[IFWP] Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! (fwd)
- To: Dennis Glatting [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! From: "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:51:11 -0400 Dennis thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN). It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it end-to-end unique)? Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announc e list! Vint Cerf At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote: I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary and arrived at two philosophical questions. I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided. Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh! If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly) drop coins in the ARIN fountain? Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (1024) is tight. Using the same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model? Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53. = I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999 MCI WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone (703) 886-1690 FAX (703) 886-0047 "INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!" INET 2001: Internet Global Summit 5-8 June 2001 Sweden International Fairs Stockholm, Sweden http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
[IFWP] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To Register
Esther Dyson wrote (in response to Curtis E. Sahakian): You ask what "excuse" we have. We have a reason: The site is overloaded; we are getting a much bigger response than we expected. The ICANN staff is doing what it can to handle the unexpected damand. We have tuned the system to work much better than it did, but it is still overwhelmed Please think hard before comparing this to the south, where marshals *selectively* turned away blacks. We are not turning away particular groups of people; our system is simply rejecting attempts randomly. This is more like a traffic jam with too-small roads, not any kind of selection process or discrimination. Just as an observation, access to the rest of the members.icann.org site does not seem to be affected. The bottlenecks are the submission pages. What seems to be happening lately is the server is giving back "internal error" messages for these pages. Some performance improvements should be realized by upgrading to a later version of apache and using php instead of cgi. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:43 PM 7/30/00, vinton g. cerf wrote: Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000 a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour) simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations close July 31. Note the term "artificially limited"!!! That means that they have made a decision to *only* accept 200 registrations per hour, regardless of what their system can accommodate! Assuming the software and hardware can handle the load and there is enough bandwidth, I don't see why they just don't receive as many applications as possible and process them first come first serve. They could still set and keep a deadline. I can understand the personnel limitation in *processing* the registrations after they've been received. I imagine most people, given the choice between not being able to register at all due to artificial limits, and having to wait (a possibly long time) for their registration to be processed, would choose the latter. I think this a serious matter. It could give ICANN serious negative publicity. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Allen Simpson wrote: The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners are not the target audience for ICANN membership. I do hope this isn't the official ICANN view. I imagine that a disability discrimination lawsuit would soon follow. how many text-to-speech audio browsers support frames well? Support for the disabled does seem to be a concern in some quarters; for example, see http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Internet/World_Wide_Web/Browsers/Lynx/ The secure registration page requires https, which isn't available in lynx as far as I know. I am wondering if it might make sense going forward to allow an email submission. Email is for the most part a queued delivery mechanism, so it is not necessary for the user to resubmit an html form if the server is busy. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: Formal complaint of abuse of users by ICANN
Ronda Hauben wrote: Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are not even making any access available to that. The version to sign up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have a browser with frames are not able to even use that part of the web site. And an alternative web site set up in another country gives a message of "We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded. Please try again when the system is less busy." when I tried to sign up. Hmmm. As far as I can tell, there is only one web site that is taking all of the traffic, and it is at ICANN's site (192.0.34.18). The secure mode pages require https support, which isn't available in lynx (as far as I know). There is a community of disabled people that use lynx that this potentially affects. The proposed study for new registrations should take this into account, in my opinion. Some other topics for consideration include multiple servers, support for more languages, and email submission. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To Register
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: How can you be sure of this? I can imagine that there are that many applicants from the countries you cited that have sufficient understanding of the issues ICANN is supposed to be concerned with. How can you say that with a straight face? I can be sure of this, because after N years of participating, it is clear that a substantial number of the active participants don't really understand the issues. Nor do they understand the history. On the other hand, there may be quite a few people who have, for the most part, sat on the sidelines reading the exchanges and selectively commented, who have now decided to participate more formally. The fact is that the whole picture is extremely complicated and obscure. Even so, ICANN is not requiring that its at-large members be experts in IP law, DNS, etc. I'm a bit concerned at your characterization of the applicants to date as being the result of "populist politics." In a time (in the US, at least), where we experience less than 50% voter turnout in public elections, I find it refreshing that substantial numbers of people have chosen to participate in the at-large membership. I've always felt that the issues concerning ICANN needed to have broad public exposure and opportunity for as many people as possible to participate, provided that they *do* educate themselves on the issues. --gregbo
[IFWP] Slashdot | How Dependent Is The Internet On The U.S.?
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/15/2030252.shtml
[IFWP] Re: hoarding
Of course, an individual large corporation may indeeed use many domain names. This is completely reasonable: a large corporation may be known by many names, may have many divisions and subsidiaries around the world, may have thousands of products -- a large corporation legitimately may deal with many many names. And there is obviously no doubt that corporations to register names defensively. The point is that Ms O has grossly overstated the situation, and presented something she calls "hoarding" as if it were a major evil. As an aside, sometime back on the ifwp list, Dave Farber noted that past hoarding of resources (e.g. robber barons) forced US government intervention. This was one of the reasons he thought it was more important to try to find a way to make ICANN work, rather than have government more directly involved. --gregbo
[IFWP] New mailing list on legal control of the Internet
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg07845.html
[IFWP] Bob is back
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg07744.html
[IFWP] Re: Kent's Rhetoric and Bombast - and ICANN the Scam..
John the Repoman wrote: P.S.: I wonder how much it would cost to mail every domain(s) registrant in the world a brief opinion questionaire (even by snail mail (argh)- postcard even - no ppd return envelope necessary) on major issues under consideration by ICANN to get a feel for the sentiments of the net community? More or less than a trip to Berlin or Cairo or Santiago...? The internet is akin to a new global community whose opinions will be heard and the majority will prevail ultimately - hopefully with an 'enlightened'(!!) and globally democratic ICANN at it's helm (my wish with noted qualifications) but certainly also 'without', if global issues are not addressed fairly. I wonder if we'd learn much different from what we already know. In the US, over half the population doesn't bother to vote in major elections. (Most domain registrants are in the US.) And if most of them *did* vote, you'd get complaints about how the US is taking over the Internet. There would also be arguments over how you count the votes of a corporation vs. those of an individual vs. those of a noncommercial organization vs. those of an educational organization vs. ... (you get the idea), not to mention why people who don't have domain names aren't getting to vote even though they are the end users and have arguably equal rights. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: [domain-policy] charter vs. generic
Richard Sexton wrote: I'm not sure it's possible to enfore a charter based on semantics; the ony chartered TLDs that have been even moderately successful are those which limit the charter to a specifit (or specific type) or organization. Do we care? Say .per and .nom were for personal names and sombody regosetrers their name and decide they want to run a porn site as well as use the name for personal email. Who are we to say you can't do this. While I personally have no objections, I imagine there could be some raised eyebrows if (hypothetically) Peter Playboy decides to start up a porn magazine at playboy.nom. --gregbo
[IFWP] Goodbye Domain Names, Hello RealNames?
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/sereport/00/05-realnames.html
Re: [IFWP] Goodbye Domain Names, Hello RealNames?
Sure, as long as everybody changes their software. That's a non-starter. Everyone doesn't have to change their software. Only the people who care about RealNames.
Re: [IFWP] Dave Farber ...Getting the congress involved will backfire. Cook: why?
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least with congress and the lobbyists there are some rules for the conduct of public policy in an accountable fashion. IMHO, the only thing that congress has going for it is that it's elected by the public. Beyond that, it's just as subject to capture as ICANN. It suffers from the same problems as ICANN; the public at large is either not educated on the issues or is apathetic. It is vulnerable to influence by big business. Small businesses and individuals only have a token voice. 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? It will be just as bad, IMHO, but the difference will be that it will be a part of US law, and therefore, big business will be able to screw small business and individuals on perfectly legal grounds. (For example, consider the recent Disney/Time-Warner conflict.) 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 end results will still be the same. They'll just pick the same people who've been key players in the issues so far. Your congressional rep will just announce they endorse Vint Cerf, etc. for these positions. They will get appointed because they are in the public eye and the masses will believe what they say. --gregbo
[IFWP] new gTLD media coverage
There has been a bit of media coverage of new gTLDs on a local SF bay area radio station, CNET Radio 910. They sort of casually mentioned that some of the new gTLDs already exist, but didn't really go into any details about it. It might not be a bad idea (if you haven't done so already) to contact them and see if they'll give you an interview to talk about new gTLDs. Another thing to consider is if you're selling registrations, you might want to take out an ad. One of the hosts, Ken Rutkowski (no relation to Tony AFAIK), has a web site (www.kenradio.com) and is interested in getting email on technology-related subjects.
[IFWP] ICANN Moves Closer To Adding Web Domains - Update
http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/147613.html Mike Roberts' comments: Also contentious is the question of who should control new Internet domains. ICANN likely will establish some sort of request-for-proposals process to identify companies and not-for-profit entities that possess the technological and management capabilities needed to serve as new Internet registries. "How many new business ventures do you know that have to go in on this first day and support a planet-wide business environment?" Roberts asked, stressing the need for caution in the process.
[IFWP] Criticism of Lessig's recent book
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Working_Papers/00_Rotenberg_1 This is a working paper, so please do not cite it without the author's permission. I gave the paper a quick read, and there's nothing in it that's directly related to ICANN. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: [comments-gtlds] The IOD/.web Situation
"A. Henderson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I heard recently about IOD and their .web registry, I thought I would go and register some .web domains. However, as I learned, most of the "good" domains had already been taken. Trying to find a good .web to register seemed just about as hard as finding a good .com, .net, or .org. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole purpose of the new gTLDs to expand the shrinking namespace? I don't see how letting IOD's preregistrations of the .web domains stand would help solve anything. My simple suggestion is that ICANN wipe the slate clean and says no reregistrations will stand. This way when the new gTLDs do come out, everyone will have a fighting chance to obtain a decent name. Furthermore, it seems to me that any preregistration system totally defeats the purpose of the addition of new gTLDs. Let's face it, most lay Internet users and businesspeople are not well-informed about the new gTLD issue and are unaware about preregistrations. So who are the people preregistering these domains? Most of them are the cybersquatters and speculators that have ruined the current namespace. Everybody should have an equal opportunity to get a decent name, and no one registrar should be given a monopoly over a gTLD. If we don't ensure these things, the expansion of the namespace would serve no useful purpose. I agree with your observation about most lay Internet users and businesspeople not being very well-infomed about the new gTLD issues. There are several reasons for this, including: * not much media coverage (arguably, there are equally serious topics being covered in the business media) * most of these discussions tend to take place in forums that lay Internet people tend not to frequent * it is difficult to present these issues in such a way that would motivate lay Internet people to take active steps to educate and involve themselves (the issues are quite complex, requiring considerable time to research the information, follow the discussions, etc) --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: interception proxies (fwd)
Although this is off-topic, I thought I'd forward it because (1) I like to read what Noel Chiappa writes, and (2) this is one of those IETF threads where people discuss how things might have gone differently if certain design and implementation decisions had been made differently. Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:01:37 -0400 (EDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: interception proxies From: "Dick St.Peters" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles Lynn writes: You have misread the specification. That "source" is not (IP Header) "Source Address" that you imply, but the "source" mentioned earlier in the sentence, i.e., "address in the source route" (option). Apparently so - though given that the part I emphasized immediately follows mention of rewriting the destination address, this isn't obvious. [If you think about it, the interpretation you emphasized above will not result in a capability for bi-directional communication.] Actually, I've always thought that the first recorded-route address was the original source address so the route would indeed be reversible, but I'll admit to never having actually seen a recorded route. J. Noel Chiappa writes: Pardon me if I emit a "balderdash". ... They had great foresight, huh? The foresight to see the need for more address bits (funnily enough, IP2.5 *had* this, and they *ripped it out* - great vision there), traffic flows, etc (I could go on but what's the point). Yes, just what was your point? However, let's not mythologize anything, OK? It gets in the way of objective analysis. Actually, the view that everything about IP was cast in stone forever in the IP spec is exactly the view that is being argued about. Would you settle for "The IP spec authors didn't have enough foresight to foresee a need to rewrite source addresses" ? :) Whatever anyone thinks of it, people are doing it. On the right are people saying it is immoral, evil, and dangerous, not to mention prohibited by the gods, and they refuse to talk about it. On the left are people doing it, each their own way because there is no standard and not even any public discussion. Only a few months after I first used the net, IP replaced NCP, giving me an instant impression that network protocols are ephemeral things, replaceable if they don't measure up. Presumably if they can be replaced, they can be adapted when necessary. -- Dick St.Peters, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[IFWP] Re: Interpol issue
Richard, I have not seen any comments from you in any of the DNSO archives, even the public comment areas, at least in the past few months. I don't see how you are going to have any kind of input into the process if you don't participate. --gregbo
[IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Richard, how do you explain the participation of people like Chris Ambler, Simon Higgs, etc? (Subject to their opinions of what should happen with new TLDs) it seems they have at least as much of a clue as anyone else in wg-c. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: Explain the reasons and could I know what your relationship to the WG-C is. I have no relationship to wg-c except as a reader of the archives (and occasional poster to the public archives). I read quite a bit of what you wrote and what others' reactions were to what you wrote. IMHO, you were being abusive and non-productive. You may feel free to disagree, of course. While I don't approve of censorship, I can see why they decided to deny your posting rights. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Richard J. Sexton wrote: But isn't there a Vint Cerf RFC that says "The Internet Is For Everybody!" ? Nobody took Dr. Joe Baptista off the Internet.
Re: [IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Richard J. Sexton wrote: Right. Paul Vixie made him unroutable I am able to reach pccf.net from three different sites. Whatever Vixie did doesn't affect the entire Internet. and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's still on the Internet. That he is able to participate in this discussion proves he's on the Internet, it seems.
Re: [IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Richard J. Sexton wrote: and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's still on the Internet. He can still post to the ga-full list.
Re: [IFWP] DNSO participation (Was: Re: Interpol issue)
Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But banned for life from the GA-Rules. A dead list - but non the less it's the principle that counts. What principle might that be? Subscription to ga or ga-full is voluntary. Those that choose to read the full feed may. Both lists are archived.
Re: [IFWP] [awpa] An Internet Awakening
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm planting seedthoughts about an Internet constitution while Cliff's arbitration group has actually produced a draft, (Please goto: http://www.endispute.co.uk/isr/israem.htm), which we could, indeed, discuss and amend and evolve. His posting is definitely a start in the right direction! -- ken Also see: http://www.media-visions.com/icann-involved.htm For the record, I have shared a number of articles about ICANN with friends and family, and pointed them in the directions of the various online forums where ICANN is discussed (including this one). Several of them are domain name holders, and some of them have been on the Internet for over ten years. Some of them even worked with Jon Postel. None of them seem overly concerned about ICANN. I don't see any way of getting people to be more concerned about ICANN if they have decided for whatever reasons that they do not need to be concerned. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven (fwd)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:03:34 -0700 From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from Mark C. Langston on Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:52:21AM -0700 Pardon the length of this... On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:52:21AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: PROPOSAL: I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once the testbed period has ended. I agree totally. There can be no pre-sold TLDs. Moreover, I am TOTALLY SUPPORTIVE of the fairness concern that underlies this proposal. The IAHC names do not have the problem you are trying to address, however. Consider: The instant that any names are publically approved by ICANN people will start considering what SLD names they may wish to register in the new TLDs, and making up their internal lists of names they might want to have. We obviously can't stop that. I, Kent Crispin, as a person who registers domain names for people, could advertise to my current customers that I will take "preregistrations" for SLDs in the new TLDs, which would mean that as soon as the TLDs become active, I will try to register the those SLDs in those new TLDs. There is no guarantee that the registrations will succeed, of course. There is no way to restrict this activity, either. An ICANN-approved registrar can do exactly the same thing. They can (and most assuredly will) start taking "preregistrations" on exactly the same basis, as soon as *any* new names are approved. They will, as a practical matter, start taking "preregistrations" as soon as there is a high probability of a name being approved. They will be forced to, by their customers. [This is exactly what happened with many of the CORE registrars -- customers would ask to be put on a waiting list, and if the registrar said "no", the customer would go to a registrar who said "yes". The competitive forces for waiting lists are *very* great.] In any case, realistically speaking, and given the international span of registrars, there is very little that can be done about this, either -- this is a level of business activity that ICANN simply can't afford the time to police. Moreover, *nobody* wants ICANN to become an intrusive international regulatory body. And anyway, there is really nothing at all wrong with registrars keeping lists of names that they will *attempt* to register on a customers behalf, should the TLD become available. Note that all that has been said so far relates directly to ICANN accredited registrars for *any* new shared-registry TLDs, and it has no necessary connection to CORE or the IAHC names. During startup of *any* new gTLDs there will certainly be an initial rush, where multiple registrars will try to register the same SLD. This will be true whether it is the registrar itself that keeps a list, or whether it is a list held by an ISP, or whether it is just an individual registrant desiring a good name. Some process needs to be in place to guarantee fair access at the registrar level -- for example, a large registrar with high bandwidth and a lot of names on a waiting queue should not be able to swamp the input to the registry when it comes on line. Small registrars should have an equal opportunity to register names. Note once again that this is a *general* problem, completely independent of CORE. It is, however, precisely the same problem that CORE had to address in the design of the CORE SRS (Note that NSI doesn't have a "startup problem" like this). CORE settled on a round-robin allocation algorithm that gave fair opportunity to each CORE registrar. ICANN will need to develop a similar algorithm to handle the startup problem, as well. [The algorithm can continue to operate after startup, but the probability of a name collision becomes much much less after the initial rush.] Presume, therefore, that before startup of any new shared gTLD, ICANN will require some fair algorithm -- call this the "round robin" algorithm (since at some level a round robin allocation will almost certainly be required). CORE currently is an accredited ICANN registrar, and as such would, AS A SINGLE ENTITY, be entitled to precisely one slot in the round robin algorithm. Say that there are 50 active CORE resellers with legacy queues of various sizes; and 100 active ICANN registrars. Each of the CORE resellers has one chance in 50 of being the next round robin slot at the CORE level, and from there has one chance in 100 of getting the round robin slot at the ICANN level. [The same issue applies to Tucows resellers: Tucows, as a whole, would get 1 slot in the ICANN round robin (though Tucows may not worry about fairness at the Tucows level).] The issue changes somewhat if CORE is also selected to be a registry for one or more of the new domains, and the TLD involved was one of the IAHC TLDs. Should the queues that the CORE
[IFWP] While Rome burns ...
http://www.whatson.tv
[IFWP] Re: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up (fwd)
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:46:43 -0700 To: "'William X. Walsh'" [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up From: "Christopher Ambler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even that would be a step forward that I would welcome. -- Christopher Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 4:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: With the news that .TV is now open for business, we have yet another ccTLD mutating into a gTLD. It has taken almost FIVE YEARS NOW to get no further than we were when we started. I call upon ICANN to open the root to new TLDs by their July meeting. Companies, such as those pioneers were working with Jon Postel as far back as 1995 on the original newdom list, have been economically harmed by the delays. Until ICANN, an argument could be made that there was no clear authority to add new TLDs. At this time, however, the authority path seems to go from ICANN to the DoC. Stop the delays, and stop the perpetuation of the artificial scarcity (and, some might argue, the perpetuation of NSI's monopoly on gTLDs and the economic harm that continues to tax pioneer and prospective registries). Enough is enough. Yes, let's work out a process to accept applications and have all them considered equally on their merits alone. No preferentional treatment to anyone. - -- William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE478JZ8zLmV94Pz+IRAqQxAKDwQOyttIOIUcUaTD18oYDr4O8dJQCfeGX0 GRnwRUFB2Ve9IENsMbdW6Po= =uxqQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [IFWP] ICANN Meta Questions
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, the people picked what they picked. Thousands and thousands of them. It seems more likely than not. Really? On what grounds? They could very well have decided to register in .com regardless. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] ICANN Meta Questions
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're trying to get me to believe company-online.com would rather be company-online.com than company.online ? I aint buying that, sorry. We could go on arguing about this for days. Nothing can be determined until someone finds out from those people what their reasons were for registering in .com in the first place and if the existence of TLDs to the right of the hyphen would make a difference. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] [awpa] An Internet Awakening
Ken Freed wrote: For the record, the commercialization of radio happened in the 1920's It started in the 1920s, but the passage of laws that regulated what the broadcasters could do happened in 1934, with the passing of the first Telecom Act and the establishment of the FCC. and was the only way that the technology could be deployed on a mass scale. As for the Forties' commercialization of television, this was the dream by both inventor Farnsworth and his fierce rivals at NBC, for sans a profit motive, no one would have bothered. These were matters of opinion that were not shared by all concerned parties. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that if you look at the history of the establishment of commercial broadcasting, you will see the same type of struggle of fringe groups against big business and government. Sources: SELLING RADIO, Susan Smulyan SEX AND BROADCASTING, Lorenzo Milam PACIFICA RADIO: THE RISE OF AN ALTERNATIVE NETWORK, Matthew Lasar As it stands now, ICANN disenfranchises billions of people worldwide with no say in key decisions. That may be, but since there has never been a public vote on the privitazation of our public internet, ICANN is, defacto, an illegitimate regime usupring power with the collusion of government and industry. Why do you think a public vote would yield any different results? What would cause the public to arrive at the same conclusions that you have (assuming that they care to involve themselves)? --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] [awpa] An Internet Awakening
Tony Rutkowski wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: It started in the 1920s, but the passage of laws that regulated what the broadcasters could do happened in 1934, with the passing of the first Telecom Act and the establishment of the FCC. I believe that occurred with the passage of the Radio Act of 1927 - which was principally targeted at radiobroadcasting regulation and resulted in the creation of the Federal Radio Commission from which the FCC morphed. Actually, the Telecom Act of 1934 was a more comprehensive regulatory instrument than the Radio Act of 1927. The attitudes and tendencies remain the same; only the technologies change. Pretty much my opinion. I can go read debates about things like LPFM, digital TV, etc. and find the same argument themes I see with ICANN. --gregbo
[IFWP] NSI survey, fyi
http://offer.networksolutions.com/go/t1/surv1/ Note question 13.
Re: [IFWP] Re: US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust analysis
Michael Sondow wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: There have been commercial registrations in .us for quite some time now. And I tell you, once again, that although they have never been disallowed they are not the principal purpose of .us, as the RFC makes clear. Your reading of the RFC is different than mine, as I have it in front of me now and see no language stating (or implying) anything about the principal purpose of .us. In fact, this seems to be a rather clear statement of its purpose: 1.3 The US Domain [...] Initially, the administration of the US Domain was managed solely by the Domain Registrar. However, due to the increase in registrations, administration of subdomains is being delegated to others. Any computer in the United States may be registered in the US Domain. Furthermore: 3.3 Delegated Subdomains [...] The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do an equitable, just, honest, and competent job. The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated manager for supervising that domain's name space. These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the domain for the domain itself and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all requests. All requests must be processed in a nondiscriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. Perhaps you are referring to: 3.2 Direct Entries Direct entry in the database of the US Domain appeals most to individuals and small companies. You may fill out the application and send it directly to the US Domain Administrator. If you are in an area where the zone is delegated to someone else your request will be forwarded to the zone administrator for your registration. Or, you may send the form directly to the manager of a delegated zone (see Section 3.1). A small company is still commercial, no? Your extrapolation from some commercial use of .us, to .us being equivalent to "real estate", is a distortion of reality. What do you mean "my extrapolation." I never wrote anything like that. What do you hope to gain from this? Encouraged use of .us, to relieve pressure in .com, .net. and .org until the new gTLD issues are settled. With whom are you trying to curry favor? Nobody. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust analysis
This isn't funny, you know. Many people, myself included, worked very hard to present proposals for a reorganization of .us that would preserve it for public interest use, as it was intended. For the record, the original intent of the .us domain included commercial use. See RFC 1480. (Incidentally, for those following the "older registrations" thread on the DNSO GA list, this RFC makes some statements on who was authorized to add new TLDs.) --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust analysis
Richard J. Sexton wrote: I think it's very funny Micahel. The country that thinks it can cotrol the Internet and dicate world wide practice has THE most screwed up domains on the planet. In my opinion, this can be fixed by introducing some "portable" SLDs in .us. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?
Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT to put small companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs? If not, why don't you work things out so that freedom and free enterprise can continue to flourish on the Internet, instead of being replaced by the present rampant trend to centralization and big business/monopolies? There's just one more point I'd like to make about IP allocations, as they relate to large ISPs and network providers. Some of these allocations are legacy allocations, ie., granted during the time that the Internet was a research project. For example, the allocation for ATT (12/8) dates back to October 1983 (reference: RFC 870, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc870.txt). ATT was fortunate enough to realize the financial value of their allocation when the Internet was opened to commercial traffic. I think it's fair to be concerned about the implications of provider-based addressing on those who can't get a large allocation and are forced to take whatever they can get from a large provider. The movement to return unused IP addresses is still ongoing; Stanford University, for example, is in the process of returning its legacy block (36/8) to IANA. If you feel strongly that some of the commercial providers who got legacy /8s ought to return some of those addresses, perhaps a constructive way of going about it is to gather the ISPs you feel are being squeezed, and have them file a formal complaint with the NTIA. However, be prepared to hear from the NTIA that those allocations were designated for commercial use. (In the RFC, you can see those allocations are marked with a 'C' that specifies commercial use.) If it goes to the US Supreme Court, even they might choose to honor that distinction. --gregbo gds at best.com
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?
Jay Fenello wrote: What does this have to do with complaints about ARIN's regressive pricing policies? Or the huge @Home delegation? These are questions of policy. I can't speak to ARIN's pricing policies, but I recall reading somewhere that one consideration of @Home's allocation was the contribution of Capt. Mike St. Johns to Internet research and development, particularly with regards to IP over cable. --gregbo gds at best.com
Re: [IFWP] Re: [aso-policy] RE: [aso-comment] IP address holders - are they represented?
Michael Sondow wrote: I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the power there is with the larger independent ISPs who control their own block. Have the smaller ISPs ever approached EuroISPA or any of the other ISP associations and asked them to lobby on their behalf? These are problems caused by the RIRs, IANA, and now ICANN. They may have some basis in the topology of routing, but they are fundamentally problems of economic model, the present one being favorable to concentration, merger, centralization, and monopoly, rather than decentralization, independence, and free enterprise. I think it is fair to be concerned about the economic model for IP address allocation. An alternative for the ISPs you feel are getting squeezed is to try to enter into private peering arrangements with other ISPs. Perhaps these ISPs could form their own association and apply for a routable IP block. --gregbo gds at best.com
[IFWP] Re: FW: possible scam?
I don't read nanog regularly, but from what I've seen, there are a fair number of clueful people on it. Out of curiosity, are any of them interested in the alternative root movement? --gregbo
[IFWP] Alternative to NetworkSolutions?? (fwd)
--- start of forwarded message ---
Path:
news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!news.dra.com!news.keyway.net!news.interpacket.net!u-2.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail
From: "Sally Ann Vinke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: alt.www.webmaster
Subject: Alternative to NetworkSolutions??
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:35:45 -0700
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-ELN-Date: 11 Oct 1999 21:38:43 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date: Mon Oct 11 14:45:06 1999
Organization: BellaLuna Designs
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 19
Reply-To: "Sally Ann Vinke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-209.245.5.250.denver1.level3.net
Message-ID: 7ttld3$oka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xref: news3.best.com alt.www.webmaster:42852
Now that NetworkSolutions has decided to discriminate against individuals
and businesses without a credit card, is there any alternative way to
acquire a domain name?? Seems patently unethical to deny the right to
internet presence based on something as arbitrary as the lack of a credit
card.
--
--
_.-'''-._
.' .-'``|'.
//-*- \
; { | ; Bellaluna Designs
|_\ | | Creative web design hosting
; _\ -*- |; http://www.bellalunadesigns.com
\ \ | -*- / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'._ '.__ |_.'
'-'
--- end of forwarded message ---
Re: [IFWP] Re: Vix on Multiple Roots
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to scare the US Government you eneded up putting control of the root zone in the hands of... the department of e-commerce. Oops. That about backfired. Paul, you also thought the alt groups would be the death of usenet and you were wrong then, too. Why argue with him? He is acting based upon how he feels, as you are. You need to make the existence of alternate root cache configurations as well known as default configurations, if you want everyone to know about them. After that, it will be a matter of which configurations people want to use. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: ... you cannot compare the two because usenet is not critical infrastructure to Internet operation as DNS is. This is not to say that usenet is not important. However, it is nowhere near as necessary for reliable Internet operation as DNS is. Do you have a closer parallel to the expansion of dns names ? Not the point. The issue is stability of a critical Internet service. I also note that a lot of the key figures in IETF and ISOC who support ICANN never had much to do with usenet news. Thus it is not very likely that they have much confidence in that mode of self-governance. Vixie was, and hw was the only member of the group facetiously knoen as the "backbone cabal" that thought alt would be the death of usenet. Go back and read what I wrote. I never said no key figures in this debacle had anything to do with usenet news. Many of the key figures were not major participants in usenet. I'm talking about people like Vint Cerf, Don Heath, ie. the people who the USG is listening to. Vixie was involved with usenet news, but he is not currently an advocate of the type of name expansion the alternative TLD movements propose. We have been through this before. My guess is that Cerf and company are well aware of the type of self-governance that accompanied the name expansion of usenet. The DNS equivalent of rmgroup wars, for example, would be considered a serious threat to stability. --gregbo gds at best.com
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of [ICANN's supporters] are financially endowed, but, speaking from insider knowledge, it is patently absurd to say that they are well-organized. I was thinking of some of ICANN's financial backers (e.g. Cisco) and some of the associations that support ICANN. Perhaps they are not well-organized, but imho, they are much better organized than the alternative root movements. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Summary Notes from NAMES
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frankly, I'm grateful to Harvard for creating a forum where the critics of ICANN can finally get some answers from the ICANN board! If you'd like to monitor the action, please check out the public newsgroup at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/listarchive/ It can also be accessed at news://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IS99-names.
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is all this garbage about Internet Stability Greg? DNS id the most robust protocal to ever run over a TCP/IP transport. What instability are you talking about? It's the stability of the namespace, from the perspective of those who are trying to resolve names. It is clear to me that people such as Vint Cerf care about stability, and my guess is that a lot of the big players care about it as well. Theire users are not, generally speaking, seasoned Internet engineers or administrators who can easily "route around" instability (such as TLDs that tend to vanish and reappear at random). My guess is, they don't want to have to be able to route around instability, either. They want it to work reliably and predictably. Since Vint Cerf and some of the others who support ICANN and have gained respect of the NTIA, Al Gore, etc. are on the side of stability, an alternative root movement will have to be at least as stable, if it's to have a chance at succeeding, imho. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
OTOH we have working tlds and root servers. Richard, I never said your stuff wasn't working. In fact I have used it. However, I am a seasoned Internet professional. I know how to use it within the constraints I operate under. Most people who use the Internet have little if any knowledge of what domain names are or what they represent, structurally. Thus, if they are presented with an address like tangled.web, no flag goes off in their head saying "oops, that is not an IANA TLD, so I have to do something different to respond to it." They respond to the address; it fails; they perhaps complain to their ISP admins, who say "it's not a valid address." You and I know that "validity" has something to do with what TLDs they have decided to search for. However, the end user is out of luck. They have no effective way of determining the validity of this address for themselves. How might this situation be rectified? By a detailed, organized, effective campaign to promote and establish an alternative TLD infrastructure. That hasn't happened yet, imho. Until it happens, there is much less chance that the Internet community at large will adopt it, particularly with people in the IAB being highly critical of it. I guess I am wondering what the point of alternative TLDs are. Do they exist to provide service, or are they just for proof-of-concept? I don't think anyone in the Internet technical community would deny that they can't work; what is at issue here is if they can work with the same level of stability as the IANA TLDs. Thus far, prominent people -- people who the Internet community generally respect, by and large, feel they do not. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, right, and this is exactly the same as sombody on usenet listing their email address as [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] in their signature line. The practice is extremely widespread, and poeple are still able to communicate just fine. One of the addresses in my signature below works for anybody, so I don't buy this argument as representing any impediment whatsoever. Generally speaking, Usenet consists of a user population that is generally much more Internet savvy than the Internet population at large. Also, spam problems and counter-measures are generally much better documented and understood throughout the Usenet community. Thus, methods of concealing one's true email address are much less likely to lead to confusion. Is everyone who registers in an alternative TLD going to register in an IANA TLD as well, and are they going to give multiple methods of contact? Do they know that they need to do this? If they don't, do they need to know that they should give an address of a friendly relay? What do you mean by "stability of IANA TLDS" ? Given things like palestine.int, .tv, .haiti, .tm I'd say the alternative tlds are more stable. What's your metric? For one thing, whether a person can access the resources of that TLD. The alternative TLDs are much less stable because of the perception (perhaps wrong) that they're not globally visible. Anyway, the point isn't what I think, it's what people like Cerf, etc. believe, because they influence others, like the USG, who recognize ICANN as the NewCo, and have enabled it to enter into agreements with NSI and other registrars. I have no problems with alternative TLDs. I can access them just fine. The common Internet user doesn't know what to do to access alternative TLDs. Imagine a House Subcommittee, or for that mattter, a Supreme Court hearing on alternative TLDs, for example. Brian Carpenter is arguing against them; you argue for them. What criteria are the House likely to consider significant? What are they to consider a reasonable approach? What is likely to influence their judgment? Do you believe that you would be able to convince them? (It may very well come to that.) --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Absolutely nothing short of bowing to the dictator du jour (IAHC, ICANN) will get Vixie "on my side" and I really don't care. He was wgonr about useent and he's wrong now. The NTIA has no authority. Who cares? Authority isn't the issue. It's the ability to persuade or convince people to act in certain ways. ICANN has no authority, right? But they are able to convince registrars like AOL to adhere to their policies, they are able to convince people who register domains that cheaper registrations are better despite whatever process is used to bring that about ... So? rmgroup wars happened in one hierarchy out of many, for a limited period of time. Stupid net tricks, like redirecting internic. This affects people like Carpenter's and Cerf's perceptions of the stablity of alternate TLDs, which makes ICANN, the NTIA, and the Internet community at large skeptical of considering them as a solution to the DNS mess. I don't want to convince anybody of anything. I hope poeple will educate themselves and draw their own conclusions-- So why badmouth ICANN, the NTIA, the USG, etc? Just present your opinions and let people draw their own conclusions. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's authority will Paul - real or preceived. He has this thing about an "unbroken chain of authoiry" andhe can express his views better than I can. I can't quite make out what you mean here. It seems as if you are saying that he feels their ought to be some unbroken chain of authority. My guess is, authority embodied in a consistent root. At any rate, as a general observation, in this arena, I think that the ability to express one's views clearly is *absolutely crucial* to getting one's suggestions adopted. If people can't understand what you mean, there's no way you'll convince them of your opinions. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your absolutly right. [Vixie] has no obligation whatsoever to educate the community. As I said the distribution of a fixed root cache with BIND is a bit of an anti rackets game, but that legality I leave to others to test. I imagine if there were some sort of investigation, it would reveal that the alternative root movement is not yet organized enough to deliver the quality of service delivered by the established root movement. If the alternative root movement wants to gain some sort of legitimacy with the Internet community at large, I would suggest they establish a strong, organized, documented effort. This would be more likely to win them some sympathy with the courts, who would have more grounds to establish that the existing setup is a barrier to competition. I didn't make that claim. The claim was established in a prior tread by someone who was arguing Vixie was an activist and later admitted Vixie was like everyone else a victim of the money trail. ISC, distributors of BIND, are sponsored by various companies. You can obtain a list at their web site (www.isc.org). As for Vixie's activism, I argued that he can be an activist for issues he feels are important, and that he has proven he can gain some support for his movements. My general opinion is that the RBL movement is much more open, organized, documented, and effective than any of the alternative root movements, which is most likely why they are having success in the Internet community. IMHO, it is unfortunate that neither ICANN nor the alternative root movements have gained as much trust. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The third option is to leave everybopdy alone and wait till they figure it out. It's the slowest, but the "cleanest". Do you think the Internet community will ever figure it out? In the past, there has never been an issue faced by the technical community concerning critical Internet infrastructure that divided it so deeply. Also, the arena has changed; the nature of the user base is such that maintaining stability is important; the Internet has become much easier to use, thus users are much less likely to tolerate systemic failures. This is a critical question that needs to be asked and answered, in my opinion. There have been numerous statements by ICANN critics that it has no legal standing, and is an affront to the people who keep the Internet running. But there has been no outcry from the Internet community at large for ICANN to go away. And some very big players (e.g. AOL), who serve a large segment of the Internet user population, have consented to be ICANN registrars. Finally, the USG is determined to carry out privatization of IANA functions, and they recognize ICANN as the new organization to do that job. Ellen Rony points out corrected that ICANN's supporters are well organized and financially endowed. I believe this is a key point. History tells us that organized movements, such as the 1930's radio broadcast networks desire to commercialize the radio airwaves, were able to succeed. They were able to demonstrate to Congress that they could serve the public interest. The opponents of the commercial broadcasters failed because they were too divided and unable to organize themselves sufficiently to sway Congress. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: Do you think the Internet community will ever figure it out? Do you get alt.sex? You keep bringing up the creation of alternative hierarchies in usenet as an example of how the Internet has figured out a problem. I don't deny this, however, the point I keep returning to is that you can't compare the two because usenet is not critical infrastructure to Internet operation as DNS is. This is not to say that usenet is not important. However, it is nowhere near as necessary for reliable Internet operation as DNS is. I also note that a lot of the key figures in IETF and ISOC who support ICANN never had much to do with usenet news. Thus it is not very likely that they have much confidence in that mode of self-governance. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
Joe Baptista wrote: Vixie is not an activist. Vixie, like any other individual is motivated strictly by self interest. The recent RBL vs. NSI struggle was a clear indication Vixie can, like anyone else, impose his views on the world. Hitler had the same sweeping powers, and not much came of that. The people who've decided to follow Vixie did so because they believed in what he was doing, not because he "imposed" his views on anyone. Vixie does not have the power to force any ISP to do anything; he apparently has the ability to raise awareness and gather support for his movements. If Vixie wants to make a difference, the best solution would be that Vixie distance himself from the DNS wars. My recommendation is as follows. 1. Delete the root.cache file that is distributed with bind, which now contains the default USG root servers. 2. Include a README root.cache file explaining how it works and provide directions on where to get the USG root files and alternative root server caches. Perhaps he cannot do this because that would anger some of his sponsors: http://www.isc.org/view.cgi?sponsors.phtml Legal actions may be taken against them, yet they are willing to follow his lead, because they believe in what he is doing. Could you explain this. The only legal action I know of that Vixie has been treatened with these days was an NSI action regarding thier mass mailing to contacts. It's my understanding Vixie saw the light and appropriately backed down. Is this what your referring too, or something else. I'm referring to what I read in http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/09.23.99/cover/spam-9938.html. If there's new information, I'm not aware of it. However, I have not been following the spam wars as closely as the DNS wars. (One has only so much time to be an activist. :) --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incorrect, the NSI - RBL (MAPS) situation is a clear indication Vixie is well outside his range. He made an arbitrary decision which would of affected the business interests of NSI, by declareing thier communication with internic contacts to be spam. Vixie got a nice earful from his legal advisors and I feel confident he now knows that to do that sort of thing is wrong. True, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was referring to other people's willingness to install RBL filters, especially at the ISP level, which would affect all of the ISP's users. The problem is his power to do it. He's making judicial decisions on contractual obligations between parties. He knows now from his legal begals that he can get his fair share of paddy wacks for being naughty. Again, not the point I was trying to make. He has no power to force an ISP to install an RBL filter. The ISPs who do so believe this is the right thing to do. Well there you go. So much for activisim. If he wants to pay the bridge toll he's gotta do the appropriate brown nosing. Completely understandable, completely acceptable, but under no circumstances is he an activist. More of a yes man. I said he can be an activist for some issues. Also, I think that a position most large companies might take would be anti-spam, but pro DNS stability (thus pro-ICANN). So it's not necessarily hypocritical of him to take money from large companies to distribute bind with the IANA root servers in root.cache. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
At 08:24 AM 10/2/99 -0700, Richard Sexton wrote: Vixie is an extremist. Back when the birth of news:alt was the bigest mess on the net he was the only backbone cabal memebr that thought this would be the death of the net (or so I'm told). There are root server operators that take the opposite extreme view from Paul. On average though they're a resonable bunch by anybodys standards. Well, Vixie has shown that he can be an activist on issues that he feels are important and threaten the net. Look at the work he has done on RBL. Also note the considerable support he has gotten from the Internet community -- particularly the ISP community (the very people whose support is necessary to make alternative root servers visible on a netwide scale). Legal actions may be taken against them, yet they are willing to follow his lead, because they believe in what he is doing. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] gotta go, but ...
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll save you the trouble. It can be summarized as "Icann has a few warts on it, but it's the only option". You'll also hear a lot of "I'm tired of this and I don't really care any more", "if we don't the ITU will take over" and "...working within the system". Basically, you're saying what I said before. People may not be happy with ICANN, but they don't want to change the status quo. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] gotta go, but ...
Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think this is what Richard is saying at all, Greg. Rather he is saying that allot of people would luv to see serious changes but feel they are up against ICANN that is is basically intractable. So they are left with their own devices and feel betrayed by ICANN. Effectively, it is the same. Until the Internet community decides to take its DNS service from places offering it a better deal than ICANN, nothing will change. And there does not seem to be any reason forthcoming (at present) that would move the Internet community to do this. I conclude that it is because they do not want to upset the stability they currently have. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] gotta go, but ...
Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again I see that you still missed Richard's point and my reiteration of that point entirely. I guess I am really dense. :) Anyway, we'll see what happens, if ICANN does something that causes the DNS admins of the Internet community to point at the alternative roots en masse. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] gotta go, but ...
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: I can't imagine anything that ICANN would do that would cause the Internet community to take its DNS from someplace else en masse. En masse ? No. One of them is already pretty pissed though. Richard, the point I'm trying to make is that it will require substantial numbers of DNS admins to start pointing at the alternative roots (in particular admins of sites that serve substantial numbers of users) to change the status quo. Perhaps there will be a grassroots movement that grows large enough for ICANN to be concerned. For example, see the discussion on the TELECOM digest. We shall see. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
The *current* ICANN board has caused great rifts throughout the Internet community and made a lot of enemies. This doesn't necessarily mean that *any* ICANN board would act this way. An elected board would hopefully act in the interests of those who vote for them. However, if ICANN fails, there will be much less chance for representation from the Internet community. We will then have to hope that there will be enough people in the general populace to stand by us when we bring our proposals to whichever governments step in. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
If you look at the history of AlterNIC, eDNS, etc. you will see that the net did not jump whole hog onto the activist bandwagon. That suggests to me that there is quite a bit of support for the status quo. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
Richard, you remember Vixie's comments here a while back, right? "I ain't in it for your revolution." What makes you think that if ICANN fails he and the other root server operators are going to engage in some cyber-revolt? And if they did, what makes you think that the rest of the net would follow them? People want things to work smoothly. The current situation, while not perfect, offers stability. If there was some kind of cyber-revolt, most likely the USG would step in and instruct the net to take their DNS from sites that present the same level of coordination they currently enjoy. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, no USG agency has this authority. You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that they would order anyone to do anything. What I meant is that they would set up root servers that are configured as they currently are, and instruct people to point to them. Most likely, the major operators would coordinate suitable root (or roots) to which they would point. I imagine most will point to the places that offer stability, ie. keep their paying customers happy. --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. How about real competition? There are 160,000 estimated dns administrators who control which root servers are used by their users. How much do you think corporate interests would pay these administrators for the priviledge of running the global network routing structure? I imagine corporate interests, in the interest of remaining such will pay their administrators to point their DNS at the root servers that offer the level of stability we currently have. Let's get active boys and girls, this sillyness is coming to an end. You are right about one thing. This is basically where the rubber meets the road. I'll start to believe that there is really going to be some cyber-revolution, and a real, coordinated effort to offer DNS service, when I see it. As you point out, no one is taking such an effort to the Internet community at large. I have never understood these movements (eDNS, AlterNIC, ORSC, etc); if they *really* expect to have some impact, they need to lobby for DNS admins to take root service from them, and guarantee a level of stability that is at least as good as what we have now. (No offense intended.) --gregbo
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not really an issue - is it. Name daemons come prepackaged with the root servers already prelisted in the root cache file. Few DNS administrators even know there are options. So under what circumstances would they be so inclined to make changes? --gregbo
[IFWP] gotta go, but ...
I've decided to ask a few friends and colleagues their opinions on what's happened with ICANN lately, and what they are prepared and willing to do. These people have been on the net for 10+ years, are individual domain name holders, and have at least an admin-level understanding of how the Internet works. I am looking forward to hearing from them, and I hope they will join the conversation. See you tomorrow, --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
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
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
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. 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. Also, historically, the type of fix Congress has had to make to ensure the stability of key communications media has favored business imperatives. We still have journalists on this list, right? I wonder if any of them will run your story ... --gregbo gds at best.com
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
Gordon Cook wrote: well of course Postel, like ICANN, was rather impeious and did what he pleased. A key differ ence he was tusted. ICANN is not Yet Postel was hoping that ICANN would provide some means for the type of cooperation the (traditional) Internet community has typically fostered to continue in some way. 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. I was reading the poised archives sometime back, where there was an exchange between Stef and some of them. I don't remember all the details (I'll try to look them up) but one of them said that they felt that ICANN was the best compromise that could be worked out under the circumstances. Of course if you don't trust any of them either nothing I say will matter. my position contrary to esther is hat the pocess DOES matter. The ends do NOT justify the means. unpleasant? so be it? Gordon, I don't know what to tell you here. The way the process evolved, the USG was forced to step in, in ways that have *already* gotten politicians and lawyers far too involved (imho) in what was once processes that could be carried out based on cooperation. You say we ought to give it up, and let Congress decide for us how the Internet should work. Are you so willing to concede the benefits you now enjoy to people who have even *less* sense of the (traditional) Internet community? so? there is some small hope of redress with congress. with esther and captin mike there is none. What makes you think Congress will not favor big business' imperatives? At least with something like ICANN, there is more likelihood that the little guy can approach the table and be heard. What future would something like the DNRC have in the face of big business' lobbyists? How could individuals like Ronda Hauben or Michael Sondow make any kind of impact? Activists would need to have huge, strong, undivided constituencies to make any significant impact on how Congress might regulate the Internet. That's certainly not happening now. No doubt your response will be that the little guy already isn't being heard and can't approach the table. I offer that as proof that government intervention favors big business at the expense of the little guy. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] CORRECTION to Iperdome Blames ICANN for Its Demise
Generally speaking, I agree with Mike Roberts' assessment of the NSI cooperative agreement. I believe the USG made a mistake in the way it was set up, and particularly when and how NSF authorized NSI to start charging for registrations. This should not necessarily be read as an outright criticism of the NSF (or any other branch of the USG); they could not have foreseen just how explosive DNS registration was going to be.
[IFWP] Update On The Domain Name Wars
Jay Fenello wrote: "The notion that journalism can regularly produce a product that violates the fundamental interests of media owners and advertisers ... is absurd." -- Robert McChesney, journalist and author FYI, he mentions ICANN in his latest book RICH MEDIA, POOR DEMOCRACY, in a long chapter discussing the Internet, particularly its privatization and commercialization. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
Ellen Rony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN *model* was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that is the source of so much controversy is one that began with several insiders hand-picking a group of supposed DNS newbies who were, in turn, secretive, clueless and easily swayed. The danger, IMHO, is that if the models continue to fail (IAHC, gTLD-MoU, ICANN, etc), the entities who are overseeing the process (governments) may tire of it and intervene directly. As I've said before, their agenda of late has not been particularly friendly to the small business or individual. Something like the DNRC would have much less chance of getting its concerns addressed. ICANN arrived on the DNS scene as a stillborn puppy. This is why your assertion that "we must make it work" falls on deaf ears. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. In all fairness, ICANN must cooperate in making it work also. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Towards a New Conservatism
[Recipient list reset] Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Over the last several weeks, I have made extensive use of the Internet to expose the extreme bias the press has exhibited in their coverage of the ICANN fracas. Due to the power of the Internet, these efforts have apparently worked. The Conservative movement faces these same media biases. Instead of talking about principles and values, the press prefers to cover the sleaziest and least important issues in Washington. These biases will only get worse, given the current trend at media consolidation as represented by the Viacom/CBS merger. Hmmm. It seems to me that it is conservativism that is the source of your complaint of media bias. The major press won't (or can't) cover your concerns because they don't sell. The alternative press, with far more liberal agendas, is able to cover your issues. --gregbo
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 wrote: 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? This goes back to what I wrote earlier about the resources that well-heeled corporations can give to lobbying as compared to what activists can give. Large corporations have the money to pay people to do their leg work. They can hire people to write up scenarios that they can take to government officials. Because the presentation is organized, the officials are likely to be sympathetic if the scenarios seem plausible. On the other hand, activists have to do their leg work by themselves, on their own personal time. But they will want to spend time with their families; need to do their jobs, etc, so there's only but so much they can give to the cause. Moreover, if they start to feel unappreciated, they're likely to withdraw from the process. The withdrawal of a few well-respected (by government) activists from a movement can very well kill it. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish. --gregbo] Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. Are you sure that a public vote would not have the same results? After all, the people who are lobbying ICANN right now will just directly lobby the government(s) who wind up setting up Internet policy if ICANN falls. I'm all for voting, but I don't expect that a public vote would have outcomes much different than those which generally favor big business. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the corporations are often willing to put aside their differences, particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them financially. Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader might be an example of a netizen's angel. I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying afloat during the early 1980s. I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Tony Rutkowski wrote: Greg Skinner wrote: Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. Like what? Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
Richard Sexton wrote: Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional government. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Craig -- Please deal with substantive issues, the here and now, not ancient history. Linguistic nit picks do not serve the larger Internet community. Okay? Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt world Internet traffic. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote: Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt world Internet traffic. This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book. Try and discredit a 20,000 word summary, by focusing on a single statement. I'm sorry that you disagree with my statement. However, I continue to stand by it. If a news reporter asks me, I will give my opinion. --gregbo
[IFWP] Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World (fwd)
--- start of forwarded message --- Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:31:36 -0400 From: Walter Dnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: TELECOM Digest Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Approved: [comp.dcom.telecom/995f215e8f5dbe692bb649cbc77c5ed2] X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/ X-Submissions-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Administrivia-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 19, Issue 386, Message 2 of 8 Lines: 99 Xref: news3.best.com comp.dcom.telecom:23966 On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 03:53:17 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Well, some folks are asking, you've created a rule, and a way to enforce that rule, so haven't you actually built both a law and an enforcement mechanism? And if you have a law against cyber-squatting, with a virtual "death penalty" (taking away a name someone is using effectively removes them from the web) why not apply it against other forms of behavior we don't like? Please, follow that last link, read what's behind it, and tremble. You've got one law, you've got a process, and you've got a sentence. It was all done with the mildest of intentions. But what you've also got there is the beginnings of a world government, which can enforce all kinds of rules simply by changing the contract you sign when you apply for a domain name. With all due respect, I believe Jay has cause-and-effect backwards here. More later on in the message. And if ICANN won't do it, cyber-vigilantes will. If ICANN chose it could ban pornography, simply by stripping such sites of their names, it could enforce product safety standards, prevent the online manipulation of stocks, and stop hate speech in its tracks. By simply denying names to those who violate whatever strictures it chose, ICANN could make the Internet a pure and beautiful place, where no one dared violate any law for fear of virtual death! Jay believes that ICANN can usher in one world government by such a grip on the internet. Actually, it would require one world government in the first place in order to implement such total control. That's what I meant by cause-and-effect being backwards here. The only reason the current system works as well as it does is because "everybody" co-operates (sort of). Zone files don't accomplish much by simply sitting on ICANN's computers. They have to be downloaded by authoratative servers, who allow other servers to to download from them, etc, and eventually your ISP's nameserver downloads at least a portion of the zone files. Assume that ICANN decides its "the info-highway, my way, or the doorway". Assuming they can survive court challenges in the US, their "new and improved" system will affect all the ISP's who continue to co-operate with them. Nothing to prevent a bunch of ISP's, or for that matter, a bunch of countries, from getting together and setting up their own master server(s), and disseminating their zone files. So your ISP doesn't subscribe to them? You can always hardcode the nameserver IP address into your dial-up settings. Granted, using a nameserver on the other side of the planet will slow things down for you, but it will still work. And in a worst-case scenario http://208.31.42.81 will still reach Pat's web siteg. In case you think this is a pipe dream, remember how the spam blacklists DSSL/DUL/IMRSS/ORBS/RRSS work. You're effectively using an auxilary zone file. Consider a spam received via an open relay recently. With some ugly procmail code I've implemented, I can spawn nslookup and check whether 194.184.72.2 is in the RRSS list. Note that the dotted quad is reversed. This not a typo. /user/.6/wa/waltdnes nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com Server: ns1.interlog.com Address: 198.53.145.18 Non-authoritative answer: Name:2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com Address: 127.0.0.2 This answer came from my default nameserver, i.e. my ISP's machine. If my ISP's nameserver had trouble with the lookup, I could always the master server of the database. /user/.6/wa/waltdnes nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com some.other.server.com Server: some.other.server.com Address: 10.11.12.13 Name:2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com Address: 127.0.0.2 This is not recommended, because it defeats the whole load- sharing philosophy behind the current nslookup paradigm. The point I'm trying to make is that from here it's a small step to setting up a competitive nameserver hierarchy. Logically similar to getting a different 411 operator, depending on which competitive local carrier you subscribe to. If things get to the point where it's illegal to use an unapproved nameservers anywhere on the planet, then we'll already have one world government. Walter Dnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm --- end of forwarded message ---
Re: [IFWP] Internet Governing Body Declares Only Concerned With Technical Parameters, Sanctions Edicts Of Governmental Legislative Internet Bureaucracy
Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there is a problem with government, people have to do something about it, while some corporate entities seem to be preaching abolish government and give them all power. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/14589.html Interesting. But the NSF could have and should have acted to constrain what was happening with NSI. Instead the problem is being magnified many times over by creating ICANN as a private entity to set up many NSI's and with no oversight over it as the NSF had the Office of Inspector General, the Congress, etc. Possibly, but there is also the likelihood that actions NSF might have taken might have brought us to the place we're at now, albeit via a different route. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] who controls the internet - Political News from Wired News (fwd)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/tip/politics/story/21411.html
Re: [IFWP] Analogical thought
Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's probably about to be (iii) technical innovation is always stifled by the genius that produced it aka Internet, unless the creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system into existence can be marshalled to demonstrate the difference of that system from the metaphors that are being forced upon it. But as we have seen on these lists, there are vast differences of opinion even among those who shepherded the Internet into existence. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Good research project for somebody
Craig Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through your links. I believe there was some pre-9/95 discussion of new domain names on the namedroppers list. --gregbo
[IFWP] Foundation To Help Public Benefit From Web
http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/14/net-internet-foundation
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With V6, you have to get addressed from one of the 3 RIR's, in V8 you can get addresses from any of the 2048 TLD authorities. V8 rides over a core V4 (or V6) transport and grows the net at the edges. In my opinion, IP addresses should be independent of TLDs or anything else that is related to domain names. --gregbo
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what makes more sense. One monolithic address registry which is a monopoly and a single point of failure, or 2048 registries, any one of which can give you an address you can use? Why do you assume that just because I don't advocate TLD authorities (whatever THAT means) being IP address registries, that I am in favor of a monopoly (ARIN) doing it? Why don't you just take my comments at face value? I believe that there should be coordination between business, government, military, private citizens, etc. in the administration of IP addresses. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As it turns out, ICANN actually has an official "Community Feedback" site that contains an archive of all the "reflections of community consensus." It's the only site, and it's at http://www.icann.org/feedback.html I wouldn't go so far as to say that ICANN's community feedback site is the only repository of community consensus -- there is also this list, domain-policy, the IETF list, and the ISOC list. Possibly there are others I have not read. On the other hand, when taken in toto, these lists at best show there is some level of support of ICANN for some subset of the Internet community, but not a consensus as I understand the meaning of the word. --gregbo
Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
"William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on now Patrick, you know that they mean consensus from the CORE, ISOC, and Trademark interests. Indeed. As others have pointed out, users, small business owners, independent domain owners (holders), etc. have been left out thus far. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
I actually meant to include the poised list as an example of a place where I have seen a good amount of support for ICANN as well. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
Karl Auerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually if you read the Poised list (I am a former co-chairman of the IETF Poised working group) you will find that the IETF support for ICANN is not at all clear or unqualified. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. There are several people who have come out in support of ICANN, even though they do not agree with everything the Board has done. Even you have supported ICANN. Again, the points I was trying to make were: * There are other sources of "community support" of ICANN than what is on their comments page * This does not represent a consensus of the Internet community (as I understand the meaning of consensus) [I believe this was my most relevant point] --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
Patrick Greenwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If ICANN were a community-based organization as was envisioned, instead of the monstrosity it has become, it would be reasonable to ask the community for assistance in gather resources to hold elections. But when the community does cough up money (e.g. the GIP), ICANN is accused of capture. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: Media Bias and the Takeover of the Internet
My general take on what I have seen of the entire DNS controversy is that it is similar in nature to past struggles over "shared scarce resources" such as the ones Tony cited. Certainly, from what I have read of the establishment of the FCC and the 1934 Radio Act, there are striking similarities. The activists who opposed the favoritism of commercial over educational and other noncommercial broadcasters did not have the resources the commercial broadcasters had to present to Congress a plan to use the airwaves in the public interest. Consequently, commercial broadcasters were awarded most of the powerful radio frequencies. The activists might have had a better chance if they had been able to present a more united front, but there was a lot of contention and disunity in their ranks. They were pacified (somewhat) by the establishment of the noncommercial FM band, and the fact that noncommercial stations outside of the noncommercial FM band were able to be constructed easily (because few commercial broadcasters built FM stations at first) or bought (because many of the early FM commercial stations lost money). BTW, some of you probably are following the situation with Pacifica radio. If you think these lists are vitriolic, try subscribing to the freepacifica list for a while. The insinuations made here about people being in others' pockets pale in comparison to some of the nastiness I've seen there. (To say nothing of the actual violence that has ensued in Berkeley.) --gregbo
