1995, was assigned by  future 
ICANN fund raiser Tom Kalil to study the impact technology 
developments on economic issues that could be leveraged by American 
business and help ensure Clinton's re-election.  What did Magaziner 
focus on almost at the very beginning?  The Internet.  On a 15 city 
tour of private meetings in late 95 early 96 he went in front of 
businessmen to hear their concerns and get some sense of the policy 
issues that would make electronic commerce take off.  One key was 
rejigering the telecom laws in a way that could be sold as allowing 
more competition but would, in essence, allow unprecedented 
concentration of the nation's telecommunications into a handful of 
oligopolies that could use entities like the Global Internet project 
as means for coordination of a world wide strategy.  Al Gore and Rick 
White gave us the 1996 telecom reform act and told us how proud of 
themselves they were.

With Clinton elected again in November of 1996, Magaziner told me in 
September of 1998, that representatives of two large American 
companies (IBM and ATT I'll bet) came to him in in November or 
December of 1996 and warned him that  internet commerce would never 
get of the ground if the problem of misuse of corporate trademarks in 
the DNS was not settled.  This led to Lynn Beresford at PTO getting 
ready to bring PTO and WIPO into the fray  in  january 1997. 
Magaziner would give the large corporations whatever they needed to 
get the job done.

One of these was an attorney from Wilmer Cutler - DC's consumate 
political law firm.  These folk get their  credentials as corporate 
lobbyists on the conveyor belt that moves back and forth between 
firms like Wilmer Cutler and federal agencies.  Becky Burr,a  Wilmer 
Cutler lawyer, who was at the FTC, was choosen and was moved in 
January 97 into OMB under Sally Katzen where she was groomed to head 
the nascent federal working group on DNS.

Later in the Spring Burr was quietly moved to NTIA in the Commerce 
Department where she would use agency cover to carry out the Clinton 
administration's part of the bargain of extra legally asserting her 
right to hand over control of internet names, numbers and protocols 
to an industry group that would take on Jon Postel's functions and 
provide him legal protection that he had long sought and never 
received from ISOC.  (At some point - a year later? David Johnson, 
another Wilmer Cutler attorney would move to the growing legal staff 
at NSI and, having established independent  credentials via his 
attack by George Conrades in Berlin, would become responsible during 
the summer of 99  for bringing NSI into the ICANN fold - a mission 
acheived only a week ago.)

The brilliance of the Gore, Nelson, IBM strategy has been to create, 
by stealth, an industry led group that could step in and exert 
control over the net while keeping dissent bottled up and Congress 
under control.  One of the issues that had to have occupied a 
percentage of the time of the IANA transition advisory group put 
together in a private mail list by Jon Postel in February 98 was the 
selection of an attorney to, as Dave Farber has told me, give Postel 
legal protection and plan for the creation of what became ICANN.

The makeup of ITAG was interesting.  Not surprising -- all were close 
friends Jon Postel.  Jon Klensin was a member.  Jon's other tie was 
to Vint Cerf who had hired him as a consultant shortly after movng to 
MCI from CNRI  in 1994.  And Vint's loyalties were to ISOC and the 
IBM - MCI  joint effort known as the GIP.  Vint was also a firm 
advocate of an early failed ISOC effort known as the gTLD-MOU to 
declare Domain Name space a public resource that need to be managed 
by a  group like ISOC (see landweber's master plan) or by ICANN.

Geoff Huston of Telstra (the Australian PTT) was another ITAG member. 
I suspect that he was the link to giving one of the  two "Asian" 
board seats to an Australian.

Brian Carpenter was a key ITAG member.  Brian worked at CERN 

[IFWP] AT&T and Rick White and ICANN - the fix is in fwd with jamieLove's permission

[Gordon Cook]

I reported the first rumor of this about a week ago.

Rick white will be the fixer for Icann and the one to reassure every 
member of congressthat the ICANN rump  of cerf, dyson, roberts 
and patrick and sims is the only group that should be listened 
to...the american people don't count ...just money and big 
business...thank you icann ...thank you rick white.look at the 
email addresses below and you will see to whom the rump is handing 
control of the internet.

disgustedly,

gordon cook







>Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 11:16:19 -0400
>From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIM



>If ICANN is only going to do boring and unimportant technical work,
>why does a former US Congressman want to run for its board of
>directors, and why does AT&T, Microsoft and others lobby
>so hard to put their people on the board of directors?
>
>This is from AT&T's Marilyn Cade's campaign efforts...
>
>  Jamie
>
>-
>"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/07/99 04:08:50 PM
>
>To:   'Danny Weitzner' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Dave Fares' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  'David Olive' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Dennis Jennings'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Don Telage' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Ed
>Behrens'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed J. Black/Ccianet, 'Fritz Attaway'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Gordon Ross' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>'Glee
>  Harrah Cady-Alexa' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Greg Garcia'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Greg Phillips'
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'Gymer, Keith'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Jason D.Oxman'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Joe Alhadeff' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"'John
>  C. Lewis, BT'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'John Logalbo'
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  'John Montjoy' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'jon england'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Jon Englund'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Judith Krug' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>'Karen
>  Possner' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Keith Gymer'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Ken Whitaker (LCA)'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Kristen Verderame'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Lee Chinitz-Motorola'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Linda Dadamio' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"'Lucey,
>  Anne'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Marc Berejka (LCA)'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Maryann Mccormick'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Maura Colleton'
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'McClellan, Donald'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Mike Kirk'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Mike Heltzer' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Ollie Smoot' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Paul Kane'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Paul Resnick' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Philip
>  Sheppard' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'PSWG'
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Rick Lane'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Roger Cochetti' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>'Sally
>  Davis' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Sarah B. Deutsch'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Sheila O'Neill'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Steve Metalitz' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Susan McFee'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
>  <"TCASEY/0002018157"@MCIMAIL.COM>, "'Tim D. Casey'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Tom Barrett-CTO-NetNames'
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc:   'Dave Pine' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jberman
>  , "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Peter Schalestock' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Subj

[IFWP] December 1999 COOK Report on Internet - Regulator's Dilemma

[Gordon Cook]

Regulator's Dilemma -- Cable versus Internet & Vertical versus 
Horizontal Organizing Paradigms for Equinix, VCs and ICANN

Some Notes from your Editor.  In preparing this issue I have been 
doing much thinking about how to view Internet technology from both a 
business and regulatory model.  Four articles have forced this focus. 
Three, one on Equinix Internet Business Centers, one on venture 
capitalists and one on ICANN are published herein.  The fourth on the 
issue of how Internet Access to cable networks in Canada could become 
the focus of a new regulatory paradigm is by Francois Menard. It 
couldn't be finished in time. I anticipate being able to publish this 
as a part one of the January 2000 COOK Report within a few days after 
I return from Nepal on November 6th.

This article grew out of conversations with Francois Menard who has 
been looking very closely at the dispute between Videotron and 
Canadian ISPs over Open Access to Videotron's cable network in 
Canada.  From the framework outlined in "Netheads versus Bellheads" 
(www.tmtendon.com), Menard has applied his understanding of the 
technology to make some persuasive arguments about the choices facing 
Canadian regulators. As I read his drafts I pressed him to elaborate 
on and generalize the assumptions that he had applied.  The result 
has become a rough draft of a document that I believe carries forward 
the ideas expressed in Netheads versus Bellheads. The conclusions 
that are so well founded that they may become extremely compelling 
basis from which to rethink current regulatory approaches to 
telecommunications.  I want to use this preface to summarize my own 
understanding of the issues involved and to alert my readers to some 
things to think about between now and my publication of his completed 
piece in mid November.

The Impact of the Internet on Technology Development and Regulation

We are looking squarely at a situation where the pace of technology 
development has outstripped the ability of politicians and regulators 
to deal with it.  We need to remind ourselves that - from the 
introduction of the telegraph 150 years ago through radio, telephony, 
and television -  telecommunications technologies have grown and 
prospered as vertically integrated businesses with heavy emphasis on 
infrastructures which to be need regulated as natural monopolies in 
order for them to grow and prosper and to serve thereby the public's 
needs.  Such technologies often included proprietary twists designed 
to give one large corporation's vertical monopoly a competitive edge 
over another's infrastructure.  Significant  economic inefficiency 
was produced by each company having to build its own distribution 
infrastructure. This then led to a situation where companies could 
turn to regulators and plead for protection. They would argue that 
they could only afford to undertake the expense of an upgrade to 
their infrastructure if they were promised that they would not be 
required to share it with competitors.

During the past 25 years Moore's law and the TCP/IP protocol have 
built a very different foundation for telecommunications. 
Astonishing advances in integrated circuitry have created a situation 
where equipment needed to add requisite intelligence to a 
telecommunications network was no longer so terribly expensive that 
it could only be afforded by a vertically integrated monopoly. For 
example a PC having the power of a minicomputer of a decade ago now 
costs as much as a television set.  With the release of the Apple G4 
the computational power of a 1990 supercomputer is yours for $2500.

The second part of the revolutionary wave facing us is the impact of 
the TCP/IP protocol.  IP gave us generic "envelopes" into which 
binary data could be dumped and sent via basic transport protocols 
across a network for processing at ever more intelligent endpoints on 
the desktops of users. This is the essence of the "stupid network" as 
argued by David Isenberg in 1997. Just deliver the bits. For the 
first time a horizontally oriented telecommunications infrastructure 
could be built via inexpensive technologies with companies invited to 
plug into each other tinker toy fashion.

Those operating under this world view merely offer others TCP/IP 
bandwidth into which they may plug their networks.  Bandwidth 
providers can interconnect and, just so long as they use the same 
public domain interoperable protocols, they can focus on an effort of 
interconnecting separate and individually owned infrastructure. 
Because this infrastructure does not have to be vertically 
integrated, it can be plugged together in chunks like building blocks 
of Lego or the Tinker Toys of an earlier generation.

This infrastructure does not need a single central authority point 
since the reliability of the network is governed by the TCP/IP stack 
residing inside each user's machine talking to the TCP/IP protocol 
stack resident within the machine elsewhere with

Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John PatricksHouse of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority

[Gordon Cook]

>Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > greg -- you may be  right.
>
> > Yet if you are right and with an ICANN failure all big business would
> > have to do would be to go to Congress for a quick and easy fix, then
> > I ask what are Cerf and Patrick afraid of?
>
>Personally, I think that Cerf and Patrick (and others) are trying to
>strike some type of compromise between the business imperatives that
>are shaping the modern Internet with the cooperative community values
>that created the Internet.  In a sense ICANN is the last link to
>Postel's traditional Internet stewardship.

well of course Postel, like ICANN, was rather impeious and did what 
he pleased.  A key differ ence he was tusted.  ICANN is not

>when yuo say that  cer f and patrick are trying to
>strike some type of compromise between the business imperatives that
>are shaping the modern Internet with the cooperative community values
that created the Internet, you are making an amazing statement.

I think we bing similar information to the poblem.  however I fail to 
arrive at you concluson.  please justiy and back up with detail your 
rather sweeping statement.




>You have to admit that anything that might happen to cause investors
>to doubt the stability of the Internet might have an unpleasant effect
>on the stock market.

maybe yes maybe know.  my position contrary to esther is hat the 
pocess DOES matter. The ends do NOT justify the means.  unpleasant? 
so be it?





> Also, historically, the type of fix Congress has
>had to make to ensure the stability of key communications media has
>favored business imperatives.


so?  there is some small hope of redress with congress.  with esther 
and captin mike there is none.


>
>We still have journalists on this list, right?  I wonder if any of
>them will run your story ...

so?


>
>--gregbo
>gds at best.com


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

hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority

[Gordon Cook]

greg -- you may be  right.

Yet if you are right and with an ICANN failure all big business would 
have to do would be to go to Congress for a quick and easy fix, then 
I ask what are Cerf and Patrick afraid of?  Dave Farber who is on 
this list put it a little differently.

Aug 22, 1999: Farber:  "I wish the Board had moved more rapidly to do 
the job they assumed when they agreed to take office. What ever the 
reasons for the delay, it would be unconscionable for the Board to 
stop doing its task."

I had some spirited interchange with Dave then trying to ascertain 
what he judged to be the "job they assumed"  and the "task" the board 
was doing.  I don't think other than an expression of irritation I 
ever received an answer.  Of course nothing reqires Dave to answer 
should he choose not to.  I realize that.  But I would  suggest his 
deisres above are cryptically phrased  and wonder what the advantage 
is to him or his list readers or to the internet of speaking in such 
cryptic terms.

Since then we have had some further debate on why ICANN failure and 
government involvement would endager the internet.  One would think 
that when Cerf and Patrick asked VCs for money for ICANN holding out 
the failure of the internet and e-commerce as a danger they would be 
prepared to back up their worry with a real scenario that would let 
others judge.   Have asked the same question of Dave Farber.  About 
two weeks ago (maybe 3?) he promised to work on one saying not to 
expect it in a matter of days.  Since I have not seen him publish one 
I assume that he is still dilligently working on his scenario.

Given the importance of this one would think, if Patrick, Cerf, and 
Farber were not spreading FUD, we'd have had their explanation by 
now.. unless the explanation were so horrible that they feared 
setting off shock waves by saying in public what they had in mind. 
My hypothesis about calling attention to the lack of legal authority 
for the Department of Commerce to do what it is doing is the only 
scenario I can  come up with for explaining their ominous but 
otherwise vague warnings.

>Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But now the other part of this picture also begins to come into
> > focus. This is the curious insistence of folk like Vint Cerf, John
> > Patick and Dave Farber to say that if ICANN does not succeed, the
> > Internet and electonic commerce will fail.  When asked for a thorough
> > and reasoned explanation of why none of these men have an answer.  I
> > suspect that I know why.  The answer is that the authority for DNS,
> > IP number allocation and port assignment rested not in law but in the
> > consensual agreement of the Internet community with Jon Postel.  Now
> > Postel is gone. The department of commerce without a shred of legal
> > authority to do so has stepped up to and asserted like General Haig
> > that it is in control now.  It will hold the reigns of power until it
> > can turn them over to ICANN.  This is why ICANN must not fail because
> > it would them be revealed  to the world and especialy to investors in
> > the high flying Internet stocks that no signle legal authority
> > existed over the operaton of the Internet's address system.
>
>Well, I don't expect statements like this to make the front pages of
>the Wall Street Journal. :) However, in the event that the CEOs of Internet
>500 companies did become aware of this, I imagine they would lobby for some
>sort of Federal intervention to work out a domain name, IP address, and
>protocol policy that did permit them to communicate, while maintaining the
>existing agreements under which the NII was created.  History tells us that
>when this sort of thing happened in the past (frequency allocation), big
>business came out on top.
>
>--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] NEW -  Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN
and it Allies' Stealth Agenda  http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml

[IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSICartel and DOC authority - part 2

[Gordon Cook]

Can DoC Empower ICANN?

The answer is likely yes if no one questions highly suspect DOC 
authority in this area.  The big prize seems to be the root zone 
files.  If NTIA closes out is MOU by giving ICANN the root, it will 
be exercising authority which most observers that we have talked with 
don't believe it has.   We asked an attorney with significant 
experience in both DNS litigation and communications regulation for 
his opinion.  That opinion follows:

The basic problem with the approach of the Department of Commerce 
(DOC) to privatization of DNS is that DOC lacks any recognized legal 
authority either over the global Internet or the Internet's Domain 
Name System. DOC's communications-related functions are limited by 
statute to policy development, and (except for the assignment of 
domestic telecommunications frequencies) do not include any 
regulatory or rulemaking powers. The DOC White Paper is not, as DOC 
emphasized, a mandatory rule, but rather only a general statement of 
policy without the force or effect of law.

There is thus substantial doubt as to the legal authority of DOC and 
the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) 
to direct, regulate or supervise the operations of ICANN. The 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOC and ICANN asserts that 
"DOC has authority to participate in the DNS Project with ICANN" 
under 15 U.S.C. 1512, 1525 and 47 U.S.C. 902. Yet even a superficial 
examination of these statutes shows that they do not empower DOC to 
control the Internet's DNS system or to regulate a US non-profit 
corporation (such as ICANN) in setting rules for international 
competition for Internet domain names.

As an executive branch agency, DOC's powers are controlled by its 
so-called "enabling statute." 15 U.S.C. 1512 authorizes DOC to 
"foster, develop and promote foreign and domestic commerce." 15 
U.S.C. 1525 permits DOC to engage in "joint projects . . . on matters 
of mutual interest" with nonprofit organizations. Even if the 
international nature of gTLDs were within the scope of DOC's powers 
over "foreign" commerce - an extra-territorial application of U.S. 
law that appears to have no precedent - these general provisions do 
not authorize DOC to promulgate rules for DNS, either directly or by 
delegation of that power to a private corporation. The fact that DOC 
and ICANN styled the MOU as a "joint project" cannot be bootstrapped 
into the power to control DNS, for example by ordering NSI to 
transfer the Root A server to ICANN.

A review of the DNS proceedings before DOC reveals that, until 
recently, DOC itself appears to have agreed that it lacks the 
affirmative power to regulate DNS operations on the Internet. The 
February 1998 Green Paper initially proposed that DOC would 
promulgate rules opening up new gTLDs and would order NSI to transfer 
the root to a neutral third-party. Yet the June 1998 White Paper did 
not establish any rules, and was issued solely as a "general 
statement of policy." This is entirely consistent with the limited 
scope of NTIA's statutory powers. As a part of DOC, NTIA is charged 
with performance of DOC's "communications and information functions." 
47 U.S.C. 901(b)(1). These include:

1.  Serving as "the President's principal advisor on 
telecommunications policies;"

2. Developing "telecommunications policies pertaining to . . 
. the regulation of the telecommunications industry;" and

3."Coordinating the telecommunications activities of the 
executive branch and assisting in the formulation of policies and 
standards for those activities."

47 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(C)-(I). Except for frequency assignment, NTIA 
therefore does not create rules or regulations for any 
telecommunications provider or industry segment. It's role is 
advisory and policy development, not substantive regulation.

The history of DNS development over the past several years merely 
underscores that until entry of the ICANN MOU, neither DOC nor NITA, 
like their predecessor NSF, has asserted any substantive powers to 
direct operation of the DNS system. In the 1998 Thomas v. NSI case, 
NSF stated that the Cooperative Agreement, the NSI contract that has 
since been transferred to DOC, requires NSI to "follow the policy 
guidance of a non-governmental body [IETF] in consultation with the 
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, another non-governmental 
entity." Likewise, the White Paper took pains to emphasize that it 
was not "a substantive regulatory regime for the domain name system . 
. . . [It] is not a substantive rule, does not contain mandatory 
provisions and does not itself have the force and effect of law." 63 
Fed. Reg. at 31748. It is thus quite curious, to say the least, that 
the MOU describes the White Paper as providing legal authority for 
DOC to "transition DNS management to the private sector."

When an agency acts in ways that exceed its statutory authority, the 
Administrative Procedure Act (AP

[IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSICartel and DOC authority

[Gordon Cook]

After all of ICANN's saber rattling about how it would bing the NSI 
to heel and through measures ranging up to and includng rebid of the 
cooperative agreement by sept 30 next year in order to put NSI  out 
of business, we have now a deal where, thanks to DoC and ICANN, NSI 
has managed to get its security guaranteed.  For example:

" ICANN's authority to set policy for the registry may be terminated 
if Department of Commerce concludes that ICANN has not made 
sufficient progress towards entering into agreements with other 
registries and NSI is competitively disadvantaged."

ICANN has also seen to it that NSI is furher enthroned by stipulating 
that come jan 15, 2000
" NSI will be entitled to establish its own prices for registrar 
services (the Cooperative Agreement currently requires  NSI to charge 
$35 per year for those services). "

W ho here thinks that with NSI's move  web based registration and 
payment up font policies it has not now established the economy of 
scale to put competing registrars out of busness  by charging say 
$17.50 a year instead  of $35?

ICANN's trade mark lobby has insisted on a uniform right to strip 
domain name holders of their domains, so price is the only 
disciminator left in the maket.  NSI would be foolish not to weild 
the price lever wih a vengeance and thereby put the finishing touches 
on whatDoC already has created -- an ICANN NSI cartel.

But now the other part of this picture also begins to come into 
focus. This is the curious insistence of folk like Vint Cerf, John 
Patick and Dave Farber to say that if ICANN does not succeed, the 
Internet and electonic commerce will fail.  When asked for a thorough 
and reasoned explanation of why none of these men have an answer.  I 
suspect that I know why.  The answer is that the authority for DNS, 
IP number allocation and port assignment rested not in law but in the 
consensual agreement of the Internet community with Jon Postel.  Now 
Postel is gone. The department of commerce without a shred of legal 
authority to do so has stepped up to and asserted like General Haig 
that it is in control now.  It will hold the reigns of power until it 
can turn them over to ICANN.  This is why ICANN must not fail because 
it would them be revealed  to the world and especialy to investors in 
the high flying Internet stocks that no signle legal authority 
existed over the operaton of the Internet's address system.

Network Solutions had the financial and legal muscle to bring a court 
case challenging DoC's auhority. Therefore, ICANN and DoC had no 
choice but to give in and guarantee Network Solution's future. 
Behind the scenes in Washington a frenzied search for anything that 
could be used to grant DoC authority over the DNS and the other IANA 
functions has been carried out.  It has been a failure. 
Consequently, Cerf, Farber, and Patrick plead that ICANN must finish 
the task, but are silent when asked why.  They simply cannot afford 
to call attention to the fact that the king at commerce has no 
clothes.  With a naked king, they are despirate to clothe the ICANN 
crown prince until it can transfer power.

Part 2 of this post is a legal anaysis by Glenn manishenn of why DoC 
has no authority.

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

[IFWP] Vint Cer f never understood internetworking aside from not understanding that ICANN is neither transparent nor participatory

[Gordon Cook]

ICANN wants to control the pie top down, network fashion.  Cerf with 
bell headed view of large legacy network vertically integrated MCI 
World Com infrastructure wants to found internet growth on a single 
regulatory control oriented model known as ICANN.  Cer f 's employer 
is one of the huge companies intent on expanding market share of 
their global networks at the cost of diversity and continued scaling 
of the internet to be found in the concept of Internetworking.  Co 
author of internet protocol never came to understand that internet is 
based on the inter networking of different networks and different 
business models connected at layer three.


Sept 16 GIP press release http://www.gip.org/pr19990916a.htm:

"The GIP is firm in its commitment to support a transparent, 
participatory process -- and ICANN is working hard to provide that. 
In fact I see no other existing, viable alternative," said Vint Cerf, 
Senior Vice President at MCI Worldcom. "Organizations whose business 
plans rely on the smooth functioning and continued growth of Internet 
can assure stable administrative management of Internet domain and 
address space by providing interim financial support to ICANN, which 
needs at least another $1 million in funds until an agreed financial 
support framework can be established," he added.

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

[IFWP] date of new york times quote on esthers inter est in doing realwork? and to hell with process??

[Gordon Cook]

Does anyone have the date and contest for this outstanding comment?



In a recent New York Times article, Esther Dyson
was quoted as saying "With all due respect, we
are less interested in complaints about process"
and more interested in "doing real work and
moving forward."

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

Re: [IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM

[Gordon Cook]

Yet another  propaganda piece artfully and deceptively designed to 
reassure those who haven't been paying close attention to facts of 
what this unsuable unaccountable clique is doing.  The pattern of 
deception continues.  ISOC, Vint cerf, Patrick himself, Roberts, 
Dyson continue to manuever into place an organization that is 
absolutely unaccountable.

Note Patrick's silken assurances below.  Contrast his frank statement 
on June  8th of this year to VCs when he tried to get money 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."

POLICT TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the internet.  There you 
have it.  Privately in Patricks own words June 8th 1999.  Not as he 
says below just coordinate the internet plumbing.

Patrick to the Venture Capital ists on June 8th.   "Not sound 
alarmist, but if ICANN fails e-business/e-anything is in jeopardy. 
This means your future investments and your past ones."

Now I and others including Pat Townson as moderator to 65,000 readers 
of Telecom Digest have asked Cerf, R oberts, Dyson et al to come up 
with a real scenario rather than a sound byte as to why the internet 
is in trouble and e-commerce will fail if ICANN fails.  Not one of 
the ICANN clique has come forward with anything except the statement 
that if ICANN fails, the net will be accountable to politicians who 
in turn are directly accountable to the electorate. (That apparently 
is seen by the ICANN power brokers as unacceptable.)  If you lift the 
self serving bed covers and look at the naked ICANN beneath you will 
see that ICANN is accountable to no one and certainly not to its 
membership which is not yet and installed and from which the ability 
to sue ICANN is being prophilacticly removed.

You Dave Farber were asked for your own scenario that explained why 
the Internet is in danger if ICANN fails.  About 7 to 10 days ago you 
said you were very busy and promised one when you got the chance. 
One would think, if these assertions were correct, that the Internet 
really would fail that Cerf, Dyson, Patrick, Roberts etc, as the core 
operatives of the ICANN/GIP, would have had well worked out arguments 
that they could publish, and that they would use these arguments to 
defend ICANN as the solution.  One might have thought that they would 
trust the rest of us to come to our  own conclusions.  That they 
offer  instead nothing but one or two sentence prophecies of gloom 
and doom while saying that we should trust an organization that can 
and does continually change the legal rules for its operation (its 
bylaws) bespeaks their  healthy contempt for the rest of us.

This is what Cerf says in private on June 7 1999.  Compare it to 
Patricks smooth assurances: "If IBM and MCI Worldcom can come up with 
$1M in "bridge" funding, to be paid back at a later time under 
reasonable terms that will not harm ICANN, then perhaps we can begin 
a new fundraising campaign knowing that we have the ability to back 
up the campaign with a rescue effort in the short term.  It will be 
easier for John Sidgmore to make the case to the MCI WorldCom 
management if IBM is willing to go into this with us and split the 
$1M cost.  Is it possible? I would then launch a campaign with GIP, 
ITAA, Internet Society, and other interested groups on the basis that 
ICANN must succeed or Internet will be in jeopardy.  This ought to 
play well with any company whose stock price is dependent on a 
well-functioning Internet." "Thoughts?""

and 48 hours ago from Jon Cohen  head of ICANN's intellectual 
property constituency:
   "a new, secret candidate who may be announcing his intention
to run [for the ICANN Board] and he apparently already has, or will 
have the support of
business, ISPs and most Americans. I spoke to Steve, and he
immediately informed me that this candidate is likely former
Congressman Rick Waters, from the Pacific Northwest, who is
apparently very well known and has worked in this area."

R ick White will be ICANN's chosen "fixer/lobbyist' to reassure the 
US Congress that it should no longer question Icann's intentions. 
The fixing will go on while ICANN will own all domain names and can 
remove anyone's name for any reason that it so chooses.  Quoting 
ICANN: "You agree that your domain name may be canceled, deleted or 
transferred at any time."

Take a look at the complexity of pattrick's monstrosity at 
http://www.wia.org/icann/after_icann-gac.htm

you decide.



>[please note this is from John Patrick from IBM not me (some IPers 
>assume everything they read comes from me :-)  djf]
>
>
>Dave, recently there has been a lot of discussion about ICANN and the role
>IBM plays in the organization's efforts.  A lot of what I have read is
>inaccurate

[IFWP] A "new secret candidate" -- ICANN to Move to implementcongressional Fix? Fact or Fantasy. You decide.

[Gordon Cook]

REVISED POST NOW INCLUDING SOURCE OF WHAT I SENT AS RUMOR

Former Washington state Congressman Rick White is believed to be 
running for a seat on the ICANN Board representing the Domain Name 
Supporting Organization.

Rick White is touted (with a different last name) in an email from 
Johnathan Cohen of the ICANN intellectual property constituency as

Cohen:  "a new, secret candidate who may be announcing his intention 
to run and he apparently already has, or will have the support of 
business, ISPs and most Americans. I spoke to Steve, and he 
immediately informed me that this candidate is likely former 
Congressman Rick Waters, from the Pacific Northwest, who is 
apparently very well known and has worked in this area."

End quotation from cohen - Gordon Cook speaking:

White, an attorney with Perkins Koie (Coie?) was elected to Congress 
in 1994 as a foot soldier to Newt Gingrich.  Remember that other Newt 
foot soldier Esther Dyson who joinedwhat was it called? The Peace 
Progress and Freedom Foundation about that time?  Remember Newt 
wanting a lap top for every school kid in the USA?  You can bet that 
the Information Technology Association of America was salivating at 
that prospect of that one.  (Jon Englund is now ICANN's man inside 
the ITAA.)

White ran on a very conservative family values platform in 1994, 
re-elected in 96 and shortly there after had a nasty divorce and 
married a legislative aid and lost the last election.  But in the 
meantime during his congressional stint he stood up and tried to take 
credit for the 1996 telecom reform act.  "It's a good bill; its a 
fair bill; it's the best we could do"  he said.  Reminds me of 
Icann.  But 3 years ago my friend Jeff Michka awarded him the grand 
gaggie for  1996 for the most disingenous statement of the season on 
a telecom matter -- if memory serves me right.

Now White hearing the Internet's siren song went straight for the 
Congressional Internet Caucus and became its Chair.  Then last fall 
he lost.  Back to Seattle and Bainbridge Island and to doing what you 
do when you lose your seat.  Becoming a lobbyist.  And my friend in 
late July or early August 99 turns on C-span 2 and there's Rick 
White, an attorney leading a discussion on the importance of the 
Internet with the congressional Internet caucus.  What was that all 
about he wondered?

Well, now if Cohen's email is correct, we know.

ICANN has taken some real congressional flak this summer.  It needs a 
nice Mr Fixer to channel big corporate assurances that estee and the 
captin mike and vint and john really have the best interests of the 
internet at heart.

Rick White would be a superb candidate for the corporate interests 
who want to establish their regulatory control over the internet and 
their ownership of our domain names and now realize they don't have 
their congressional flanks covered.  This is control over the 
internet, over the future of telecommuncations and over the ground 
rules for electronic commerce at stake.   Vast sums of money, vast 
power.  Rick's services as ICANN shill to placate congress and lull 
it to sleep --- what a jewell.   What a LOVELY idea.  Ah yes Rick 
White for DNSO board member.  Teamed with Jon Englund and ITAA, he'll 
make sure that the door to Congressional redress is closed.

Also note how ATT shows its face below.  (ATT works largely through 
Marilyn Cade who has been cozying up to Becky Burr since the summer 
of 1997.) Marilyn has done yeoman's work to ensure that our domain 
names will be owned not by us but by the trademark interests.  Note 
what Cohen says in the email below about CADE's forthcoming meeting 
of 70 very large hi tech corporations to be updated on the ICANN 
names council constituency activity.



By the way here is the full source, but not the full list of addressees

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 20:13:16 -0400
>From: Jonathan Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: IPC Conference Call

[snip]

>In addition, I will likely be going to Washington next week to attend a
>meeting being organized by Marilyn Cade for about 70  very large hi-tech
>corporations to be updated on the activities of the business, registrar,
>isp and IP constituencies, and she has asked me to address them as
>President of the IPC, which I have tentatively agreed to do. At the same
>time she is organizing a get-together for Peter Dengate Thrush to introduce
>him to I don't know who, as an ICANN board nominee and NC rep (I advised
>her that he is not a NC rep).  While there, I was hoping to meet with Barb
>Dooley, Theresa Swinehart and others to try and see if there is a
>possibility of getting support for the IPC candidacy.  Tod has indicated
>that he is willing to assist me, and Marilyn has offered to provide rooms
>at AT&T for any

[IFWP] ICANN to Move to implement congressional Fix? Fact or Fantasy. You decide.

[Gordon Cook]

I have just heard a very disturbing rumor from a very credible 
source.  Former Washington state Congressman Rick White is believed 
to be running for a seat on the ICANN Board representing the Domain 
Name Supporting Organization.

White, an attorney with Perkins Koie (Coie?) was elected to Congress 
in 1994 as a foot soldier to Newt Gingrich.  Remember that other Newt 
foot soldier Esther Dyson who joinedwhat was it called? The Peace 
Progress and Freedom Foundation about that time?  Remember Newt 
wanting a lap top for every school kid in the USA?  You can bet that 
the Information Technology Association of America was salivating at 
that prospect of that one.  (Jon Englund is now ICANN's man inside 
the ITAA.)

White ran on a very conservative family values platform in 1994, 
re-elected in 96 and shortly there after had a nasty divorce and 
married a legislative aid and lost the last election.  But in the 
meantime during his congressional stint he stood up and tried to take 
credit for the 1996 telecom reform act.  "It's a good bill; its a 
fair bill; it's the best we could do"  he said.  Reminds me of 
Icann.  But 3 years ago my friend Jeff Michka awarded him the grand 
gaggie for  1996 for the most disingenous statement of the season on 
a telecom matter -- if memory serves me right.

Now White hearing the Internet's siren song went straight for the 
Congressional Internet Caucus and became its Chair.  Then last fall 
he lost.  Back to Seattle and Bainbridge Island and to doing what you 
do when you lose your seat.  Becoming a lobbyist.  And my friend in 
late July or early August 99 turns on C-span 2 and there's Rick 
White, an attorney leading a discussion on the importance of the 
Internet with the congressional Internet caucus.  What was that all 
about he wondered?

Well, now if the rumor I have heard is correct, we know.

ICANN has taken some real congressional flak this summer.  It needs a 
nice Mr Fixer to channel big corporate assurances that estee and the 
captin mike and vint and john really have the best interests of the 
internet at heart.

Rick White would be a superb candidate for the corporate interests 
who want to establish their regulatory control over the internet and 
their ownership of our domain names and now realize they don't have 
their congressional flanks covered.  This is control over the 
internet, over the future of telecommuncations and over the ground 
rules for electronic commerce at stake.   Vast sums of money, vast 
power.  Rick's services as ICANN shill to placate congress and lull 
it to sleep --- what a jewell.   What a LOVELY idea.  Ah yes Rick 
White for DNSO board member.  Teamed with Jon Englund and ITAA, he'll 
make sure that the door to Congressional redress is closed


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

RE: [IFWP] Jim Rutt Should Resign

[Gordon Cook]

>Gordon,
>
>Resign from what? From his position at NSI, maybe?

yes of course from his position at NSI.  he presented himself as 
someone who knew and cared about the Internet as well as about his 
shareholders.

If he takes action to enable ICANN with its dollar per name tax, he 
sells out the internet to the Vint Cerf John Patrick run GIP and to 
the self appointed ISOC college of cardinals with Esther  Dyson as 
errand runner for the high and mighty of the debt ridden MCIWCom and 
other  representatives of American internet technologies trailing 
edge.


>I thought that as CEO he is accountable to his shareholders, not to the
>Internet Community (not even to speak about the IFWP list).
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 1999 9:47 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [IFWP] Jim Rutt Should Resign
> >
> >
> > Rutt in his Rutt report said he cared about the internet.  That one
> > of his highest priorities was to preserve the freedom and
> > independence of the Internet.
> >
> > Today I heard from a source with primary knowledge that Pincus wasn't
> > lying.that NSI rather than fight ICANN will enable it by signing
> > a much modified version of the registrar's accreditation agreements.
> >
> > If Rutt is an honorable man who meant what he said, he clearly hasn't
> > delivered.  Resigning is the best way to preserve his honor.
> >
> > If the Rutt Report was was purposeful deception, then we will watch
> > him stay on and slip ICANN's regulatory nose around all our necks.
> >
> > Maybe you believe ICANN will make real consessions in a modified
> > agreement?  i don't.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> >


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

Re: [IFWP] As sent to my IP list Would the U.S. Governmentregulate the Internet? And how will this come about? by Richard J.Solomon

[Gordon Cook]

>[Richard J. Solomon is the Chief Scientist of the UPenn Center for 
>Communications Technology and Policy and the  co-author with Lee 
>McKnight and Russell Neuman of The Gordian Knot: Gridlock on the 
>Information Highway (MIT Press, 1997)
>
>Would the U.S. Government regulate the Internet? And how will this come about?
>
>"Richard J. Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I've answered the first question already: it is naïve to think that 
the Federal Government (not to mention the other 191 world 
governments) won't impose regulations on the Net, and it is naïve to 
think that any such infrastructure with the threat to completely 
influence society and change power relationships - as advertised by 
the Net's own hypists and promoters - can possibly avoid 
entanglements with the Government.

given ICANN as the only alternative

I will take the federal government any day in the week. It is far 
less arrogant in its treatment of its citizens than Cerf, Roberts and 
Dyson .

It *is* the process some ill defined end must not be allowed to 
justify ICANN's means.

I reject the immaculate conception of esther as net mother goddess


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

[IFWP] Jim Rutt Should Resign

[Gordon Cook]

Rutt in his Rutt report said he cared about the internet.  That one 
of his highest priorities was to preserve the freedom and 
independence of the Internet.

Today I heard from a source with primary knowledge that Pincus wasn't 
lying.that NSI rather than fight ICANN will enable it by signing 
a much modified version of the registrar's accreditation agreements.

If Rutt is an honorable man who meant what he said, he clearly hasn't 
delivered.  Resigning is the best way to preserve his honor.

If the Rutt Report was was purposeful deception, then we will watch 
him stay on and slip ICANN's regulatory nose around all our necks.

Maybe you believe ICANN will make real consessions in a modified 
agreement?  i don't.

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

Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names

[Gordon Cook]

let's hope she is telling the truth.  I for one don't believe that she is.



>I found Esther's written critique of content "self-regulation," as distributed
>on Farber's list, to be wonderfully on target--and a great relief.
>
>Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > FWIW, the first thing I said when I stood up was that I was speaking for
> > myself and not for ICANN, since ICANN is not and should not be involved in
> > the rating or filtering business.
> >
> > Esther Dyson
> >
> > At 09:30 am 09/10/1999 -0700, Mark C. Langston 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:
>
>--
>m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
>syracuse university  http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/


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

[IFWP] Milton Meuller is the author of the paper on which I relied forthe Intro to Part 2 of the November COOK Report. Also Jim Rutt's Future?

[Gordon Cook]

I promised further word on the identity of the author of the paper on 
which I based the long introduction to my even longer report on 
ICANN. The author is Professor Milton Mueller of School of 
Information Studies of Syracuse University. Milton's paper analyzes 
ICANN as, at least in part, the product of ISOC alliance building. 
He has given me permission to name him as the author.

Milton intends that the paper be published in an academic journal 
and therefore has asked me not to give out the URL which is not 
publicly visible from his web site.  Nevertheless those of us who 
have been trying to figure out how ICANN came to be owe him a debt of 
gratitude.

In the meantime watch carefully the continued so called discussion 
between Network Solutions and the Commerce Department and ICANN which 
on Friday resulted in yet another discussion.  Network Solutions, if 
it had any nerve, could stop ICANN dead in its tracks by refusing to 
sign the registrar accreditation requirements.  I am still not 
absolutely sure which way the wind is blowing but I am seeing signs 
that tend to confirm the assertions of Andy Pincus that Network 
Solutions is going sign a compromise with ICANN and DoC, one that 
will be good for its bottom line but bad for the Internet.  Face it. 
ICANN is not about bringing competition to DNS.  It is about setting 
up its own monopoly over DNS to control it and, through its control, 
to control content on the Internet as well.  So do not be surprised 
if the next bait and switch on the part of ICANN is a deal that keeps 
NSI in business while NSI starts paying ICANN's bills at a dollar a 
name per year.

I  don't believe Jim Rutt would willingly sell out the Internet to 
ICANN.  However the fact that he made promises in Rutt Report #1 at 
the end of June and has not done a damned thing about keeping them is 
drawing well deserved condemnation down upon him.  If he meant what 
he said in June and has done nothing to deliver, then I must assume 
that the NSI Board has over ruled him and is preventing him from 
engineering a solution that is good for the Internet as well as for 
NSI.  If this is the case he should say so and RESIGN.  If somehow 
this is not the case, he owe's us Rutt Report #2.   And fast.

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

[IFWP] A useful tool in thinking about what ICANN is up too

[Gordon Cook]

Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:40:38 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IP: "The Regulatory Ratchet" and Interception
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:38:12 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "David P. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: "The Regulatory Ratchet" and Interception
>
>Dave - thanks for the pointer to the "consultation paper" on intercepts in
>the UK.  It was interesting, as you say.
>
>One portion of the paper uses a rhetorical technique that a friend, with
>many years of experience in regulated industries (power and medicine), used
>to call the "regulatory ratchet".  The "ratchet" is when a regulator makes
>a claim that a proposed rule is no more than the generally accepted
>practice in other jurisdictions.  (the discussion of the government's
>requirements on CSPs makes such a claim).  But even without specific
>intent, the rule tends to be slightly more restrictive, or enforced by
>penalties that are more powerful, than in the other referenced jurisdictions.
>
>Other jurisdictions then use the same logic to bring their regulations up
>to the severity of that slightly more powerful rule.
>
>The resulting regulatory system in the presence of such a "ratchet" becomes
>a positive feedback loop, with each step forward by one regulator
>justifying the next by another.
>
>The "regulatory ratchet" is hard to fight, because no regulator wants to
>look "softer" than its peers with regard to a problem, and the incremental
>losses are tiny, but irreversible.
>
>Damping the positive feedback loop requires cross-jurisdictional
>cooperation, and perhaps in some cases, the establishment of a
>countervailing ratchet.
>
>Perhaps  now is the time to form an international committee on Human
>Communication Rights that transcends jurisdiction.  The international
>bodies that regulate communications are all focused on the rights of
>governments and on the rights of non-human legal persons (corporations,
>etc.).  There appears to be no one who stands for the rights of individuals
>to communicate (which includes, but is not limited to, free speech rights
>of the traditional sort).
>- David
>
>WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html


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

[IFWP] Looks to me like a likely scenario should icann succeed Re:[IFWP] PICS and domain names

[Gordon Cook]

>>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

Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN

[Gordon Cook]

>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

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

[Gordon Cook]

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

[IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November CookReport - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enablingICANN

[Gordon Cook]

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

[IFWP] November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role inenabling ICANN

[Gordon Cook]

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 enabled

[IFWP] November 99 Cook Report -- Icann

[Gordon Cook]

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 tha

Re: [IFWP] Outcome or details of today's ICANN BoD teleconference?

[Gordon Cook]

>Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > more important is that i hope brock meeks is covering the
> > confirmation hear ings for the new administrator of NTIA.
>
>Who is it?
>
>
>Michael Sondow   I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
>Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
>

can't remeber the guy's name


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] Outcome or details of today's ICANN BoD teleconference?

[Gordon Cook]

would be nice to know indeed  i suspect that they will approve 
another extension of the testbed since nsi would sign their 
capitulation papers.

more important is that i hope brock meeks is covering the 
confirmation hear ings for the new administrator of NTIA.

lets hope he gets asked to cite the legal authority for NTIA's 
actions with ICANN . I wanna see what authority he thinks he 
has.

correct answernone






>Anyone have any information relating to what occurred today?
>
>(from the ICANN calendar page:)
>
>"September 9, 1999 - Special Meeting via Telephone
>
> The ICANN Initial Board of Directors will hold a special meeting
> by telephone on Thursday, September 9, 1999, at 09:00am US Eastern
> time. The agenda for the call will be to update the Board on
> discussions with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Network
> Solutions, Inc., and to consider possible related actions."
>
>--
>Mark C. Langston   LATEST: 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


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] Pat Townson's note to fenello post in telecom digest vol. 19 #369

[Gordon Cook]

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And that comment about 'without any of
the messy enforcement problems' got him in some hot water along with
adding still more fuel to the fire in the ICANN controversy.  ICANN
has some very bizarre ways they want to deal with domain name disputes
to say the least ... and without even the slightest, tiny bit of
netizen input. Individual users and small commercial sites will have
absolutely no say-so in anything that happens. Have you seen the
agreement web sites will be required to sign off on in order to keep
(or register) their domain names? Oh, I know according to some people
around here we are not supposed to say anything bad about large
corporations, and how they have 'every right' to be here and how they
have the right to help set the rules and all that, and how we should
not object because they want to make a profit on the sale of their
newspapers, widgets or whatever, but things are getting way, way, way
past that point. They are going to be the *only* ones who have any
say about anything if ICANN gets its way.

And please do not call me an old-timer who is galled because the net
of the 1980's is not around any longer. If I had only purchased a
computer a month ago, gotten on line and stumbled across Internet
Society and ICANN by some accident, reading the tons of stuff that's
been getting sent my way in the past couple days would still scare me
badly. Those people mean business: they are trying to grab the net
and run with it;  the day congressional and/or Commerce Department
imprimateur comes down on it -- if it does -- is a day, that as 'they'
say, will live in infamy. I don't think, however, it is going to
happen now. Far too many people on the net have been climbing all
over them. Instead of me being a bitter, frustrated old man, Vint Cerf
may find himself in that position when MCI-Worldcom wakes up sometime
soon and realizes the half-million dollars they handed him a month
ago was squandered by giving it all to a lawyer to pay his fee and
then the whole thing still went down the tubes. Hey, wasn't that
lawyer supposed to be pro-bono?  That's what Vint Cerf and Esther
Dyson told us a year ago when they hired him.

MCI-Worldcom is never going to see a nickle of that five hundred
thousand back which Cerf convinced -- or guilt-tripped maybe? -- them
into handing over on the premise that the Internet was as good as
dead unless he and Esther got their way. You know the routine by now,
no money for Vint and Esther means no e-commerce, and no e-commerce
means no e-anything. I do not think Cisco is too happy about losing
150-thousand in the same racket either. Tomorrow I have another
installment for you in the special mailings I've been doing, with
more of their antics. I think you will enjoy it as much as I will
enjoy bringing it to you.   PAT]

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] My nose

[Gordon Cook]

Adam, respectfully, having observed some of the events of the capture 
of the non commercial constituency by ISOC, including the abandonment 
of DNCR by Kathy Klieman and the naive participation by Barbara 
Simon's on behalf of ACM, I have concluded that this constituency is 
tainted.

Karl I suspect can speak more eloquently on the DNSO constituency 
process than I.



>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > > That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different 
>way, like for
> > > instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
> >
> > I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
> > policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
> >
> > But I don't.
> >
> > There is no constituency of the DNSO that allows individuals who have
> > domain names to be members.
> >
>
>Karl, have you tried to join the non commercial constituency?
>
>And anyone know if the commercial constituency has rejected any
>applications from individual domain name holders?
>
>Adam
>
> > The DNSO General Assembly and Working Groups are being used by the DNSO
> > Names Council as clerical bodies.
> >
> > And the DNSO constituencies are biased 6:1 in favor of commerical
> > interests.
> >
> > The ASO and PSO exclude participation by individuals altogether.
> >
> > The At-Large Membership has just been dismembered.
> >
> > The board engages in performance art that they call "open meetings".
> >
> > The board finds consensus to extend its term despite the fact that
> > virtually all comment on the official comment place was against it.
> >
> > --karl--


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] a correction to Follow the Money Trail

[Gordon Cook]

The text of my essay last night contained an inadvertent error and an 
ambiguity.  Here is the problematic text:


While ICANN has been a closed door black box, the Europeans do have 
two members of a ten member board.  Before they sit back with 
satisfaction that Christopher Wilkinson has their interests 
adequately protected, they need to read and ponder carefully that 
ICANN, when the rubber meets the road, is a strictly American 
operation

The board of course has THREE European members.  They are:


Eugenio Triana, Hans Kraaijenbrink , Geraldine Capdeboscq


Wilkinson is not a board member but rather a GAC member who has been 
a lobbyist for the EC in these affairs for several years.  The 
ambiguity in my text was not intentional.

When this is published within the next week in the COOK Report the 
text will read:

While ICANN has been a closed door black box, the Europeans do have 
three members (Capdeboscq, Kraaijenbrink, and Triana) of a ten member 
board.  Before they sit back with satisfaction that Christopher 
Wilkinson (a GAC member representing the EU) has their interests 
adequately protected, they need to read and ponder carefully that 
ICANN, when the rubber meets the road, is a strictly American 
operation.


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] Follow the Money: an Inside View of ICANN Fundraising

[Gordon Cook]

Follow the Money: an Inside View of ICANN Fundraising

The COOK Report has received the full text of nine email messages 
detailing ICANN's efforts in June to stave off bankruptcy.  It has 
obtained independent verification that they are  messages that were 
given by ICANN to the House Commerce Committee Subcommitte on 
Oversight and Investigations that held hearings on July 22.  The 
e-mail below makes very clear that ICANN's support is focused largely 
within IBM MCI, Cisco and the Executive Office of the President. 
MCI's Vint Cerf and IBM's Vice President of Internet Technology, John 
Patrick show themselves as the masterminds of a campaign to collect 
funds from internet related companies.  The guise is that without 
ICANN the Internet cannot function smoothly and "if ICANN fails 
e-business/e-anything is in jeopardy." The messages show the grasping 
self-serving mindset of the ICANN clique - one that is useful to 
contrast to their avowed stance of public interest coordination of 
Internet technical functions.

ICANN has constructed an edifice of Byzantine complexity to do a job 
that six people are doing now for a cost of about $600,000 a year 
including equipment and overhead.  Those who have not bought into its 
socialist centralized, control-oriented mindset maintain that it is a 
job that does not need to be done and is one that will allow a 
handful of huge corporations to dominate the formerly decentralized 
entrepreneurial workings of the Internet.  The Internet is 
functioning quite well without ICANN.  Congress must ascertain what 
has motivated ICANN's core supporters, a group of only four people: 
Vint Cerf, John Patrick, Esther Dyson, and Mike Roberts to claim that 
the Internet is in danger?  Do we really want the Internet, which is 
functioning perfectly well, run by an unaccountable bureaucracy 
staging a global road show and spending annual some ten times the 
current amount that gets the job done?

Two legacy companies, IBM and MCI, are at the heart of a gambit to 
build -- with the aid of other legacy operations like Netscape and 
AT&T, and the hangers-on of the failed gTLD-MOU, IAHC, Core group -- 
an unaccountable operation that is at heart antithetical to the 
interests of the globally expanding entrepreneurial Internet. 
Leaders of most other internet companies, seeing through the 
Cerf-Patrick subterfuge, have not contributed to those directing the 
ICANN gambit.  Unfortunately, Cerf, Patrick, Dyson and Roberts didn't 
get the message that should have been delivered by their last years 
worth of fund raising efforts. ICANN should be put out of its misery 
and the Internet left to run itself.

The lessons taught by ICANN will provide strong motivation for domain 
name registrars and the regional IP number registries to contribute 
the six to seven hundred thousand dollars a year necessary to keep 
IANA functioning.  Left to its own devices we will find that the DNS 
registry/registrar industry will be able (perhaps with some 
congressional guidance) to form an association.  We shall see that 
this association will be able to operate multiple root servers in a 
way that will prevent most conflicts and that by letting the market 
place actually operate we shall quickly gain a larger and more stable 
DNS system.

The inner circle of ICANN is amazingly narrow.  MCI-WorldCom (Vin 
Cerf & John Sidgemore), IBM (John Patrick, Roger Cochetti, Mike 
Nelson & George Conrades) Mike Roberts (who at Educom was beholden to 
IBM funding), Esther Dyson (known as one of the most influential 
persons in the IT industry)  Joe Sims (anti trust attorney for the 
powerful law firm of Jones and Day) and Tom Kalil, the group's white 
house liason to the highest levels of the Clinton Gore administration.

An SOS from IBM and MCI WorldCom Falls Flat

The ICANN Papers begin with a June 7th Mike Roberts message to Mike 
Nelson, Roger Cochetti and Vint Cerf: "Esther and Joe and I are not 
quitters, but reality suggests that unless there is an immediate 
infusion of $500K to $1M there won't be a functioning ICANN by the 
end of August. There are various approaches that have been kicked 
around in the last several months - a second round from current 
supporters, a special appeal to those who have not given yet, a loan 
of some kind.  I don't think those of us on the ICANN side have a 
preference one way or the other."

On the same day Vint Cerf replied in a message showing the unusual 
length that he was prepared to go to salvage ICANN as an  MCI/IBM 
control vehicle.

Cerf: "I have talked with John Sidgmore.  We will try to get $500K at 
least "backup" in case nothing else in the way of fundraising works. 
Mike Nelson, I have copied John Patrick and Irving Wladawsky-Berger 
[Editor: an IBM e-commerce executive] on this message, as well as 
John  Sidgmore.  If IBM and MCI Worldcom can come up with $1M in 
"bridge" funding, to be paid back at a later time under reasonable 
terms that will not harm ICANN, the

[IFWP] esther's wpp reward

[Gordon Cook]

Although her ICANN role may have brought her some discomfort, she has 
picked up some nice rewards this year. The first was her very own 
television commercial on behalf of IBM's e-commerce campaign. The 
second came on June 8th when in London, the WPP Group PLC, one of the 
largest advertising agencies in the world "named Esther Dyson as a 
non executive director, effective June 28. . . . Swiss-born Esther 
Dyson, 47, is a luminary in the technology industry and has been 
highly influential in her field for the last 15 years. . . .  Dyson's 
eminent career in the IT sector stems from her remarkable ability to 
influence others with her ideas. . . . Upside magazine named her 
number 12 in its Elite 100, based on her influential abilities rather 
than her affiliation with any particular institution."

ICANN indeed does its best to influence.


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] ICANN requests Dave Farber not to refer to it as the "InternetOversight Board" "All you have to do is delay the truth until it nolonger matters" - Napoleon

[Gordon Cook]

This morning Dave Farber posted the following to his IP list and to 
the IFWP list.

Calling ICANN the Internet's Oversight Board was not a 
'misconception'.  It was in fact an accurate analysis by Jerri 
Claussing of the New York Times. Claussing has been watching what 
they do as well as what they say they are doing.

ICANN's protestations aside, anyone who has followed this carefully 
is well aware that ICANN is creating an extensive framework for 
Internet policy oversight.  That ICANN is so enormously sensitive 
about this speaks volumes about their desire to manipulate public 
opinion in such a way that understanding of where they are going does 
not arrive until it is too late.  The sad story is that if you read 
only their point of view, they look reasonable.  The sadder story is 
that it is working as the Markle Foundation, in all innocence, now 
seems to be interested in assisting them with their "democratic" 
goals.  The saddest point of all is that if you do not spend an 
inordinate amount of time following the complexities of ICANN 's 
actions, you will never understand why many of us are extremely upset 
with them.

"All you have to do is delay the truth until it no longer matters" - Napoleon

>To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)
>Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:18:26 -0400
>
>WHy does it need to be ICANN itself who does this?  Does no one else have
>the right to correct misconceptions? 
>
>Regardless, may I please ask you on behalf of ICANN to avoid the use of
>oversight in referring to ICANN outside of direct quotes?  (By all means
>please send this to the list.)
>
>Thanks,
>Esther
>
>At 09:30 pm 08/28/1999 -0400, David Farber wrote:
> >At 4:57 PM -0700 8/28/99, Anon wrote:
> >>I know the press refers to ICANN as the "Internet Oversight Board" but
> >>that's a horrible misconception that causes trouble.  For example,
> >>the ICANN does not oversee Internet Standards (that's IETF business)
> >>nor most aspects of managing the Internet (that's done by NANOG if anyone).
> >
> >and
> >
> >At 4:57 PM -0700 8/28/99, anon wrote:
> >>So can I ask that in the future, even if the article says "oversight"
> >>you refrain from using the term in your forwarded messages :-)
> >
> >
> >My standard reply is no one from ICANN has taken the initiative to
> >take the press to task for such misunderstanding . When they do I
> >will forward it to IP and with all other such misperceptions
> >
> >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] Alumnum foil hat: official headgear of the POC.

[Gordon Cook]

gee...huge laughthanks



>At 10:36 PM 8/26/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> >Bah, what crapof course sondow is real.  geez richard, secondary
> >cookreport will you so I can be fantasized about by these idiots.
>
>Done. Anybody else need secondary service and want to be part
>of the conspiracy ?
>--
>This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
>civilized world.  Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
>dollars to send everywhere.  Please be sure you know what you are doing.
>
>Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Conspiracy theories.

[Gordon Cook]

Bah, what crapof course sondow is real.  geez richard, secondary 
cookreport will you so I can be fantasized about by these idiots. 
Craig maybe when you live another 25 or 30 years you will see enough 
examples of socialist and their caring ideology turning into tyranny 
to know better than to support the schemes to tyhe crispens, dysons, 
and cerfs of the world.

those who preach that the internet is truly for everyone and they are 
truly for the little guy out of one side of their mouth whilst 
manuevering the outcome of an unnecessary process such that MCI and 
IBM can control the levels of power for the benefit of their 
executives stock funds and retirement perks.  Disgusted yeah, you 
damned betcha I am disgusted  ww.dnso.com is quite apt.   I 
had never heard of generalisssimo  sola before early january when I 
had the temerity to ask about a rumor that the core folk were gonna 
capture the dnso.  then javier snuck out  of the slime to make 
all manner of vicious attacks on me...before disappearing back into 
the muck to capture the dnso



>Kent,
>
>Outstanding sleuthing, though my impression of Michael Sondow is that
>he's a real and independent person, and that Richard just gave him a
>little help in the form of hosting. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
>kind of thing.
>
>The nastiness does get extreme around here.
>Consider http://www.dnso.com/
> ^^^ (not .org)
>
>Tasteless beyond parody.
>
>Registrant:
>ORSC Inc, a Delaware corporation, c/o VRx Network Services, Inc.
>(DNSO5-DOM)
>   Maitland House
>   Bannockburn, Ontario K0K 1Y0
>   CA
>
>   Domain Name: DNSO.COM
>
>   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
>  Sexton, Richard J  (RS79)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  +1 (613) 473-1719 (FAX) n/a
>   Billing Contact:
>  Sexton, Richard J  (RS79)  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  +1 (613) 473-1719 (FAX) n/a
>
>   Record last updated on 02-Jul-99.
>   Record created on 17-Jan-99.
>   Database last updated on 26-Aug-99 04:16:42 EDT.
>
>   Domain servers in listed order:
>
>   NS1.VRX.NET  199.166.24.1 204.138.71.254
>   NS3.VRX.NET  199.166.24.3


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg-n-friends] Can we really afford ICANN ?

[Gordon Cook]

oooh.wake up gordo.sorry I KNOW** now** what financials 
ellen was talking about.cancell that last send SIGH!



> > ...  This is NOT a criticism of Berkman. If
> > Berkman had not risen to the task, we wouldn't even get to see the
> > financials.
>
>Indeed.  The Berkman folks have done a stellar job and are getting better.
>They deserve our support and thanks, not just as a entity, but also as
>individuals with names, faces, personalities, emotions (and egos.)
>
>   --karl--


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

[IFWP] Re: New Internet Draft Gives Authority to Governments

[Gordon Cook]

> >
> > Look who wrote this:
> > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (IBM)
> > Eric Brunner (Nokia)
>
>Eric has been active in First Nation issues; maybe this is the first
>step towards genuinely independent domains for them. (And you
>thought 250 was a reasonable number off xxTLDs!)
>
>kerry

sorry I don't understand what "first nation" issues are?


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-00.txt

[Gordon Cook]

OKtony or someone else.what has to happen before this becomes 
effective as far as IETF is concerned?

does bill manning whose salary is paid by ICANN, eastlake who works 
for one of the primary implementors of ICANN and the guy from nokia 
have the power to implement the gac's wishes?




>"A country code for a territory with a generally
>recognized acting government should be considered
>part of the territory of that government. Decisions
>by said government as to who should control the DNS
>for that TLD are final and unappealable. "
>
>Now that's a unique concept - a code is "part of
>the territory...of government."
>
>Guess this is part of the Internet's OSIfication.
>
>
>--tony


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] GAC throws press, Nader rep out of meeting,nationalizes Internet identifiers

[Gordon Cook]

note that jerri Claussing refers to icann in the haedline as 
"internet's Governing Body"  the lady has that right. wonder how 
that will go down the throats of the icann apologists?




>NYTimes
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/cyber/articles/25domain.html
>
>CNET
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40894,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.f
>
>In addition, the GAC apparently formalized their declaration
>that the Internet Name and Address System is a public asset
>(in international law, public equates to government) and that
>that so-called ccTLDs were the sovereign assets of the associated
>State.
>
>For an overview on GAC developments in the current Com Week Int'l
>magazine, see
>http://totaltele.com/secure/cwiview.asp?Target=top&ArticleID=23485&Pub=cwi
>
>
>--tony


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

[Gordon Cook]

>
>
>* Moderator's Choice.  A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
>Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
>prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
>subject, and he reads the ones that he thinks are most significant.
>"Significant" is of course the tricky part -- he could look for views not
>already stated by physical participants, but then the majority voice is
>artificially weakened by his selection process so that doesn't seem quite
>right.  He could look for messages that seem most thought-provoking from an
>academic perspective, but neither is that quite what we need.  Yet if one
>placed sufficient trust in Mr. Zittrain -- as I'll admit I personally do,
>make no mistake about it -- this could be acceptable.


sorry I do not trust mr zittran adequately I know otheres who 
don't as well and I hope they will speak out.


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Government takeover of Internet (fwd)

[Gordon Cook]

  to jeff mason 

The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Government takeover of Internet (fwd)

[Gordon Cook]

basic netiquette jeff mason, if I send you a message to you alone it 
generally is because I don't want to take a disagreement into the 
public domain.to take the contents of a private message and make 
them public without the permission of the sender is just not 
done.defining private message  as generally one to one I can 
read the mime email OK.  But many are operating with equipment that 
makes this impossible.  what wrong with doing them a common 
courtesy and refraining from it?

Your early style was not that bad.  But you are picking on the wrong 
person in picking on mark langston, so for what ever its worth I am 
on the verge of tuning you out.




>Hello Mark:
>
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>
> >
> > I will also demand that you refrain from posting private e-mail without
> > the prior written consent of the author.
> >
> > However, since you chose to ignore that particular convention as well,
> > I'll go ahead and point out that where I said MTA I of course meant to
> > say MUA.
>
>I don't understand - who's consent would that be?  I'm not sure who's
>permission I have to get.
>
>Regards
>Jeff Mason
>
>--
>Planet Communication & Computing Facility   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Public Access Internet Research Publisher   1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] accounting

[Gordon Cook]

my understanding is that estee has a friend at ogilvie who agreed to 
lend ogilvies services at a greatly reduced rateseems that 
ogilvie thought the prestiege of being the firm that sold the net 
down the river was too much for ogilvie to pass up.





>once again I ask for accounting details
>
>Who are resposible for the budget details on the ICANN site.  Who are the
>accountants who have developed these proforma financials.
>
>What is the budgeted amount for the public relations firm and can someone
>post accounting details to your budgets, the amounts are general in scope
>and i'd like to see details.
>
>Regards
>Jeff Mason
>
>--
>Planet Communication & Computing Facility   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Public Access Internet Research Publisher   1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

[IFWP] Re: Theories on media bias

[Gordon Cook]

> > Complexity, confusion, etc. can't possibly
> > explain the media blackout on ICANN!
> >
>
>Maybe not, but if I were an editor, simplistic political concepts,
>such as identifying concern for anything but neoliberal economics
>as Socialism, would rather put me off publishing your piece.  Good
>judgement is a fine line between complication and reductionism,
>but its always there if you look.
>
>kerry

whew. kerry, I generally think you remarks are pretty reasonable 
but isn't jay damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by your 
remarks about   we hear that the story is so complex that most 
editors won't touch it, yet when jay pares it down to its essentials 
you come back and say you might not run it because he oversimplifies 
things?


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

[IFWP] not a pretty sight

[Gordon Cook]

>>Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:13:06 EDT
>>
>>Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Subject: A dilemma
>>
>>Body: Randy Bush and I have a dilemma. We have worked together in helping
>to
>>organize the NCDNHC and we are committed to its future growth and
>>representation. We both firmly believe in the geographic diversity and
>>representation of this Constituency. Both of us have been asked by many
>>people (privately) to run to Names Council. Unfortunately, we are both
>>overcommitted and I have a 16 month old son.
>>
>>We were wondering how you would feel about a shared position -- in which
>>Randy and I would run together and, if we were to win, share a seat (we
are
>>both in the US)?
>>
>>Frankly, it is the only way that I would be able to participate on the
>Names
>>Council.
>>
>>Kathy Kleiman
>>ACM-IGC


Sat, 14 Aug 1999 18:24:47 -0400
 Author:
 Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Subject:
 Re: A dilemma
   Body:
 Kathy and Randy:
 I would say that the answer to 
your dilemma is:

 One of you has to run as the 
candidate, but that one can in effect
 "contract" with the voters, as a 
"campaign promise," to appoint the other
 as alternate whenever necessary.

 Just checked the DNSO bylaws and 
there is no explicit obstacle to either
 one of you appointing the other 
as your alternate.

 There is, however, a problem with 
what you call a "shared" position:

 Section 2
 (g) No more than one officer, 
director or employee of a corporation or other
 organization (including its 
subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve on the NC at
 any given time.

 Also, it does make a difference 
whether Kathy is running
 and promising to make Randy 
alternate when necessary,
 or whether Randy is the candidate 
and is promising to make
 Kathy the alternate. You two are 
not identical twinsvoters
 have a right to know which one 
they are voting for.

 One of you has to be "the" 
candidate and take responsibility
 for the position.

 In terms of one person offering 
support and advice to the other,
 well of course that's possible 
and desirable. It would happen in any
 event, no? You don't need any 
permission from anyone to do that.

 > At 01:13 PM 8/13/99 EDT, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 > >>>We were wondering how you 
would feel about a shared position -- in which
 > >>>Randy and I would run 
together and, if we were to win, share a seat (weare
 > >>>both in the US)?

 --
 m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u 
e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
 syracuse university 
http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

[IFWP] Re: ICANN/NSI latest round

[Gordon Cook]

> > The two seats formerly held by NSI will now be represented by
> > David R. Johnson and Phil L. Sbarbaro
> >
> > An NSI seat has been taken from NSI and given instead to its attorney?
> > Is ICANN that dumb or is this a major con job?
>
>They certainly didnt improve their credibility by submitting identical
>'votes' on the Proposed UDR for gTLD Registrars
>(http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote01/Archives/ ) -- and that was two
>weeks ago.
>
>
>
>kerry


I missed where this is being quoted from but BOTH Sbarbaro AND 
Johnson are NSI lawyers


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] Is the gTLD Workgroup outcome already decided by theCORE faction? And a criticism of the media.

[Gordon Cook]

>Please rest assured that this item below is not based on fact -  "may" =/=
>"will" and CORE can anticipate what it wants without making it so. ICANN has
>made no decisions in this regardand cannot at this point, as most of you
>know.

Esther, I am glad to see your denial, because when the CORE names do 
go into the roots this comment can then become another nail in the 
coffin of your credibility.

> ICANN depends on the DNSO to make recommendations in this area -
>recommendations which will be posted/debated publicly before leaving the
>DNSO to us, and will then be debated openly again.

And since CORE/ISOC have effectively captured the DNSO why would it 
no recommend precisely this?

> There is no way we could
>make such a decision now, and no way that it could survive even if we tried
>to... Please calm down!

who say anything about now?   you will manuever it in the future.  as 
far as now is concerned, given your inclination and that of mike 
roberts to bring the internet into a socialist "managed" framework, 
adopting the CORE so called public interest non profit stewardship 
model seems obvious.

so from the point of view of your "rules" yeah you are right, 
respecting your rules you can't do this now.  But your track record 
is a cynical attitude of doing what you want and then trying to 
clothe it in legitimacy afterwords.   why else do you create a 
structure such that whenever you need to change the rules (the 
bylaws) you can and do do so?

>Esther
>
>At 10:47 PM 11/08/99 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >From :
> >http://web-domains.net/
> >
> >The website of "Robert F. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who is a
> >"participant" on the Workgroup-C list on new gTLDs.
> >
> > NEWS: 1 August 1999:
> > The The first Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) may be delegated
> > in October or November of 1999. CORE anticipates .nom will the
> > first delgated to CORE by ICANN (successor to IANA). It should be
> > followed by .firm, .shop, .info, .rec, and .arts. Delegation of
> > .web will be delayed until conflicts can be resolved.
> >
> >I have asked Mr Connelly to provide the source for this information on
> >the Workgroup C list.
> >
> >But the implication is that CORE has already received information that
> >this is what will happen, that they can expect the first of "their"
> >domains in Oct/Nov, followed by the rest of "their" domains.
> >
> >It is my understanding that NO decisions or recommendations were to
> >made until Workgroup C finishes its work, sometimes in the next month
> >to month and a half.
> >
> >But this comment suggests to me that the outcome of this process is
> >already determined, and that we can expect the same betrayal of "open
> >processes" that we got with ICANN and the DNSO.
> >
> >Perhaps someone from the media on these lists can tell me how they can
> >POSSIBLY ignore the colusion that is going on, or not see that in fact
> >this special interest faction has dominated and will continue to
> >dominate this process, and only giving the most barest surface nod to
> >open processes and getting public input, while quietly going along
> >their way to do things the way they have already decided to do them.
> >
> >When the hell will you wake up and cover the real story?
> >
> >--
> >William X. Walsh
> >General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934
> >
> >(IDNO MEMBER)
> >Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> >constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> >http://www.idno.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Esther Dyson   Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] catch 22?

[Gordon Cook]

>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> > if the internet is to be homogenized or globalized under uniform laws
> > and controls, let it be done openly and honestly and NOT under the
> > guise of setting up ICANN to bring competition into dns and protect
> > us from evil NSI.. although I must say i have become almost as
> > disgusted with the absence of apparent leadership from Jim Rutt at
> > NSI as with Esther and Mike.
>
>Let me assure you that under no circumstances will the internet be
>globalized under uniform laws and controls.

I hope you are right.  But when I see the development of GAC and I do 
not see esther and mike disown the gacsters I get very nervous.


> DNS is a technical matter
>wrapped in a catch 22.  Governments are attempting to sieze an opportunity
>at control which does not exist.

Again I think you are likely correct.

>I'm very concerned that alot of people
>are going to end up with egg on their faces and we should take every
>opportunity to avoid that.



>Neither ICANN nor NSI is evil.  We both understand that.  Nor are the
>government officials involved in this mess evil.  Possibly misguided.

hm


>The only thing we have discovered in our examination of this process is
>that no one is in control.  And those in control of portions of the dns
>infrastructure are themselves divided.

true


>Jim, Esther, Mike and the remainder of the gang will not use whatever
>control they do have because the reprocussions would be fatal.  Whoever
>makes the first move will by default be thrown off the party boat and lose
>whatever control they did have.  If this were to ever happen internet
>users would receive a quick education and they would be fried alive and
>this process forever lost.

why would loosing the process be bad?  If you mean we'd get 
alternative roots, I'd say hooray.  Are you familiar with einar 
stefferud's point of view on this subject?  If not you should read 
archieves of ORSC mailist from jan to march 99from april on it 
became rather defunct


>At this time control of the internet is distributed to 150,000 entities
>who control the root pointers.  I think it's time to ask them what they
>think.

absolutely true


>But before we do that, the quality of the discussion in these conferences
>must improve.  ICANN's survival depends on it.

I have been with you up to this point ...here you loose me.  ICANN 
acts with such disgusting arrogance that I cannot understand why 
anyone would want to save it.

>Regards
>Jeff Mason
>
>--
>Planet Communication & Computing Facility   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Public Access Internet Research Publisher   1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] News

[Gordon Cook]

If they want a comment from me they can cut and paste jay fenellos 
first internet civil way item in the comment space,  or they can have 
the following from an earlier private message this morning.  As you 
know Nick, this issue is bloody complicated and not amenable to the 
simplistic treatment barret would like to whitewash it with.

comment

if the internet is to be homogenized or globalized under uniform laws 
and controls, let it be done openly and honestly and NOT under the 
guise of setting up ICANN to bring competition into dns and protect 
us from evil NSI.. although I must say i have become almost as 
disgusted with the absence of apparent leadership from Jim Rutt at 
NSI as with Esther and Mike.

and PS the image of DoC beating people up with the white paper is 
just too funny for words since when this lands in court commerce will 
be shown to have been acting without legal authority.



At 12:46 PM -0400 8/11/99, Nick Patience wrote:
>There is a comment option on the site, I'm surprised it's still empty :)
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/321/0,7091,68185-new,00.html
>
>
>At 11:55 AM 8/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >At 11:27 AM 8/11/99 , Gordon Cook wrote:
> >>>http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2311649,00.html
> >>
> >>randy barret. ignorant fool
> >
> >
> >
> >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html
> >
> >
> >Ziff/Davis, the publisher of Inter@ctive Week,
> >PC Week, Sm@rt Reseller, and a slew of other
> >magazines, is clearly on *one* side of this
> >issue.
> >
> >I wonder why?
> >
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Jay Fenello
> >President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524
> >---
> >What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com
>
>___
>Nick Patience
>Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc
>T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463
>http://www.computerwire.com


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml

Re: [IFWP] News

[Gordon Cook]

>http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2311649,00.html

randy barret. ignorant fool


The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)   The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml