Re: [IFWP] Foundation to fund ICANN's general election - nov 1st,99
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: > J. Baptista wrote: > > > > looks like good news on the > > surface > > How do you figure that? Helping ICANN to make believe that the > At-large membership actrually has some say in things, and that ICANN > is being fair and democratic, when it's not? Haven't you read the > new bylaws amendments? I really do appreciate how intense you get over ICANN. I wish more people were like you. I'm not. ICANN is irrelevant. The money is irrelevant. It's the thought that counts. In my opinion - ICANN will probably spend it all on a wine cellar for michael roberts, or something silly like that. In the long run, the eggs not on our faces - it's on thiers. > > The nonprofit, philanthropic Markle Foundation tomorrow will commit > > to funding a groundbreaking general election to let the online community select > > half of the board > > Ms. Macavinta has got it wrong. The membership will elect no one. > The Council will do the electing, just as with the DNSO, and those > chosen for the board won't be the choice of the membership, just as > they weren't in the DNSO. > > But in any case, since ICANN will be selecting the 5,000 it's all > the same. We can help them select the five thousand. We have the power. Now, do we have the organization. I personally don't want to follow anyone here, too many mavericks thinking they actually know something. I see the whole ICANN thing as a war. Same as ICANN's lawyer types. I said it before and i'll say it again - you don't see the lawyers fight, they have their priorities straight - money. However grubby that may sound, it provides the glue, and the discipline which binds them together as a force. We don't have that. We have individuals with strong opinion, but little power. And the mechanisims of power, which can be easily combined as a force between us - our much too busy serving our own purposes. We have to go back to the words of Jeff Mason, "Love is the Answer, Trust is the Key". The internet was built on the basic priciples of trust. Only humanity brings in the rest of the shit - pardon my language - but that's life. I really like you, and find your ability to fight adminrable. I only hope any frustration you may feel is minimal. because I understand how a man of priciples feels when he see a world of shit. So - as it respect ICANN, we can either clean up the shit - together, or watch it fly together. I'm game either way, then end result will be the same. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] FW: I need someone clueful at Network Solutions
That used to be the case - has not been for some years. Network Solutions first tests if the host is in the zone before they list in the root. Also you can't have two host with the same ip number. I believe they test for that too. But - i've copied this to the dp list - if i'm wrong - nsi can provide the hand of guidance. Now maybe your talking about .cx. That tld has the most unusal things in it which are supposed to be name servers. regards joe On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Ehud Gavron wrote: > Son, a host record for a server does not need to exist in the > domain zone itself. > > It needs to exist in the root servers. > > Cheers and all that. > > Ehud > > > >I think it would be really original if they setup thier dns correctly. > > >$ORIGIN wetwork.NET. > >@ 3d12h IN SOANS2.Opus1.COM. hostmaster ( > >1999101601 ; serial > >1D ; refresh > >2H ; retry > >4w2d; expiry > >3d12h ) ; minimum > > >3d12h IN NS ns2.Opus1.COM. > >3d12h IN NS ns1.aces.com. > >3d12h IN TXT"wp-noop://" > >3d12h IN A 204.17.38.4 > >3d12h IN MX 100 ns1.aces.com. > >3d12h IN SOANS2.Opus1.COM. hostmaster ( > >1999101601 ; serial > >1D ; refresh > >2H ; retry > >4w2d; expiry > >3d12h ) ; minimum > > >I can't find a SERVER.WETWORK.NET in the axfr. So it's not network > >solutions fault. > > >And Mr. Walsh, I expect you to understand these things - at least you > >should study the art of using dig ;-) > > >Regards > >Joe > > >> > >> Good example of why this "weak registry" system is flawed. > >> > >> > >> > >> -FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>- > >> > >> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:34:55 -0700 (MST) > >> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> From: Ehud Gavron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: I need someone clueful at Network Solutions > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> Operational help needed. Must register DNS server. Money > >> available. > >> Help? > >> > >> Details below. Note that the more you read the stupider you will > >> get. > >> > >> Ehud > >> > >> Facts: I own WETWORK.NET, registered with the register.com > >> registrar. > >> I own LETOH.COM, registered with network solutions > >> registrar. > >> > >> > >> 20-oct I register a domain LETOH.COM with network > >> solutions, > >> and attempt to use the nameserver > >> "server.wetwork.net" > >> which is under my register.com domain wetwork.net. > >> Network solutions says to [NIC-991020.1545c]: > >> ERROR: Name Server is not > >> registered > >> with InterNIC. > >> > >> 20-oct I send in a host template [NIC-991020.15848] but > >> NetSol > >> says: > >> The domain is non-existent. > >> > >> First register this host through the host > >> registration > >> process or choose a different name-server. > >> > >> AT THE SAME TIME I get another mail message from > >> them: > >> All Host Forms must be submitted from the e-mail > >> address > >> of the current host contact...we have sent a > >> notification > >> message ... which they did not send anywhere I can > >> tell. > >> > >> 22-oct I sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked them to > >> fix this. > >> > >> 26-oct Netsol says: > >> The problem with your HOST registration was that > >> you were > >> trying to register a host but the TOP-Level part of > >> the host > >> is not a registered domain, i.e.WETWORK.NET. > >> > >> 26-oct I wrote netsol and said: > >> Wetwork.net exists.. just not with your registry. > >> > >> However, I wish to use mail.wetwork.net as a DNS > >> server > >> with your registry future domains. Please register > >> the host asap. > >> > >> 27-oct [EMAIL PROTECTED] says to send in a host template > >> and > >> includes one in the message... > >> > >> 27-oct I submit the host template [NIC-991027.75ef]. I > >> also > >> follow it up to help@ with: > >> 991027.75ef duplicates 991020.15848 as per your > >> request. > >> > >> 27-oct Once again I get the 'All host for
[IFWP] Foundation to fund ICANN's general election - nov 1st, 99
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1425922.html?tag=st.cn.1002newsfd. in case anyone did not see this today. looks like good news on the surface, but i anticipate the $200,000 won't even pay for the cgi cript to record general members - we'll see what happens. Foundation to fund ICANN's general election By Courtney Macavinta Staff Writer, CNET News.com November 1, 1999, 7:25 a.m. PT The nonprofit, philanthropic Markle Foundation tomorrow will commit to funding a groundbreaking general election to let the online community select half of the board in charge of the Net's critical address system, according to sources familiar with the announcement. The White House-backed Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit corporation, asked the Markle Foundation for up to $200,000 to kick-start its at-large membership, which will comprise everyday Net users. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Journalistic pandering
> > This from Charles Cooper of ZDNet: > > The last time ICANN -- the nonprofit manager for the Internet's > domain name addressing system -- convened in Santiago, Chile, > the venue was too remote for the nut jobs to show up and shout. > This time it will be in Los Angeles -- already over the limit on that > count -- so Esther Dyson might want to keep a can of pepper > spray at the ready. A can of pepper sray? If that sort of thing does happen - Ester will need a very large vat of pepper sray. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] FW: I need someone clueful at Network Solution
whatever william .. ;-) On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 30-Oct-99 J. Baptista wrote: > > > > And Mr. Walsh, I expect you to understand these things - at least > > you > > should study the art of using dig ;-) > > > > *sigh* I see you missed the point. Host registration should be > handled at a central point, for a very good reason. The registry > is the natural location for this, as the ability to modify hosts by > the multitude of registrars out there creates a major security > problem, and forcing registered hosts to be made only at a > particular registrar interface is unfair to all the other > registrars who must still send their customers to another registrar > site to do this function. > > Now do you understand, Joe? > > BTW, the IDNO is awaiting your acceptable on multiple nominations > to multiple positions. I sincerely hope you will accept them in a > timely fashion. > > -- > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 > Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ > > >
Re: [IFWP] FW: I need someone clueful at Network Solutions
I think it would be really original if they setup thier dns correctly. $ORIGIN wetwork.NET. @ 3d12h IN SOANS2.Opus1.COM. hostmaster ( 1999101601 ; serial 1D ; refresh 2H ; retry 4w2d; expiry 3d12h ) ; minimum 3d12h IN NS ns2.Opus1.COM. 3d12h IN NS ns1.aces.com. 3d12h IN TXT"wp-noop://" 3d12h IN A 204.17.38.4 3d12h IN MX 100 ns1.aces.com. 3d12h IN SOANS2.Opus1.COM. hostmaster ( 1999101601 ; serial 1D ; refresh 2H ; retry 4w2d; expiry 3d12h ) ; minimum I can't find a SERVER.WETWORK.NET in the axfr. So it's not network solutions fault. And Mr. Walsh, I expect you to understand these things - at least you should study the art of using dig ;-) Regards Joe > > Good example of why this "weak registry" system is flawed. > > > > -FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>- > > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:34:55 -0700 (MST) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Ehud Gavron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: I need someone clueful at Network Solutions > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Operational help needed. Must register DNS server. Money > available. > Help? > > Details below. Note that the more you read the stupider you will > get. > > Ehud > > Facts: I own WETWORK.NET, registered with the register.com > registrar. > I own LETOH.COM, registered with network solutions > registrar. > > > 20-oct I register a domain LETOH.COM with network > solutions, > and attempt to use the nameserver > "server.wetwork.net" > which is under my register.com domain wetwork.net. > Network solutions says to [NIC-991020.1545c]: > ERROR: Name Server is not > registered > with InterNIC. > > 20-oct I send in a host template [NIC-991020.15848] but > NetSol > says: > The domain is non-existent. > > First register this host through the host > registration > process or choose a different name-server. > > AT THE SAME TIME I get another mail message from > them: > All Host Forms must be submitted from the e-mail > address > of the current host contact...we have sent a > notification > message ... which they did not send anywhere I can > tell. > > 22-oct I sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked them to > fix this. > > 26-oct Netsol says: > The problem with your HOST registration was that > you were > trying to register a host but the TOP-Level part of > the host > is not a registered domain, i.e.WETWORK.NET. > > 26-oct I wrote netsol and said: > Wetwork.net exists.. just not with your registry. > > However, I wish to use mail.wetwork.net as a DNS > server > with your registry future domains. Please register > the host asap. > > 27-oct [EMAIL PROTECTED] says to send in a host template > and > includes one in the message... > > 27-oct I submit the host template [NIC-991027.75ef]. I > also > follow it up to help@ with: > 991027.75ef duplicates 991020.15848 as per your > request. > > 27-oct Once again I get the 'All host forms must be > submitted > from the email address of the current host > contact...' > > 27-oct I forward the mess back to help@internic > [NIC-991027.14981] > I forward a copy to kimh@ with header > Subject: 1. I submit host form. 2 you reject it. > 3 I ask for help. 4 help says submit host templte. > I DO. > Here's the rejection again. Please fix > > 27-oct help@ responds with: > > Thank you for contacting Network Solutions. > > To register a domain name in the COM, NET, ORG, and > EDU > top-level domains, you should: > > 1. Make arrangements for Internet service. A > company that > can connect you to the Internet > > > Ehud Gavron > ACES Research, Inc., an RMI.NET company > > --End of forwarded message- > > -- > William
Re: [IFWP] Read this
just going through that section now. good stuff. I love tony, even jeff mason loves tony, and i'm sure if john hunt was alive - he'd like tony too. On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > http://invisible.net/eti > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > "I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess > I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that > way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining > has a touch of grey" - JG. > > >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] .mov .movies Top-level name suggestion
All the tld's you mentioned are claimed: http://www.pccf.net/temp/tld/MOV.IR http://www.pccf.net/temp/tld/MOVIE.IND http://www.pccf.net/temp/tld/MOVIE.N http://www.pccf.net/temp/tld/MOVIES.N regards joe On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi. I don't know if this list is the right place to discuss > this, but I couldn't think of any other way of talking to the people > who make these decisions. > > > Would it be possible to start _enforcing_ a new domain nameing > scheme for movies (motion pictures & videos) ? > Something like '.mov' or '.movie'. > > > I am very annoyed that, every time a new hollywood blockbuster > is named, a new top-level .com domain name is generated with teasers > about the movie. Why? > > * A movie _not_ a company. > Movies are often produced by a company, and sometimes distributed by > another company. But 'www.whatisthematrix.com' is an abomination. > There is no business entity called "What is the Matrix". > To my way of thinking, the registration should not be allowed. > > * Most people expect to buy products from a company. > Some movie names might sell products (e.g. If I wanted to buy some > Star Wars stuff, I might look up www.starwars.com), but most do not. > > * Sometimes, a movie name will clash with a company name. > > > > The same sort of idea could be applied to product names and > celebrities' names (cindy.crawford.celebrity?), but I suspect that > this would be seen as being too pedantic. > > Anyone else think that movie names should _not_ be .com ? > > -- > | Nigel Pearson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "reality is that which | > | Telstra IN & InD, Sydney, Australia. | doesn't go away when you | > | Office: 9206 3468Fax: 9212 6329 | stop believing in it." | > | Mobile: 0408 664435 Home: 9579 3293 | Philip K. Dick | >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] IDNO archives
Hello: If all you crazy idno people could just get it together to raise your membership numbers - i think that would be much better then the constant bikering that goes on. Divided your cup cakes - united your strong. On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > > > > > In case anyone wishes to read the complete IDNO list and SC archives and > > form his own independent picture of what has happened there since Santiago, > > the correct URL is http://list.idno.org/archives/ > > And yet... there is no link from the Website itself. > > > > > It is be an interesting research object for anyone interested in the > > process of bootstrapping democratic order from chaos. > > > > The sad part is that it is actually the other way around. Once Joop > teernstra's fraudulent activity was exposed, it turned out to be a process > of bootstrapping chaos from order and exacerbated by Joop. > > > This is the official and complete Archive, maintained by Joe Abley and not > > in any way under my control. > > There is a very good reason for that. the Steering Committee made sure > that the Archives were released as public, and not just for the members. > Furthermore, as stated above, there is still no link to these archives on > the IDNO.ORG website. > > There is a link at http://www.dnspolicy.com > > > The "archive" maintained by Mr Walsh on his own new website is incomplete > > and not a reliable source for anyone interested in the truth. > > Again, another bold faced lie by Joop Teernstra. The archive maintained by > Mr. Walsh is not only complete, but accurately searchable to make it easy. > > I have to ask that rhetorical question though, "Why is Joop Going to the > trouble to defend himself if everybody else is lying?" > > > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ > > Notice this sgnature line doesn't say idno.org either (Anymore). >
[IFWP] Senator Judd Gregg on ICANN, in CJS Appropriations (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:17:54 -0400 From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Senator Judd Gregg on ICANN, in CJS Appropriations I was told today that Senator Judd Gregg put the following language into the CJS Appropriations conference report regarding ICANN. Jamie The Committee directs the Government Accounting Office to review the relationship between the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and to issue a report no later than June 2000. The Committee requests that GAO review: 1) the legal basis for the Department s selection of U.S. representatives to ICANN s interim board and for the expenditure of funds for the costs of U.S. representation and participation in ICANN s proceedings; 2) whether the U.S. participation in ICANN proceedings is consistent with U.S. law, including the Administrative Procedures Act; 3) a legal analysis of the Department of Commerce s opinion that OMB Circular A-25 provides ICANN, as a project partner with the Department, authority to impose fees on internet users for ICANN s operating costs; and, 4) whether the Department has the legal authority to transfer control of the A root server to ICANN. In addition, the Committee seeks GAO s evaluation and recommendations regarding placing responsibility for U.S. participation in ICANN under the National Institute for Standards and Technology rather than the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and requests that GAO review the adequacy of security arrangements under existing Department cooperative agreements. -- James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org / [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176
[IFWP] Notice of pending litigation - Class action proceeding Ontario -PCCF vs. Vixie enterprises
Planet Communications & Computing Facility Tel:1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 Fax:1 (419) 821-8581 October 25, 1999 Mr. Paul Vixie Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC 950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Faxed: 1.650.779.7055 Dear Mr. Vixie: This letter will serve as our official notice to you of a pending class action proceeding against you, the Internet Software Consortium, and the Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC. et al. This action is further and in addition to any claim personally held by myself or Planet Communications & Computing Facility, and/or its directors and officers against you and your associates for libel, malicious falsehood, punitive and exemplary damages. It is our intention to file the claim and seek certification as a class action under subsection (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Statutes of Ontario, 1992, Chapter 6. A motion will be made to a judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) for an order certifying the proceeding as a class proceeding and appointing Joe Baptista and Planet Communications & Computing Facility as representative plaintiffs. In accordance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, section 5.(3)Evidence as to size of class, "Each party to a motion for certification shall, in an affidavit filed for use on the motion, provide the party's best information on the number of members in the class", we have identified three classes. - All Internet users, estimated at 200 million members. - All domain name server administrators, estimated at 100,000 to 200,000 members - All domain name server administrators using software products developed by you who are vulnerable to denial of service attacks being BIND 4.9.5, 4.9.6, and 8.1.1. The group size is estimated at 10,000 to 20,000 members We would like to propose a solution and avoid litigation. Our intent in developing the BIND 1999 survey was to close existing security issues due to your negligence with respect to vulnerable software products developed by you. We were prepared to offer these administrators automated technical support and assistance in upgrading, correcting and fixing the problems caused by your software. Unfortunately, due to your actions and those of your associates we are unable to meet our obligations. It was also our intention to use the database to empower domain system administrators and their users as to their rights and control over the root cache files. It is our position that ICANN has no control over the internet routing structure, but that such control rests in the hands of those people who control the root cache, i.e. dns administrators. We propose to transfer to you the entire BIND 1999 Survey. We propose that you undertake the responsibility of fixing the security problems caused by your negligence in programming the same. We also propose that you contact all dns administrators and educate them on their rights in respect of Internet governance and their control of the Internet infrastructure. We will require your guarantee that the database will only be used for these purposes and will not be distributed to any person or group for any other purpose nor used to spam said dns administrators. In addition, we reserve the right to approve or reject the form and contents of such communications and notices. This offer will remain open to you until we provide you with notice that it is withdrawn. This offer does not constitute an offer to settle under the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario). Sincerely, Joe Baptista, Director encl: 3 Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] IDNO At large membership
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > Failure or capture of the AL membership makes it even more important for > Individual Domain Name Owners to press for their admission into the DNSO. No it does not. The idno, if the at large membership does not know is in disarray. You people spend more time back stabing each other then the ga does. Put your house in order before you start on another. The idno need more members. Work on that first. Our membership levels in the idno are a joke for the amount of time it's been out there. When all the bum licking and kicking ends, and the idno grows up and focuses on it members needs first, as opposed to a board that ridicules it's members, and then proceeds to canabalize itself. Just because ICANN is a joke is no reason to rush the idno before it's time. No need to add to the entertainment factor here. I expect the idno to take it's position in this seriously - and as part of that maturity it must strive to grow in numbers - if not in wisdom. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
RE: [IFWP] At large membership
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 20-Oct-99 Joop Teernstra wrote: > > Failure or capture of the AL membership makes it even more > > important for > > Individual Domain Name Owners to press for their admission into > > the DNSO. > > Too bad there is no viable organization that can push for this > admission. agreed. The idno need time to grow, an increased membership, something more robust. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] The ICANN Board Elections
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Ken Freed wrote: > Usurpers may assume only the powers we give them. Someday, > we might outgrow the need for kings. We'll learn to rule ourselves. What about getting on with the ruling thing now. You've had 20,000 years of rule under twits, I assure you, the collective human will can do no worst. Problem is - non of you trust each other. You've been divided, diced and sliced by your political masters. Time to change. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
RE: [IFWP] Jon Cohen
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > But the point is, there are not allegations except from YOU. There > is nothing at all to back this up. If I were him, I would not > deign to give any credence to your attempt here, absent something > more substantial and verifiable. I see nothing that points to him > even being a suspect, if the event even occured. > > Right now, there is only your word for it, and that is not > sufficient when allegations like this are made. Move back to england. This is america - not some british colony. If there's a concern in respect of someone's standing - it must be addressed, no heads in the sand - tails in the air stuff. All I have said about cohen, is that he's part of big blue. i was a part of big blue myself once. I'm sure cohen remembers the "we are millers ontario slogan ;)". Big blue by the way is the province of ontario progressive conservative election machine - a big thing in the seventies. Now the people involved in big blue, are also involved in the florida-cornwall connection. I know - I watched. Is it possible cohen is one of the molesters - no one's ever going to know that and deliver the level of proof you require. This case is buried. In Ontario child molesters in the civil and professional services who have power are as a ruled bribed. Basically the meeting go like this, hi Mr. Such and SUch, I understand you buggered a child etc. etc. etc. - that's ok, as long as you kiss our ass, were going to keep your secret. That sort of thing William is time honoured tradition in Ontario. Check the facts with respect to the article. call the sun archives. So - I see it this way - we get his picture, we show it to a few of the victims and either get a confirmation or denial. Remember Walsh, your an american. Some day I also will be an american, and I know - that in america we seek the truth, and not gag order to keep peoplke silent. We do not bury evidence. We do not bury our heads in the sand and point our behinds into the air in a form of submission. And one thing we don't ever do in america is allow our children to be raped by politicians, and then cover it up. Or have I made a mistake here. Are we in fact as bad as the canadians. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
RE: [IFWP] Jon Cohen
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > Right now we only have YOUR word that any of this happened, and > some hidden allegation that Jonathan Cohen is someone related > despite his name not being specifically mentioned. > > Sounds very flimsy and not very credible to me. Everything in the province of Ontario is flimsy. That's why it's time for Cohen to reply to the allegations. Once we get his picture - the victims can do the rest. Remeber, in Ontario child molesters in power are protected from prosecution. If you don't believe that, call up the mpp who made a fuss about it. I've know about the "fraternity" as it is called for some years. As far as I'm concerned cohen is irrelevant, it's the backers in the fraternity that matter. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] Jon Cohen
Victoria. You monitor these conferences on behalf on Mr. Cohen. I want to settle this issue of Cohen once and for all. I need a picture of him, prefferable something from the early 1980's. Also I want to publically ask that we setup a telephone conversation with Mr. Cohen, where I can ask him questions concerning this. It's is regretable that the province of Ontario spends it's time hiding the truth. So far i have seen no defense from yourself or Mr. Cohen to these allegations. Regards Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Re: Third election. - Jonathan Cohen
Mikael - I agree with the general points you have expressed here. But let's set the record straight. Children in Florida, Cornwall and Toronto were raped. There will be no investigation into these allegations. The investigation has been buried by the Ontario Government (CANADA) via it's protector of child molesters - someone I can not mention due to the court order of Judge Brown. In fact, when I was sued for libel - by the individual who's name I can not mention - due to the court order of judge brown - with respect to these very issues, the court of Judge Brown, denied the the right to trial or defense. On my appeal, which incidentally was fully paid for by a Mr. Mark Savary - who launders money on behalf of the Ontario mob/bikers, the court admitted that I was denied a defense, that there where irregularies - but it's didn't matter much anyway according to the court, and my right to trial was again trashed. Justice in the province of Ontario, and most of Canada with respect to crown officers, does not exist. The investigation of this matter stopped in Florida, there will be no further investigation, unless people demand it. And then I assure you it will be handled in a manner so as to bury it further. A most unfortunate state of affairs. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223 On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Mikael Pawlo wrote: > /Sorry for this spam, but I felt I had to reply to all to whom Jeff > Williams sent his mail when I was quoted in his mail./ > > On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Yes, you do. > > > Is he charged with anything? If so - what? How will such an allegation > > > affect his work for ICANN? > > No he has yet to be charged with any specific charges to date. But > > there is an open investigation. I think it is quite clear as to how this > > would > > and could affect anyone's work for ICANN. It is amazing to me that you > > could even ask such a question. :( > > I have just one quick comment: whatever happened to "innocent until proven > guilty"? > > You continue: > > Understand I am not saying that he is guilty of anything, but the suspicion > > alone is sufficient to disqualify him as a ICANN BoD member. It is up > > to a court of law to determine his guilt of innocence at some point in time. > > You say that he's under suspicion and therefore should not be able to > run for ICANN. I beg to differ. I have no understanding for pedophiles > whatsoever, I might even consider severe punishment not even available in > Sweden for such creatures. However, I think we'll create quite an > impossible situation if the shadow of a doubt or a suspicion would > automatically disqualify board members. If a board member is charged or > convicted he should probably be removed due to lack of confidence. Since > ICANN board participation is an assignment where confidence is important, > a charge against a board member probably should be sufficient for removal, > but a suspicion only should not be enough. If so - we could probably not > elect any board member. > > I won't argue my point further - you either see it or not. > > Regards, > > Mikael > > _ > > ICQ:35638414mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pawlo.com/ >
[IFWP] Here it is the florida - cornwall - fucking children coverup.
Here is the data I promissed ... PLEASE NOTE -- anywhere you see [CENSORED BY COURT ORDER] -- it is because I am unable to provide that information by Court order of Judge Brown. Thank you Judge Brown and all the children who were buggered by this coverup and never received any justice. Subject: pedophilia in Ontario Date: 1999/04/08 Author: mervyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> April 4, 1999 Coverup or witchhunt? By MICHAEL HARRIS -- Toronto Sun In 1994, a sex-scandal exploded in Cornwall that shocked the nation. Five years later, the OPP is still investigating whether a pedophile "clan," including priests, Crown attorneys, police and probation officers, victimized scores of boys between the ages of 8 and 18 over a 30-year period, and then manipulated the system to cover up their crimes. MPP Garry Guzzo wants Premier Mike Harris to call a public inquiry to clean the air. The OPP stands behind its investigation and says that Cornwall is in the grips of McCarthyism. Coverup or witchhunt? The Sun's National Affairs columnist Michael Harris investigates in a two-part series. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- At the marinas on Las Olas Blvd., the yachts are bigger than a poor kid's dreams. Thirty years ago, before the "pharmaceuticals" industry (the local name for the drug trade) came to South Florida, the wealth here wasn't nearly as ostentatious. Neither were the lodgings. Laid out in neat avenues parallel to Ft. Lauderdale's famous beach -- immortalized in the 1960 movie, Where the Boys Are -- the city's down-market guest houses offered chalky northerners the basic comforts during their brief vacations: Perfect Ozzie-and-Harriet digs. The names of these sun-baked getaways have changed as often as their pastel facades. But the Saltaire Hotel is still here, a meticulously clean, white stucco low-rise with a palm-fringed courtyard and the gleaming cars of its clients parked nose-in from Birch St. When Ontario Tory MPP Garry Guzzo first saw the Saltaire, Birch St. was part of Ft. Lauderdale's "pedophile row," a seedy strip where men with a taste for boys and an aversion to getting caught indulged themselves thousands of kilometres from home. "I first learned about the strip 30 years ago, when I started bringing my family down here," Guzzo said. "I went out for pizza one night, and I saw the older guys with boys, and the young male prostitutes cruising the street. You didn't have to be a vice cop to figure out what was happening." HOTEL NAMED BY ALLEGED VICTIMS One of the alleged victims in the Cornwall case claims that the Saltaire was one of the places "clan members" took children for "molestation, fondling, oral sex and intercourse" between 1957 and 1993. Enter Guzzo. Three decades later, the MPP for Ottawa-Rideau has gone through nearly as many changes as the Florida neighbourhood where he and his wife, Anne, now own a condo. The father of two girls has been a successful lawyer, a municipal politician, and provincial court judge with 11 years experience in the family court division. Worried that his own government, unwittingly or otherwise, might be party to a coverup "at least as bizarre and maybe worse than Mt. Cashel," Guzzo took the highly unusual step of writing Premier Mike Harris about a continuing major crime investigation by the OPP: "I am 100% certain in my own mind that the former owners and operators of the motel on the pedophile strip in Ft. Lauderdale, where the complainants stated they were taken on occasion by some of these perpetrators in the 1970s, have not been interrogated, nor have the motel records been requested by the police doing the investigation ...," Guzzo wrote on Sept. 18, 1998. "I am satisfied that something is dreadfully out of joint." Guzzo's suspicions date back to events on April 8, 1997. On that date, affidavits alleging widespread sex crimes by very prominent people in Cornwall were provided to the Ontario government by Perry Dunlop, the crusading police officer who broke the sex scandal back in 1994. Officials of the attorney general agreed to take the documents, but the solicitor-general's office chose to reroute them. COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE Deciding that the material constituted a complaint against the police, bureaucrats shipped the material to the civilian committee that deals with police complaints. The chairman of that committee, Murray Chitra, read only part of the graphic material before boxing it up again and sending it to the Ontario Provincial Police four or five days later. After talking with Chitra, Guzzo had two questions: Did OPP investigators ever receive the affidavits, and if so, why hadn't they acted on all of the information at their disposal? As for the copies of the same affidavits received by the attorney general's office, Guzzo was even more troubled. He found out that the AG's copies had been sent to [CENSORED BY
[IFWP] Re: Third election. - Jonathan Cohen
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Further, as you may not know, there is an ongoing investigation into > Jonathan Cohen's activities on visits he made to Florida regarding > some sexual misconduct with 13 year old boy. Need I say more? One 13 year old boy is just a drop in the bucket. There are several buggers in Ontario who have gotten away with fucking children. Florida police asked for help in investigating, and that investigation was quickly buried by a very senior police officer - who's name I can not say do to a court order from judge Brown. Said police officer is the patron saint of Canadian child molesters. Most of all of this is due to an Ian McPhail (spelling may be incorrect). Ian in the 70' - 80's was the purveyor of children to most canadian politicians. His parties were famous. The children were trucked in from florida to cornwall. Now Ian is dead - last i heard - it was aids that buried him. The real issue is how many children will be buried with these guys - buried without justice. Thank you Judge Brown. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] oh really
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > "I don't think we should hand out domains with generic names, > I mean some guy has patents.com and that's just not right." > > - Jon Cohen, > > At the Industry Canada Domain and Trademark Workshop, Ottawa 1997 Exactly. Like I said Cohen's PC Party Bum boy ... domains .. da ... Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] bill gates is domain nuts
http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=174254 too much. win 2k is just one big massive dns disaster. I wonder if this is bill gates idea of taking over the dns? Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] H.R. 3028 and ICANN UDRP
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > No he didn't get the majority of the FRAUDULENT votes. And Elizabeth > knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the whole election > process was a farce. A farce it is. My only confusion is are we watching a Shakespeare tradedy, comedy or both? It's fun to watch. It even has sabatoge. Just ask Vixie ;-) Regards Joe > > Michael Sondow wrote: > > > Joseph Friedman wrote: > > > > > > Is it official that Mr. Cohen was elected for the 1 year term? Where has > > > this news been posted? > > > > No, I suppose it isn't official, yet. There's been a "technical" > > glitch, according to the ever-non-partisan Elizabeth Porteneuve > > (CORE supporter). But Cohen received the majority of NC votes, > > didn't he? > > > > > > Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org > > Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 > > > > Regards, > > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > >
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > I understand completely. The Bob Shaw incident is now swallowing up a few > > antispammers with it. > > LOL! I am sure it is! Bob is rather disgusting individual. Are you kidding? Your being too kind. I was on the horn with our industry people and while we were talking a little bird wispered to me on the subject of bob shaw, sola and the industry canada reps. Shaw was plugged, he was rude, he was crude, he was lude. The man is a drunk. He grossed them out in Berlin. I'm bring this conduct to the attention of his boss when I get around to the next stage in Mr. shaws continued education with PCCF. I'm astounded that the ITU would appoint such a joke to such an important position. We all shaw the articles that the ITU wants a hand in internet governance. Well .. if Mr Shaw is an example of the ITU confidence in the process, then I think it's time to start converting them over to the PTT Museam. Good god, shaw was their lan administrator, how in the hell does an ignorent techi end up in such a post making internation policy. The ITU need to upgrade it's image - badly. Have a drink Bob - 1999 was a long year - and 2000 is going to be a bummer. Regards Joe baptista > > > > > > > By the way. Since I'm think of Bob, I've just completed a new list of > > Media fax numbers - pruned for net use, which I shall be making available > > soon. > > Well make sure I get a copy there joe old buddy! >;) > > > > > > > Regards > > Joe Baptista > > > > > > > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > > > > > You don't get it do you. People are signing up for free internet services > > > > to which thery agree to receive email adverts - or stuff like that. There > > > > is an increasing need to have a commercial email top level domain. Thos > > > > who subscribe to free services agree to get adverts - those that do not > > > > can block at the smtp mta by means of tld. > > > > > > > > With respect to porn, it's much harder to block new domains in anti porn > > > > filters like i-l-o-v-e-h-e-r-t-w-a-t.com, but very easy to block an entire > > > > dot.sex tld. You get my drift. It makes legislatures jobs much easier. > > > > > > > > Right now the anti-spam nuts are trying to get mta's reprogrammed for some > > > > type of banner exchange. Crazy stuff. But it's much easier to block at > > > > the dns level, the mta will just send an error message. See what I mean, > > > > the tools exists to provide the net with answers to existing communication > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > It would also serve the pro spammers - or as they would like to call > > > > themselves - pro commercial emailers. At this time most of their > > > > marketing techniques seem to be restricted to some monster called ffa > > > > blaster. If your really interested in knowing more about it, just do a > > > > search engin look up. > > > > > > > > This FFA blaster apparrently generates nightly over 300,000 email > > > > exchanges. That's per blaster. In some cases these blasters (what they > > > > call safe posting lists) have generated enought email to drown large > > > > isp's. Recently Ottawa's istar.ca had major smtp problems for this very > > > > reason. > > > > > > > > Of course these people like the anti-spam people are also nuts. Some > > > > actually read the thousands of email communications they receive per day. > > > > Other use extensive filtering devices and never actually read all this > > > > email, but do autorespond to it. > > > > > > > > I'm getting really concerned that the future of electronic marketing is > > > > being restricted to mass mail programs generated by robots, replied to by > > > > robots, filed and deleted by robots, with minimal human intervention. > > > > > > > > So you can see what I'm getting at - both groups are kooks. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Joe Baptista > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
Come on Peter. Canadian politicians are about the same as US politicians. They won't go anywhere near this. In fact I think the canadian government has made it clear - it's not their business. And rightly so. It's our business to find solutions. In case you have not noticed, we live on a dead planet. Things are not looking very fine in the US nor Canada. In fact that's why PCCF has been spreading it's network infrastructure around. I think it's tyime the human race started to use the tools available to take over the goverment process. Politicians have screwed up, I'm sure the MAPS RBL and it's proposed policing tactics can't be any worse. Regards Joe Baptista Now I ask you, is it not time On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > You are located in Canada I believe. How about getting Canada to legislate some >TLDs. Not to let > Washington have all the fun. > > Peter Veeck > > "J. Baptista" wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > At the same time you creat a ten fold hit to the ISP's banb width. So who gets >hurt. You > > > haven't bothered the SPAMMer at all. Probably his return address does not exist >so if the > > > domain exists you clog up the mail server's spool file and slow the whole system >down. Thats > > > all right, you can now call the ISP or your friends and complain about the >system speed. > > > > No you don't. If you assign CommercialEmail to an dot.whatever, you then > > block it at the mta. Easy, transmission denied. The anti-spam loons have > > proposed some smtp/mta banner message that let's you know weither the site > > accepts or rejects commerical email. I've looked at the proposal and it's > > nuts. The ability to do that exists today in the dns and mta. > > > > The anti spammers are trying to reinvent the wheel. Not necessary, the > > solution exists today, is easy to impliment, will immediately reduce > > traffic, and by default reduce internet costs. > > > > Imagine Peter, if we at PCCF get our way, soon the ITU will announce > > world wide free long distance, all you have to do is listen to a 30 > > second commercial announcement. It's happening already Peter - might as > > well put them in their own domain class. > > > > Regards > > Joe > > > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > > > Joe, Peter and all, > > > > > > > > Lets face some hard facts here. You are NEVER going to eliminate > > > > spamm entirely. You will be very lucky if you even are able to reduce > > > > it to any great degree over any period of time. That will only be > > > > accomplished at the user level, not at the ISP level. > > > > > > > > I have several what I call "Reverse-Spamming" tools that I have built > > > > as E-Mail bots for my e-mailer that I can turn on or off and selectively > > > > direct to the perp should that be necessary. What they do is redirect > > > > the spamm message back to the originator and the "Known" DN > > > > admin. address, except they send 10 to 1 back to that spammer > > > > and to the admin. that the DN is assigned if that is known. > > > > This one has worked particularly well with certain members of this > > > > list on occasion, for instance. >;) And also with the "KIng of Spamm", > > > > AOL. It just give them a taste of their own medicine. >;) I have found > > > > it extremely effective. So you can see that no ISP intervention or > > > > WHOIS data is required. >;) > > > > > > > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > > > > > > > Exactly. That's the trick - using the dns to separate the good from the > > > > > bad. We have also proposed a dot.uce, and dot.spam - as a means of > > > > > keeping spam out of the non spam loop. > > > > > > > > > > More and more companies need this sort of service. As more and more free > > > > > internet services are offered in exchange for adverts, this sort of thing > > > > > will be critical to keeping the spam (or pro uce com-email) people and the > > > > > antispamers separate. I think both groups are nuts and the sooner that we > > > > > get them on their own separate infrastructure nets, the better. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Joe Baptis
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Joe and all, > > Joe, I agree with you conclusion entirely. But amongst this > group the anti-spammer kooks seem to be in the majority. > > Another thing that really bothers me in particular is what > some people define as spamm. Anything they don't like > that is posted to a mailing list that they are a member of, > some consider that spamm. Interesting definition. I understand completely. The Bob Shaw incident is now swallowing up a few antispammers with it. By the way. Since I'm think of Bob, I've just completed a new list of Media fax numbers - pruned for net use, which I shall be making available soon. Regards Joe Baptista > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > You don't get it do you. People are signing up for free internet services > > to which thery agree to receive email adverts - or stuff like that. There > > is an increasing need to have a commercial email top level domain. Thos > > who subscribe to free services agree to get adverts - those that do not > > can block at the smtp mta by means of tld. > > > > With respect to porn, it's much harder to block new domains in anti porn > > filters like i-l-o-v-e-h-e-r-t-w-a-t.com, but very easy to block an entire > > dot.sex tld. You get my drift. It makes legislatures jobs much easier. > > > > Right now the anti-spam nuts are trying to get mta's reprogrammed for some > > type of banner exchange. Crazy stuff. But it's much easier to block at > > the dns level, the mta will just send an error message. See what I mean, > > the tools exists to provide the net with answers to existing communication > > problem. > > > > It would also serve the pro spammers - or as they would like to call > > themselves - pro commercial emailers. At this time most of their > > marketing techniques seem to be restricted to some monster called ffa > > blaster. If your really interested in knowing more about it, just do a > > search engin look up. > > > > This FFA blaster apparrently generates nightly over 300,000 email > > exchanges. That's per blaster. In some cases these blasters (what they > > call safe posting lists) have generated enought email to drown large > > isp's. Recently Ottawa's istar.ca had major smtp problems for this very > > reason. > > > > Of course these people like the anti-spam people are also nuts. Some > > actually read the thousands of email communications they receive per day. > > Other use extensive filtering devices and never actually read all this > > email, but do autorespond to it. > > > > I'm getting really concerned that the future of electronic marketing is > > being restricted to mass mail programs generated by robots, replied to by > > robots, filed and deleted by robots, with minimal human intervention. > > > > So you can see what I'm getting at - both groups are kooks. > > > > Regards > > Joe Baptista > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > Who needs a "free" service. These people sign up for a two week free trial, run >a test one > > > night, and run all night distributing their goods the next night. By the time >the complaints > > > start coming in they have left town and you support people have several hundred >or thousand > > > complaints to answer. The privacy lobby tore up the caller ID system so bad >that it is > > > difficult to tie the SPAMMer to a physical location. > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > "J. Baptista" wrote: > > > > > > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] H.R. 3028 and ICANN UDRP
There is no consensus. As for sending email to all internet users - humm! 200 million users (estimated and growing daily). Have fun. Control of the dns infrastructure is in the hands of those who control the root cache. Not ICANN. ICANN is an experiment in comedy, and a fine one at that. The ga has seen consensus in it's support of Nii. I felt Nii was a bit too sweet to play chairman, but of all the candidates in my opinion he was the finest. An honourable man, well educated, sincere, and diplomatic. I was very pleased to support him and see he had considerable support here. Nii was also a great color - he's black. A politically correct color code with brains. And what happens, he get's trashed. Maybe Dr. Nii was the wrong color for the board - because he certainly had the brains and support to get in. Dr. Nii, as a white representative of the european race I formerly appologise for my white brothers and sisters, wrong colour dr. nii - i didn't know there was a clash. You entire consesus question is irrelevant. This is the finest dictatorship I have ever seen. Like all internet dictatorships, the rise will be swift, the fall merciful. Regards Joe Baptista On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > At 07:05 PM 10/15/1999 -0500, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > >Per Koelle wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > > > > > > > Governing authority on the Internet has always been derived from > > consensus, > > > >So how about an email to all Internet users to see if there is a consensus for > >goverence. > > If there is a consensus for governance? There must be some sort of governance. > > --Joseph >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Joe, Peter and all, > > Lets face some hard facts here. You are NEVER going to eliminate > spamm entirely. You will be very lucky if you even are able to reduce > it to any great degree over any period of time. That will only be > accomplished at the user level, not at the ISP level. I agree. Spam is for sure here to stay, or to be polite CE. But I feel confident that if the US government enacted legislation to force people to use Commercial Email domains for all commercial solicitations, most people in the US would follow it. Remember the last time there was an anti porn scare in the U.S. and most sites packed up. Poeple in the US still want to obey the law, and many marketers are looking for solutions. Those solutions exist today in the dns and legislation. > I have several what I call "Reverse-Spamming" tools that I have built > as E-Mail bots for my e-mailer that I can turn on or off and selectively > direct to the perp should that be necessary. What they do is redirect > the spamm message back to the originator and the "Known" DN > admin. address, except they send 10 to 1 back to that spammer > and to the admin. that the DN is assigned if that is known. > This one has worked particularly well with certain members of this > list on occasion, for instance. >;) And also with the "KIng of Spamm", > AOL. It just give them a taste of their own medicine. >;) I have found > it extremely effective. So you can see that no ISP intervention or > WHOIS data is required. >;) I think I'd be much happier with just moving the whole spam - anti spam nuts to a dns solution. Regards Joe > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > Exactly. That's the trick - using the dns to separate the good from the > > bad. We have also proposed a dot.uce, and dot.spam - as a means of > > keeping spam out of the non spam loop. > > > > More and more companies need this sort of service. As more and more free > > internet services are offered in exchange for adverts, this sort of thing > > will be critical to keeping the spam (or pro uce com-email) people and the > > antispamers separate. I think both groups are nuts and the sooner that we > > get them on their own separate infrastructure nets, the better. > > > > Regards > > Joe Baptista > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > How about a dot SPAMM TLD And let the SPAMMers use it with impunity. It could be > > > easily filtered. Is the only way to get new TLDs to have them legislated? Can >any > > > country legislate new TLDs or must it be done inside the beltway? Thanks but I >don't > > > find them more knowledgeable than ICANN. Perhaps anything affecting network >operation > > > should be turned over to NANOG. > > > > > > Being currently involved in a civil case proceeding through the US Federal court > > > system, I am intimately aware of the costs involved in legal actions. I doubt >that you > > > could establish sufficient damages or find deep enough pockets on the other side >of the > > > table to warrant prosecution of a SPAMM case through a court of competent > > > jurisdiction.. Perhaps some of the attorneys on this list would offer pro bono > > > services. > > > > > > If someone can show me reliable empirical date that Srikanth's plan would reduce >the > > > bandwidth stolen from Internet Texoma by SPAMMers by 10% and the costs to >process SPAMM > > > complaints by a like amount I would not only support his plan but would offer to >host > > > the database at no cost. Host--but not administer the requests for access. > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > "J. Baptista" wrote: > > > > > > > Peter: > > > > > > > > You want a good solution to stopping spam. Legislate the solution. One > > > > proposal being submitted to congress is by the dot.mlm people. It already > > > > has widespread support with admins. And the same solution offered by the > > > > dot.mlm people also helps parents filter porn. > > > > > > > > However, for these simple effective solutions to be put in effect the > > > > root-serversd have to be liberated. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Joe Baptista > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > > Regards, > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
You don't get it do you. People are signing up for free internet services to which thery agree to receive email adverts - or stuff like that. There is an increasing need to have a commercial email top level domain. Thos who subscribe to free services agree to get adverts - those that do not can block at the smtp mta by means of tld. With respect to porn, it's much harder to block new domains in anti porn filters like i-l-o-v-e-h-e-r-t-w-a-t.com, but very easy to block an entire dot.sex tld. You get my drift. It makes legislatures jobs much easier. Right now the anti-spam nuts are trying to get mta's reprogrammed for some type of banner exchange. Crazy stuff. But it's much easier to block at the dns level, the mta will just send an error message. See what I mean, the tools exists to provide the net with answers to existing communication problem. It would also serve the pro spammers - or as they would like to call themselves - pro commercial emailers. At this time most of their marketing techniques seem to be restricted to some monster called ffa blaster. If your really interested in knowing more about it, just do a search engin look up. This FFA blaster apparrently generates nightly over 300,000 email exchanges. That's per blaster. In some cases these blasters (what they call safe posting lists) have generated enought email to drown large isp's. Recently Ottawa's istar.ca had major smtp problems for this very reason. Of course these people like the anti-spam people are also nuts. Some actually read the thousands of email communications they receive per day. Other use extensive filtering devices and never actually read all this email, but do autorespond to it. I'm getting really concerned that the future of electronic marketing is being restricted to mass mail programs generated by robots, replied to by robots, filed and deleted by robots, with minimal human intervention. So you can see what I'm getting at - both groups are kooks. Regards Joe Baptista On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > Who needs a "free" service. These people sign up for a two week free trial, run a >test one > night, and run all night distributing their goods the next night. By the time the >complaints > start coming in they have left town and you support people have several hundred or >thousand > complaints to answer. The privacy lobby tore up the caller ID system so bad that it >is > difficult to tie the SPAMMer to a physical location. > > Peter Veeck > > "J. Baptista" wrote: > > > Exactly. That's the trick - using the dns to separate the good from the > > bad. We have also proposed a dot.uce, and dot.spam - as a means of > > keeping spam out of the non spam loop. > > > > More and more companies need this sort of service. As more and more free > > internet services are offered in exchange for adverts, this sort of thing > > will be critical to keeping the spam (or pro uce com-email) people and the > > antispamers separate. I think both groups are nuts and the sooner that we > > get them on their own separate infrastructure nets, the better. > > > > Regards > > Joe Baptista > > > > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > > > > > How about a dot SPAMM TLD And let the SPAMMers use it with impunity. It could be > > > easily filtered. Is the only way to get new TLDs to have them legislated? Can >any > > > country legislate new TLDs or must it be done inside the beltway? Thanks but I >don't > > > find them more knowledgeable than ICANN. Perhaps anything affecting network >operation > > > should be turned over to NANOG. > > > > > > Being currently involved in a civil case proceeding through the US Federal court > > > system, I am intimately aware of the costs involved in legal actions. I doubt >that you > > > could establish sufficient damages or find deep enough pockets on the other side >of the > > > table to warrant prosecution of a SPAMM case through a court of competent > > > jurisdiction.. Perhaps some of the attorneys on this list would offer pro bono > > > services. > > > > > > If someone can show me reliable empirical date that Srikanth's plan would reduce >the > > > bandwidth stolen from Internet Texoma by SPAMMers by 10% and the costs to >process SPAMM > > > complaints by a like amount I would not only support his plan but would offer to >host > > > the database at no cost. Host--but not administer the requests for access. > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > "J. Baptista" wrote: > > > > > > > Peter: > > > >
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
I really don't understand why people get so excited over the whole whois database. The dot.god and dot.satan top level domains will both support anonymous registrations. Any addressing information is between the registrar and the domain holder, and not the business of anyone else. Regards Joe Baptista On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > Dennis, > > Which government should ICANN go to for guidance. ITU and ICAO are based upon >International > agreements. They can negotiate with governments. ICANN is based upon WHAT? >William Dailey? Al > Gore? I have yet see a public ground swell of support for ICANN > > Peter Veeck. > > d3nnis wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > Re: "You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN, > > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes. Set > > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints. ICANN could take over MAPS > > RBL. " > > > > IMHO, if ICANN ever acquires the authority to downgrade individuals' privacy rights > > to a matter of contract law, ICANN will have become the black hole of > > government ... > > > > Since ICANN is supposed to be involved only in administration, it should be >seeking guidance on > > this issue directly from government. > > > > >Dennis > > > > -- > > > Let me give you an example of how the privacy of the Texas auto registration > > > Database works. The private individual cannot get any information. The > > > Companies get the Entire Database for mail lists. > > > > > > Enforcement of rules/regulatons is a scary subject. Everybody does not follow > > > all of the RFC's, does anybody know them all? There is no [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > > but there is a mail server with an open relay. nor is there a > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] but there is a mail server. In theory you shouldn't > > > need > > > a database to contact a network operator. You can get a contact from the SOA > > > or > > > you can mail to the RFC addresses. In an ideal world none of this would be > > > necessary so obviously this is not an ideal world. You can not have > > > governance > > > without enforcement. > > > > > > You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN, > > > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes. > > > Set > > > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints. ICANN could take over > > > MAPS > > > RBL. They can also handle network/server intrusion complaints. Of course > > > before > > > you add someone to the RBL you must have a hearing of some sort so you need > > > either to have a judicial system or work with a local system. Will the US > > > allow > > > anybody else to have judicial authority over their citizens? They won't even > > > sign a treaty they instigated. Will the rest of the world freely submit > > > themselves to US administration. NOT LIKELY, even if as P.T. Barnum said, you > > > can fool all of the people some of the time. > > > > > > Personally I would prefer to keep the databases as they are (actually I would > > > prefer better accuracy of their information) and put up with the aggravations. > > > I'll do my own policing. I know the present, the future is what is scary. > > > > > > Getting rid of the registration databases does not get rid of SPAM nor will it > > > in any way effect network/server security. There are programs that go out and > > > sniff the web for email addresses. Somebody might get my address from this > > > very > > > email. How long before one of the indexing companies, there is a profit > > > motive, > > > starts scavenging their databases for email addresses? Have you noticed that > > > there are names, phone numbers, and addresses in the telephone directories. > > > > > > On another tact, how much of this privacy argument is driven by profit > > > motive? > > > My database--my information--my Copyright--PAY ME. > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > Srikanth Narra wrote: > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > This proposal, if any thing, should act to everyone's advantage in fighting > > > > spam. > > > > > > > > 1. It becomes prohibitively expensive for a spammer to get (or revalidate > > > > your information if you change it) from whois database as they have to pay > > > > on a domain by domain basis giving valid reason (however filmsy) for > > > > obtaining your details. The records of such requests exist with the > > > > register. > > > > > > > > 2. Becomes (hopefully) easier for registers to spot someone mining the whois > > > > for spamming purposes - as they will have to make fairly number of > > > > requests. At the least complicates spammer's methods to gather information > > > > as they will have to use multiple identities, etc (remember verifiable means > > > > of payment). > > > > > > > > (maybe we can even suggest some guidelines for registers to request for a > > > > additional safety deposit from someone requesting too large a number of > > > > reco
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
Peter: I can is based on hope, supported by the faithful, devoted to the dead, who once roamed this great internet as god. Now that god is dead, the faithful plug on in the hope salavation will be just around november. ICANN is basically illegal and irrelevant. Nii losing is a clear indication the kooks are in control here. A real shame. Regards Joe Baptista On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote: > Dennis, > > Which government should ICANN go to for guidance. ITU and ICAO are based upon >International > agreements. They can negotiate with governments. ICANN is based upon WHAT? >William Dailey? Al > Gore? I have yet see a public ground swell of support for ICANN > > Peter Veeck. > > d3nnis wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > Re: "You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN, > > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes. Set > > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints. ICANN could take over MAPS > > RBL. " > > > > IMHO, if ICANN ever acquires the authority to downgrade individuals' privacy rights > > to a matter of contract law, ICANN will have become the black hole of > > government ... > > > > Since ICANN is supposed to be involved only in administration, it should be >seeking guidance on > > this issue directly from government. > > > > >Dennis > > > > -- > > > Let me give you an example of how the privacy of the Texas auto registration > > > Database works. The private individual cannot get any information. The > > > Companies get the Entire Database for mail lists. > > > > > > Enforcement of rules/regulatons is a scary subject. Everybody does not follow > > > all of the RFC's, does anybody know them all? There is no [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > > but there is a mail server with an open relay. nor is there a > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] but there is a mail server. In theory you shouldn't > > > need > > > a database to contact a network operator. You can get a contact from the SOA > > > or > > > you can mail to the RFC addresses. In an ideal world none of this would be > > > necessary so obviously this is not an ideal world. You can not have > > > governance > > > without enforcement. > > > > > > You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN, > > > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes. > > > Set > > > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints. ICANN could take over > > > MAPS > > > RBL. They can also handle network/server intrusion complaints. Of course > > > before > > > you add someone to the RBL you must have a hearing of some sort so you need > > > either to have a judicial system or work with a local system. Will the US > > > allow > > > anybody else to have judicial authority over their citizens? They won't even > > > sign a treaty they instigated. Will the rest of the world freely submit > > > themselves to US administration. NOT LIKELY, even if as P.T. Barnum said, you > > > can fool all of the people some of the time. > > > > > > Personally I would prefer to keep the databases as they are (actually I would > > > prefer better accuracy of their information) and put up with the aggravations. > > > I'll do my own policing. I know the present, the future is what is scary. > > > > > > Getting rid of the registration databases does not get rid of SPAM nor will it > > > in any way effect network/server security. There are programs that go out and > > > sniff the web for email addresses. Somebody might get my address from this > > > very > > > email. How long before one of the indexing companies, there is a profit > > > motive, > > > starts scavenging their databases for email addresses? Have you noticed that > > > there are names, phone numbers, and addresses in the telephone directories. > > > > > > On another tact, how much of this privacy argument is driven by profit > > > motive? > > > My database--my information--my Copyright--PAY ME. > > > > > > Peter Veeck > > > > > > Srikanth Narra wrote: > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > This proposal, if any thing, should act to everyone's advantage in fighting > > > > spam. > > > > > > > > 1. It becomes prohibitively expensive for a spammer to get (or revalidate > > > > your information if you change it) from whois database as they have to pay > > > > on a domain by domain basis giving valid reason (however filmsy) for > > > > obtaining your details. The records of such requests exist with the > > > > register. > > > > > > > > 2. Becomes (hopefully) easier for registers to spot someone mining the whois > > > > for spamming purposes - as they will have to make fairly number of > > > > requests. At the least complicates spammer's methods to gather information > > > > as they will have to use multiple identities, etc (remember verifiable means > > > > of payment). > > > > > > > > (maybe we can even suggest some guidelines for registers to request for a > > > > additional safety deposi
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Internet Board Election Is Delayed
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Darrell Greenwood wrote: > Rick White, a former Congressman from Seattle, and Don Telage, an > executive with Network Solutions Inc., were tied with three votes > each. And Nii Quaynor, a computer scientist from Ghana, had two > votes, apparently eliminating him from the next round. Typical ICANN garbage. Nii, the most favoured by all of us, if not in deed at least he's the politically correct colour. Yet a well qualified man, who just happens to be the politically correct colour get trashed. The cheese aint smelling to good at ICANN today. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Remote participation at ICANN LA meeting
Excellent idea richard. It's not going to happen, but the idea is excellent. On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > Can I introdude a radical concept here? The telephone ? > > Remote participation has been largely one way here. > The webcasting is quite good, we can tell whats > going on, but the remote comments are read then ignored > as opposed to being discussed, and in some cases are just > "summarized by the scribes" and somehow I doubt anybody > especialy the board, reads them. > > So, what not have a call in ? Like a radio show? The cost > to ICANN is minimal; the caller pays. > > In that way, remote participats can be part of a discussion > instead of just watching it.
Re: [IFWP] Schrader tells it like it is
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > In a hard-hitting interview with > Communications Week International, Yoshio Utsumi > has warned that a failure to adapt to the > modern communications environment could mean > that the ITU will disappear. If I remember correctly, Tony Rutkowski during his tenur with the ITU advised them that if they failed to get involved, then the ITU would in fact disappear. This happened some years ago. They didn't take his advice then, and now I think it a bit late to back peddle for the ITU. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
Kent - watch your ass dear boy. Looks look's like the ICANN kook's are going to start the spy trip. Your no Robert Shaw. Shaw is a fool with some diplomatic immunity. Your welcome Kent to play the fool, just remember you have no diplomatic immunity from libel and slander. Now Kent, when do we find out about your moon rock collection ;-) Regards Joe On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 10:07:25AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > > On 14 October 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Jay Fenello in the news: > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html > > > > > >Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major > > >financial stake in the issues? > > > > > >Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid > > >consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with > > >what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they > > >have a natural inclination to say. > > > > > > Yeah, Kent. Heaven forbid, someone with a major financial stake in > > the issues should participate in forming DNS issues. > > As you well know, the issue is deception. > > > ..oh, wait, that's > > pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it? > > Absolutely not. From my personal knowledge: I don't have any > financial stake. Dave Crocker doesn't. David Maher doesn't. Javier > Sola doesn't. Roberto Gaetano doesn't. Karl Auerbach, I believe, > has no financial stake. None of the ICANN Board, to my knowledge, > has any financial stake in DNS issues. My impression is that *you* > don't have a financial stake > > > Kent, ICANN is nothing *but* monied interests. There's only a handful > > of people with any actual say in the proceedings that don't have > > a financial interest in the outcome. > > None of the board has a financial interest in the outcome. > > > Those of us who do not stand > > to gain financially and do not currently have any kind of direct > > say in what goes on keep trying to change that, and keep getting > > batted down by the large-money folks. > > What do you mean by "direct say"? Tell me how it is, for example, > that MCI has a "direct say". Could you point out to me where MCI > gets to make direct vote on any ICANN policy matter? > > Or maybe a big TM interest, like Disney. Could you point out to me > where we see Disney's direct vote on any ICANN policy matter? > > It looks to me like *every* entity goes through some number of levels > of representation, and what you are concerned about is number of > levels. Is that true? > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain >
[IFWP] IPv6 Identifier Privacy Issues: The Reality
TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 03:29:00 EDTVolume 19 : Issue 480 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 21:04 PDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: IPv6 Identifier Privacy Issues: The Reality Greetings. Many of you will by now be aware of all the publicity surrounding reported privacy problems associated with IPv6 (a new version of the Internet IP communications protocol) currently being developed under the auspices of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Executive Summary: "Don't Panic!" Some Background: The concerns revolve around the use of hardware identifiers (e.g. Network Interface Card IDs) as part of IPv6 packet addressing. It has been asserted that this would enable tracking of individuals' activities on the net much more easily than is the case today, and bring forth a new range of privacy problems. It's of course necessary to have some form of addressing in computer networks, or you wouldn't be able to read this message right now. The packets have to know where they're headed. In practice, the existing Internet protocol (IPv4) provides much the same kind of information in many cases, particularly when "static" (unchanging) addresses are in use. Static addresses are the norm for conventional permanent circuit connections to the net, and increasingly common for DSL and cable modems. The IPv6 idea of a unique identifier derived from hardware was intended to help make sure that address duplication would not occur between different machines -- a continuing headache for present-day network administrators. It is also considered important to the authentication and security improvements of IPv6. The risk of such data potentially being misused would appear to be highest in "mobile" applications, significantly less in dialup Internet access environments (since many such computers wouldn't even possess the hardware ID), and least important in permanently linked dedicated circuit situations, where a static address already provides an essentially unchanging identity, even in today's environment. The Good News: To the extent that the permanent IDs are considered to be a privacy problem, it's obvious that existing technologies such as proxy servers could be used to wall off identifiers. This could well prove to be unnecessary, however. It appears that many of the folks raising the red flag on this issue may be unfamiliar with the fact that the IETF has been aware of these privacy concerns regarding the permanent identifier, and that they have been addressed in the IETF June 1999 Draft: "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-00.txt The above referenced document gives an excellent overview of the issues involved and a proposed solution to address the privacy concerns. It would seem prudent to encourage the adoption of this proposal into the IPv6 specification, and to urge its implementation by IPv6 developers and vendors, ideally as the default mode under user control. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality
[IFWP] palestine domain .ps - another hole in ICANN's wall
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991012/wr/mideast_internet_2.html Palestinians Get Independent Internet Code JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Palestinians striving for a state of their own will be asserting independence on the Internet, ending their addresses with ``.ps'' to signify a Palestinian state, an official said Monday. Palestinians have been using ``.wg'' at the end of their Internet addresses to signify the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli addresses end in ``.il.'' ``It is a sign toward the independent Palestinian state,'' Palestinian deputy minister of planning Anis al-Kak told Reuters. He said technical preparations would be completed within two weeks. He said the Palestinians had been working with the United Nations Department of Economics and Statistics to arrange for the addresses to reflect statehood rather than territorial status. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who began negotiating peace with Israel in 1993, aims to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
[IFWP] here today .. gone tommorrow
From: Paulo Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/ Subject: Last Laugh! Network Solutions - Truth in Advertising Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:24:12 GMT Talk about truth in advertising. NSI's latest banner ad: Your-Identity.Com Here Today ... Gone Tomorrow http://www.networksolutions.com/affiliates/banners/images/clock_main.gif Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] once again Canada leads the world - and the telcos rock and roll
Nortel has developed a means of fiber optinc transmission which will allow me to download the entire contents of the library of congress in under 1/2 second. Share prices have gone up - predictions - telco toll charges to go down to zero by 2003 (latest), no more browser latency, integrated video/phone/data services, telephone networks to be completely swallowed by tcp/ip. Our congrats to our canadian brothers - job well done. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Privacy Concern for IPv6? AP Article (Corrected)
The page is using a form of refereal verification system - if your not refered from an existing site - your bouced to that page. On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Richard and all, > > I don't know what to tell you RIchard. I go right to the article, > NP! >;) > > Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > At 11:08 AM 10/12/99 +0100, you wrote: > > >Richard and all, > > > > > > Sure Richard, here is the article in it's entirity. BTW you need to > > >get that browser of your fixed, > > > > Netscape 4.6 has a bug that prevents it from seeing this > > article? Don't think so. > > > > If I goto > > > > http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?PACKAGEID=BIZinternet > > > > I get > > > > The WIRE is the news Web site of the AP, its member newspapers >and broadcasters. > > > > To enter The WIRE from a particular AP member Web site, choose >one from the lists > > below and click the Go submit. If you don't see your local >news site listed, click on the > > logo above or right here. > > Northeastern States > > > > > > > > Southeastern States > > > > > > > > Midwestern States > > > > > > > > Western States > > > > That's not a browser problem or pilot error. > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess > > I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that > > way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining > > has a touch of grey" - JG. > > Regards, > > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > >
[IFWP] [newsflash.uslegal] AIP U.S. Legal Newsflash: Congress and the Courts(1.15) (fwd)
This is a bit dated .. regarding ICANN.
==
October 11, 1999 Volume 1, Issue 15
==
ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET PROFESSIONALS
w w w . a s s o c i a t i o n . o r g
ICANN Developments
* Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
Published in Draft Form for Public Comment.
* NSI and ICANN Resolve Outstanding Issues
Over ICANN's Authority.
==
UNIFORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
PUBLISHED IN DRAFT FORM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
(ICANN Developments)
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has published a
draft uniform dispute resolution policy ("UDRP") for public comment that,
when adopted, will require domain name registrants to arbitrate disputes
with trademark holders over the rights to use names on the Internet. The
policy will be incorporated into all domain name registration agreements
and will be binding on all domain name owners.
ICANN has announced its intention to adopt some form of the URDP at or
prior to its annual meeting in Los Angeles in November. The deadline for
public comments is October 13, 1999. All comments should be submitted, by
e-mail, to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copies of the draft URDP and ICANN's staff overview can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
==
NSI AND ICANN RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES
OVER ICANN'S AUTHORITY
(ICANN Developments)
This week, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Network Solutions ("NSI"), and
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers reached agreement
this week on a number of issues significant for the viability of ICANN and
the long term operation of Internet's root servers. In a series of
contracts and draft agreements, NSI's operation of the registry for .com,
.net, and .org was extended until 2003, with an additional extension until
2007 possible if NSI separates the registry business from its registrar
business. NSI recognized ICANN's authority with regard to names and number
allocation and agreed to apply to become an accredited ICANN registrar.
ICANN has posted all of the draft contracts for public comment at:
http://www.icann.org/agreements.htm
Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society has published
an analysis of the contracts and the issues they present at:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/analysis/fall99contracts/
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: > Santiago meeting; how to deal with the press, and a bunch of other > stuff. > > http://wxw.dso.net/ca-steering, on the other hand, documents a major > rift. Interesting stuff. I noticed I had alot to do with the rift. The committee members keep insisting I don't exist and that no one takes me seriously, yet they spent enough time writing about me ;-) Most entertaining. Oh well, the only important thing here is that you can't hold the idno up to account. It's still a developing organization. The membership numbers have little significance in the real world. I've keep telling them to increase the numbers. If the IDNO could set aside it's personal prejudices, which I have seen as being anything from rants and defamatory remarks against members .. to calling women dogs - don't ask - I had a hard time with it myself. But as I said, if it could set aside the garbage and concentrate on some number crunching and get the membership numbers up, I feel confident the IDNO can make a difference to ICANN and the DNSO. A good example was my privacy was violated by one of the committee members. Instead of dealing with it, the committe member defends himself by saying my actions are simular to the actions we have taken agains robert shaw, which is completely out to lunch - which see .. http://wxw.dso.net/ca-steering/msg00100.html in which good ol William Walsh said .. "He will raise a stink, yes, somewhat similar to his little game with Bob Shaw, but we all know no on took that seriously, and no one would take him seriously on this either." Bob Shaw is a rare bar fly in the wind, who has called us US Spy's. That's very different from violating our privacy. Because of the IDNO problems, I want to ensure the DNSO understands we do not support the IDNO's membership at this time. The IDNO needs time to grow and establish itself. Unlike ICANN it should refrain from jumping into the fire until it's ready to take the heat. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > 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 agree, that's one avenue, an if any of the alternate roots want to pursue that and land vixie in court, then god bless them. But in my opinion the courts - US or otherwise are a complete waste of time. The alternate roots should focus as you said on their viability and spend more time in the process of education and marketing (interchangable concepts here). > > > 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. I did have a look some time ago in respect of his sponsors and yes he is funded by the very people who want control of the net. This does not in any way imply vixie is tainted. But it clearly shows Vixie is in no position to make waves or push the activist dns front. If he does he'll run the risk of loosing his support, which is clearly tied and dependent on corporate support. The one unfortunate aspects of the Vixie ISC gang is that they have no means of self support. They rely on the kindness of other to give them the bucks. i speak of course only in relation to dns issues. As for RBL - it's not the success story we are all being lead to believe. In my opinion the anti-spam and pro spam people both represent the lunatic fringe. If people knew what was going on in both camps they would cringe at the insanity of it all. There are better options then RBL. The dot.MLM people are one example of such an option widely supported by system administrators everywhere and law makers. The same can be said of top level domains for the "erotic entertainment crowd. TLD's that define content are one of the best methods of protecting people from unwanted sexually explicit content or UCE (unsolicited commercial email). Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] PCCF opens DNS speakers corner.
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > > will allow you to remain anonymous. U.S. Residents only - unfortunately. > > The toll free number is 1-877-494-4980 extension 757. > > > > We will post these voice messages to a web page and the comments made may > > be made available to over 100,000 domain name system administrators who > > are part of our BIND 1999 survey. > > I hope you are not considering spamming 100,000 people, especially > technically-clued ones as many of those administrators are. I hope you didn't assume we were contacting 100,000 people to ask that they leave us voice mail. I don't think that would be very appropriate. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, J. Baptista wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > > > > > So anytime a root server is added or moved (and its IP# changes) the only > > > for all the DNS servers worldwide to know of the change(s) is to manually > > > update the list? > > > > Yup, or as richard said - if they upgrade bind - so do they upgrade the > > root cache. > > > > Sounds like something the anti rackets people would be interested in. > > Does it not. Microsoft may run the worlds OS, but Vixie controls the root > > cache. > > Vixie does not "control the root cache." Vixie controls the root cache on > a single root(which I believe is also a SLD) server. Vixie controls the distribution of the root cache file that comes with BIND. He also controls the BIND readmes. If Vixie does not educate the users of the product and provide them with option or alternatives, then those users will never know the alternative exists. > > > Mr. Vixie should make it quite clear that there are options. > > He is under no obligation to do so, and further, why would he? To date, I Your absolutly right. He 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. Now why would he want to let his users know they have options? I feel that if Vixies users are imporant to Vixie, then by default an educated consumer base is invaluable. > haven't seen any truly viable alternatives and I've looked. If I > were to hazard a guess, he hasn't either. So, why mention something that > to you(options) don't exist? > > It is als important to stress that viability encompasses much more than > throwing up a bunch of boxes wherever and calling them "root servers." To > date, and I'll doubtlessly get flamed for saying this, all the attempts I > have witnessed at alternative root servers have consisted of little more > than this. No serious financial backing, no production-grade management/ > syncranization, no serious marketing(by professionals), no serious buy-in. I agree. The attempts at establishing alternate root-service that I have seen have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. I agree, almost all are under capitalized, they have no marketing techniques to speak of, yada yada yada ... But regardless of the obvious drawbacks - competition is competition. Alternative roots do exist and they work. Now if they can get their marketing and finances co-ordinated, who knows what will happen. > > But as has been mentioned before on these lists - vixie is sponsored by > > the very people who run the roots, > > Vixie *is* one of the people who runs the roots, and if I am not > mistaken(which is possible) I don't believe any of the root > server operators are compensated for running those servers. They do so as > a service to the Internet community. > > Perhaps you could tell us who exactly runs the various root servers and in > what fashion they "sponsor" Vixie since you make the claim that they are > doing so. 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. Vixie is aware of these conferences, so if he's like to address the sponsorship issue, let him. If were wrongm, then Mr. Vixie like any other human has the capacity to stand up and address the issue himself. So I leave it to him to correct us. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
[IFWP] PCCF opens DNS speakers corner.
Hello: It's a pleasure to announce that we have setup a toll free number to collect opinions on what you think of DNS governance issues. The service will allow you to remain anonymous. U.S. Residents only - unfortunately. The toll free number is 1-877-494-4980 extension 757. We will post these voice messages to a web page and the comments made may be made available to over 100,000 domain name system administrators who are part of our BIND 1999 survey. For now this is a small test of the service so please excuse the rough voice on the other end of the line. You'll be hearing my voice, which hopefully will be replaced with a much nicer sexy femfatal voice later in the week. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > So anytime a root server is added or moved (and its IP# changes) the only > for all the DNS servers worldwide to know of the change(s) is to manually > update the list? Yup, or as richard said - if they upgrade bind - so do they upgrade the root cache. Sounds like something the anti rackets people would be interested in. Does it not. Microsoft may run the worlds OS, but Vixie controls the root cache. Mr. Vixie should make it quite clear that there are options. But as has been mentioned before on these lists - vixie is sponsored by the very people who run the roots, and that sponsorship puts dinner on his table - so i don't expect much dns activisim from Vixie. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > At 12:45 AM 10/10/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Hello, > > > >Who distributes the root list that local DNS servers use? If the roots > >change, or if the IP# changes how do they know about the change? > > > >--Joseph > > BIND ships from ISC with the IANA legacy root preconfigured. > > People upgrade BIND much more often than the IP addresses of > the lagacy root server cluster ever changes, so each time > they upgrade BIND, they get the latest. That's interesting. The distribution of DNS Bind versions would be as follows. BIND VersionPercentage -- 4.9.5 9% 4.9.6 12% 4.9.7 20% 8.1.1 6% 8.1.2 45% 8.2 8% It would be interesting to compare the root caches to the BIND versions. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > So when a new root server is added, how do all the DNS servers on the net > know of it? It's up to every sites administrator to keep up on current affairs and replace the cache as needed when root-servers are upgraded. The only upgrade I ever heard of was recent. I think there are now 13 roots, which is the max a udp packet will trasports at anyone time. Folks - jump in a correct me if I'm wrong here. I do know of a trick you can use to have your dns update the root cache file. Your would treat the root dot "." as a secondary and point to one of the roots. Anytime the root cache changes on the primary root-server, so will it change on your dns server. There is a bit of a concern here. If some wild and wacky fun loving individual every compromised the root cache, it would automatically pollute all other secondary caches and could result in a potential world wide dns disaster - no one would be able to communicate, and very few people would know how to correct the problem. So it's a good thing vixie packages it as a static file. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Joseph Friedman wrote: > Hello, > > Who distributes the root list that local DNS servers use? If the roots > change, or if the IP# changes how do they know about the change? No distribution. And no ip changes allowed. It's a very static system at the root level resulting in an unusual monopoly - better termed golopoly. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Becky Burr freezes root servers
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Dan Birchall wrote: > On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 11:14:54PM -0400, J. Baptista wrote: > > > > I has come to my attention that Becky Burr of the Department of Commerce > > has frozen the root and even NSI isn't allowed to add new namesevres for > > com. > > I'm a little unclear on whether Joe means nobody can add new _root_ > nameservers for .com, or nobody can add new nameservers (ie FOO-HST) > _within_ .com. Of course, either way it doesn't necessarily sound > like a splendid situation. I just called Burr up and left her some voice mail. Called her boss Irving too. I'm very curious - if this in fact has happened, what was the cause and reasons behind it. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
[IFWP] Becky Burr freezes root servers
I has come to my attention that Becky Burr of the Department of Commerce has frozen the root and even NSI isn't allowed to add new namesevres for com. I am attempting to verify this information and find out more. Sorry if this has already been discussed here. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
Re: [IFWP] FW: DNS Price wars heating up......
Ah our lovely William. You ask the most interesting questions some time. On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > Registrar lowers price to $35 for two years. > > "How low will they go?" Would free be too low to go? I bet they'll go lower then free. I bet someday registrars will pay you for the priviledge of having a domain. So it was said - so shall it be done ;-) On a more personal note William, I've been following your recent social progress, and I'm very pleased with you. You have been a polite and well mannered gentleman. I tip my hat to your exceptional behaviour - well done William. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 1.888.830.5744 ext 3223
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > 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. 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. 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. > > > 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 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. > >> 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. :) Thank you for the URL. And I could not agree more, so many issues, so little time. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
This need a little investigation and response .. On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > 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 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. I say that not to detract from Vixie's accomplishments. Those accomplishments are recognized, but easily tainted when power is abused. > community -- particularly the ISP community (the very people whose > support is necessary to make alternative root servers visible on a > netwide scale). Your confusing support from the internet community with the status quo. Vixie did at one time have considerable support from the ISP community. That support has dropped considerably over the last five years and Vixie knows this. His support is now localized to a core group of ISP's, pre 1995 era. 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. > 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. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility 1.212.894.3704 ext 1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1.419.821.8581 fax
No Subject
Monday, October 4 INTERNET ANALYST ESTHER DYSON CONSIDERS THE FUTURE OF E-COMMERCE (Source: InfoWorld Electric) Although she did not invent the Internet, her incisive insights over the years have made her a poster-child for the digital culture club. http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=168076
[IFWP] Start of BIND 1999 contact project
The attached communication was emailed today to contacts in the following organizations: Internet Council of Registrars Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency International Root Server Confederation Linuxnic Inc U.S.A. name.space pgpMedia.com Network Solutions, Inc. Open Root Server Confederation The SuperRoot Consortium The Internet Namespace Cooperative TLDNS.COM PacificRoot Network RE: The Internet Name Daemon Survey (Bind 1999) This email will serve as our official communication to you from Planet Communications & Computing Facility (PCCF) with respect to soliciting your participation in the Bind 1999 survey. The survey developed back in 1997 uses existing dns protocols to build a contact database of domain name administrators from zone files and enumerates each associated server record. Servers are tested for various known vulnerabilities and configuration errors. Over the years Bind Survey data has been shared with government and military installations. It has served to protect these facilities from potential dns hacks and denial of service attacks. This year the Bind Survey received generous sponsorship from the Internet Business Associates Group (IBAG). This commitment afforded us the ability to enumerate the entire network. This makes the Bind 1999 Survey the most comprehensive enumeration of the domain name infrastructure ever conducted in Internet history. Our primary goal is to use the database to eliminate a number of serious vulnerabilities in legacy versions of BIND. There are three distinct security problems. Some versions have a vulnerability that may allow a remote intruder to gain root access on a name server or to disrupt normal operations. Other vulnerabilities exist that can allow an intruder to disrupt the name server. At least 30% of reporting servers are vulnerable. Technical information on this security issue is available as CERT* Advisory CA-98.05, "Multiple Vulnerabilities in BIND", from the Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center at: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-98.05.bind_problems.html This year we will be using our Bind 1999 resources to empower dns administrators in the area of Internet governance. Our hope is to end the dns wars and bring back a measure of stability and opportunity to the Internet community. We are not satisfied that the existing processes are representative. It is our position those administrators and hostmasters listed in the Bind 1999 survey are the de facto controllers of the network infrastructure. They have direct authority and control over their root cache files. Any one of these administrators has the power to decide who runs the Internet. The U.S. government or the Department of Commerce (DOC) does not have this authority. In our opinion The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is not in a position to take control of Internet names, numbers and protocols. ICANN, like many other groups in the domain infrastructure debate, is a viable vehicle for the delivery of these services. So are to various degrees the other root server authorities and related associations and organizations. The following list represents those groups we feel are in a position to offer competitive services to the Internet community, - Internet Council of Registrars - Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN - National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency - International Root Server Confederation - Linuxnic Inc U.S.A. - name.space pgpMedia.com - Network Solutions, Inc. - Open Root Server Confederation - The SuperRoot Consortium - The Internet Namespace Cooperative - TLDNS.COM - PacificRoot Network As part of our mandate we will be contact those dns hostmasters who have vulnerable bind servers first, followed by a general release of bind 1999 survey data to all hostmasters of record. In all cases our contact efforts will provide all hostmasters with general details and information on Internet governance issues. We hope this effort is successful in soliciting their participation in the process. We anticipate your organization will take advantage of this opportunity and assist us in our effort at education and the empowerment of these individuals. To that end we are setting up a URL which provides links to the following information resources:
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > "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? Exactly. Why would they want to change? You've hit it on the head Greg. The easiest way to get them to switch is via the time honoured human tradition of paying for it. Sexton advocates it should be via the internet tradition of trust and service. I really don't care which way it goes. The trick is to communicate that these options exist. Something which has not yet been done. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > to defy the USG's orders that they not do this? What is the level of > commitment the hundreds of thousands of net admins who configure their > DNS servers to the root server operators (as compared with the level > of stability that they are currently providing)? 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. By default, it would be difficult to judge a admins committment if the admin has no idea one has been made. A pre configured cache file does not signify a committement. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > "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. I disagree. The worlds changed. I appreciate your position and what your saying. But you have to see the corporate angle here. The question is, would running the internet be a good thing and how much are they willing to pay for the concession? Look at the lower end of the corporate margin players in dns. That company, that is willing to pay NSI a flat rate of $18 to give you a free domain name in return for sending you advertising, is going to make a bundle. Internet advertising is a very messy and mixed up market, and a captive audience is costs. So based on those minimum expectations, how much is too much too run the world. If PCCF can accomplish it's goals, alots of dns administrators are going to make a pretty penny in all of this. > 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 Were on top of it greg. This month will be dns admin empowerment month. Were even putting Mr. Roberto Shaw aside for a bit. He'll have to wait until we finish the job. I very curious to see what happens when 109,000 system administrators find out their being shafted, but there are options. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] IT Informer | Believe it or not! 'There is nothing afterthe Net '
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >of the world in computing. I assure you there are many other marvels on > >the horizon. As long as there are humans there will be surprises. > > > >NET IS THE LAST COMPUTING ARCHITECTURE, ORACLE CEO SAYS > > (Source: InfoWorld Electric) 'I don't believe there is anything after > >the Internet,' he said. "It's the last big paradigm shift." > >http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=166824 > > No, he's quite right, and we're arguing over variable names in the > OS for it. I don't know if I can agree to that. I agree it's a major accomplishment in human history. Will it be a out done in 10 years - most likely not, in 100 years - maybe, in 1,000 years - absolutly. I have difficulty accepting the internet is the end all and be all in computing architecture and technology. If we manage to avoid being targeted by any of the nuclear bombs we have collectively build for the military-industrial complex, then I think there's hope the human race can bypass itself and accomplish more. Oracles CEO is a man who has found religion in the net, and we need more like him. But until the fat lady sings, I am confident the show will continue - bigger and better then ever. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > 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. 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? Let's get active boys and girls, this sillyness is coming to an end. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: hello dave farber Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks Houseof Cards - the ICANN NSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > 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. Greg - issues presented by you are irrelevant. Non of those entities even bothered to market themselves to the internet community. They lacked the resources for direct pr. I assure you it is impossible to change the world when your working in a vacumn. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
[IFWP] IT Informer | Believe it or not! 'There is nothing after the Net '
Sorry folks - not very specific in relevance to thise conferences - but in general it's a clear indication of the regressive thinking in corporate america. Yes - the internet is wonderful, but it is not the last wonder of the world in computing. I assure you there are many other marvels on the horizon. As long as there are humans there will be surprises. NET IS THE LAST COMPUTING ARCHITECTURE, ORACLE CEO SAYS (Source: InfoWorld Electric) 'I don't believe there is anything after the Internet,' he said. "It's the last big paradigm shift." http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=166824
[IFWP] Wired News Daily [MAGAZINER: CHANGE IS GOOD - 09/30/99] (fwd)
Ira Magaziner joins in the icann blue sing song. Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAGAZINER: CHANGE IS GOOD (POL. 3:00 am) http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/tip/politics/story/22018.html The former White House tech guru says the Clinton administration was wise to abandon its futile opposition to crypto exports. And he says patience with ICANN will be rewarded by sound policy. Interview by Steve Kettmann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[IFWP] AIM's Internet Politics Insider, Vol. 2 No. 36 (fwd)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AIM's Internet Politics Insider, Vol. 2 No. 36 (fwd) AIM's Internet Politics Insider, Vol. 2 No. 36 (fwd) --> 2. ICANN AND NSI STRIKE DEAL Network Solutions, Herndon, Va., agreed Tuesday to recognize the authority of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), thus ending the year- long battle between the two bodies. As part of Tuesday's agreement, NSI will continue to administer the list of Internet addresses (.com, .net and .org) for the next four years, but will have to give competitors access to the list. In addition, NSI will pay ICANN $1.25 million worth of fees in advance, and in return, ICANN will drop its $1 domain name fee. Also under the deal, NSI will reduce its registration fee from $9 per year to $6 beginning Jan. 15. The agreement, announced Tuesday by Commerce Secretary William Daley, stipulates that any new policies imposed by ICANN to NSI must have the backing of at least two- thirds of the ICANN membership body to be accepted. More Info: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/cyber/articles/29domain.html http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990928.hnicann.htm
[IFWP] ITU TEAMS UP TO PUSH E-BIZ IN DEVELOPING WORLD (fwd)
The ITU is doing the penance tango - good for them. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ITU TEAMS UP TO PUSH E-BIZ IN DEVELOPING WORLD ITU TEAMS UP TO PUSH E-BIZ IN DEVELOPING WORLD (Source: IDG.net) The International Telecommunications Union recently teamed up with two other organizations to help expand e-commerce to developing countries. http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=166107
Re: [IFWP] Vint Cerf's and John Patricks House of Cards - the ICANNNSI Cartel and DOC authority
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Gordon Cook wrote: > the task, but are silent when asked why. They simply cannot afford > to call attention to the fact that the king at commerce has no > clothes. With a naked king, they are despirate to clothe the ICANN > crown prince until it can transfer power. That's what i've been saying for the last year. The emperor has no cloth covering his naked body. So what do we do now folks? Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
[IFWP] CIA and New Technology (fwd)
From: Ralph McGehee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.cia Subject: CIA and New Technology Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:09:43 -0400 Organization: Institute for Global Communications CIA and New Technology The CIA is to create its own venture capital firm, called "In-Q-It," to help connect better with the Internet revolution. CIA in a world of start-ups and instant millionaires, isn't getting technology's best and brightest. So it to create their own start-up, an office on Sand Hill Road in Palo Alto. In-Q-It to fund promising technologies that can help it keep pace with the info explosion. It will have a staff of 20 to 25 people, and will operate much like a normal venture fund -- partnering with other companies and funds. In theory, will be unclassified. It will be a nonprofit, but the goal is to invest wisely to be self-financing. In-Q-It will work on, smarter CIA search engines, better ways to visualize data, and better security for CIA web surfers. CIA has chosen a board of directors -- including such as John Seely Brown of Xerox PARC, Jeong Kim of Lucent, Alex Mandl of Teligent and Norm Augustine of Lockheed Martin. The first CEO is Gilman Louie. In-Q-It evolved out of frustration that CIA was losing its technical edge. The idea for the venture-capital fund was hatched between DCI Tenet, and a former investment banker named A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who joined CIA in 2/98. The project was turned over to a group that included Sue Gordon, working in the Science and Technology Directorate. The name: "In" for intelligence; "It" for information technology, and "Q" was the code name for James Bond's technology wizard. What the intelligence community didn't understand, says Louie, is that technology is moving too fast now for anyone to try to control it. Op-ed by David Ignatius, Washington Post 9/29/99 A29. Ralph McGehee http://come.to/CIABASE
[IFWP] DNS issues - Where is the true power?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven) Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:33:33 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer Sorry, I have just read this phone book analogy one too many times. I understand that packets still route without the internic, but DNS has become a fundamental part of using the internet. If you want a serious analogy compare it to the part of the telephone switch that maps cable pairs to telephone numbers. People have already built new root servers and they have not been very successful. Perhaps Bill Gates could make one and pre configure windows/mac to use it, but others would have a bit harder time getting people to switch. To be perfectly honest I don't understand why everyone hasn't started their own TLDs. I like the idea of a root server revolt, but it doesn't seem it would work? The net result is it no matter how you slice it, it is going to be controlled more and more by business. This is inevitable. There is money to be made and business is going to go after it. The name of the company, and its policy are irrelevant to companies who lose millions of dollars each day to inflate their share prices. Ideally we would create an appropriately named .CON TLD for internet companies seeking an IPO and the rest of us would carry on as before, but that seems highly unlikely. Prying .COM from the jaws of the corporate alligator seems just as unlikely. One would be much more productive lobbying for a new, free, government subsisted TLD for non-commercial use, or at least the blessing to organize a non-profit one. I prefer to see the thing privatized, but not in the form of a franchised monopoly. You have a handful of companies who run the bulk of the backbone, let them run the NIC. They have the know how and are more interested in selling bandwidth then hype. Steven > This has been said many times before, but it bears repeating. All > this fuss about domain name policy, registrars, etc., is somewhat of a > red herring. > It's like saying that those who hold the true power over the nation's > phone system do so by virtue of the fact that they publish the phone > directories. > When push comes to shove, what really matters is whether my IP packet > will get forwarded properly from one router to another. > If things get bad enough and the domain registrars upset too many > people, new ones will spring up in their place. Systems will start > contacting new or additional root domain servers. In the worst case, > companies will start publishing their IP addresses together with their > domain names. Yes, it will be messy and inconvenient. > But if those who have control over the backbone and large ISP routers > start making choices about which packets they will or won't forward > (perhaps based on whether the source or destination is toeing the line > on their favorite domain policy) then all bets are off and things could > reach a state of true chaos very quickly. > Cheers, > Clive Dawson > Austin, TX [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In her message, Judith suggests sending complaints to an address at the ICANN website. To my way of thinking, that would be a big waste of time. They are listening to no one and responding to no one at this point. If you write to complain, I think your domain name will be one of the first to get snatched, out of retaliation. If at this point you can find a registrar somewhere who is not beholden to that crowd, then use it and tell the rest of us where to find it also. PAT]
No Subject
From: Judith Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:47:00 EDT Subject: Don'tTakeMyDomainName.com > Dear Domain Name/Web Site Owner: > "Your domain name can be cancelled, revoked, deleted or > transferred at any time at our discretion." > Signed, > Every .com registrar. > * This is not maybe, or later. This is now. It's got nothing to do with trademark disputes or contested name disputes. Your trademark status does not exempt you. Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc., have been placed at http://www.icann.org/agreements.htm. There is a public comment period which will end on October 29, 1999. A link for comments - http://www.icann.org/agreements.htm - is supposed to be available later today. "Any language, including the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement clause J.7.i., that results in domain name seizure policies in registrar/registrant contracts, should be stricken immediately." Feel free to comment using use this suggested language. If you'd like more background information or documentation prior to commenting, email me at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], subject head Don'tTakeMyDomainName.com. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com TOLLFREE-L is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Judith Oppenheimer, publisher of ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com) & WhoSells800.com (http://whosells800.com), and President of ICB Toll Free Consultancy (http://800consulting.com). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So tell me Judith, has ICANN made a grab or power play for your domain name yet? How long do you think it will be before a telco somewhere decides they need 'tollfree' for the name of some commercial website they decide to operate and you lose it? Seriously people, you need to go look and READ CLOSELY the nightmarish contract that you get to sign the next time your domain name comes up for renewal. They mean business. The internet is not yours any longer. The contract is horrible, and is tilted entirely in favor of Big Business, the people that put ICANN in business and intend tokeep it there. PAT]
Re: [IFWP] TIIAP's Network for People Conference - 1999 Sep 28 (fwd)
Jeff - I think that would be a great idea. One of our directors is also very interested in going. However, it's in our best interest not to attend, and if we do to limit our participation. In other words - we may show up for the show. regards Joe On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Joe and all, > > Well this years meeting should be interesting. I may attend! >;) > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:10:03 -0400 > > From: Kevin Taglang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: TIIAP's Network for People Conference > > > > Posted for: Judy Sparrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > TIIAP's Network for People Conference > > > > The Department of Commerce's Telecommunications and Information > > Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) promotes the widespread > > availability and use of advanced telecommunications technologies in the > > public and nonprofit sectors. As part of the Department's National > > Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA), TIIAP awards grants > > for model projects, demonstrating innovative uses of network technologies. > > > > TIIAP will hold its annual Networks for People conference on November 1 and > > 2, 1999, at the Key Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Each year, > > TIIAP holds a forum to discuss how people are using information technology > > to change the way they live, do business, get educated, receive services, > > and stay healthy. Last year, more than 600 people ¯ practitioners, industry > > and government leaders, TIIAP grantees ¯ attended the NFP conference. Plans > > are underway for this year's conference, so watch the NFP '99 web page for > > more information and registration details. > > > > WHO SHOULD ATTEND? > > > > Executive Directors, MIS Directors, and program managers from > > non-profit organizations and foundations > > Government leaders, federal, state and local > > Educators > > Healthcare providers and public health officials > > Public safety officials > > Social service providers > > Leaders from arts and culture programs > > Telecommunications, computer and software vendors > > Leaders and staff from organizations involved in international > > telecommunications > > Potential TIIAP applicants > > > > 1998 NFP CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS > > What people attending last year's NFP conference had to say: > > > > "Exceptional information presented in an exceptional manner" > > "Interesting, informative, thought-provoking" > > "...gave me ideas regarding where my organization should go next" > > "Very useful, instructive, and conceptually stimulating..." > > "This was information I could take back to my agency!" > > "...quick, to the point presentations..." > > "...diversity of the program was excellent; geographically dispersed > > presenters" > > "...The conference focused on communities, problem-solving, and technology > > uses -- as opposed to technology itself..." > > > > Tentative AgendaMONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1999 > > 8:00 - 9:00 a.m.REGISTRATION > > 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. WELCOME > > > > Dr. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera > > Associate Administrator, NTIA > > > > INTRODUCTION > > The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information > > > > 10:00 - 10:45 a.m. KEYNOTE SPEAKER > > Where is Information Technology Taking Us? > > Gary Chapman, Director of the 21st Century Project University of Texas at > > Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs > > > > 10:45 - 11:15 a.m. BREAK > > 11:15 - 12:00 p.m. KEYNOTE SPEAKER How Are People Reacting to the New > > Information Technologies? > > > > J. Lynn Jacobs, Chief Technology Officer (invited) City of Seattle, Washington > > > > 12:00 - 1:30 p.m. LUNCH ON YOUR OWN > > 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. > > > > SESSION 1 > > > > Network Technologies and Organizations > > > > The TIIAP evaluation report found organizational problems were twice as > > likely as technology problems to create obstacles for projects. The > > introduction of information and communications technologies will > > fundamentally change your business. As project managers, your challenge is > > to make sure that the change allows you to do business better. Focusing on > > non-profit, public se
[IFWP] ICANN, NSI REACH TENTATIVE DOMAIN SETTLEMENT
(Source: IDG.net) The tentative agreements call for NSI to retain control of the valuable registry of Internet addresses for at least four years. http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=165514
[IFWP] Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] SC Nominations, withdrawals
Joop: Too much of the idno's time is spent on proceedure and not enough time is being spent on membership drives. You need more members in the idno, not more proceedure. You'll find once your membership exceeds the 1,000 mark there will be no need for this type of protection. There is safety in numbers Joop, concentrate on what is important - fatten the ranks. At this time I am firmly against the IDNO having any ICANN representation. The organization is not yet mature and ready for this important role. Get more members, and I assure you the idno's position will be firmed up. Regards Joe On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > At 07:39 AM 29/09/1999 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote: > >i am curious here joop > > > >please show me anything in the ICANN bylaws that is similiar to the article > >you are discussing below? > >who defines what "harm" is ? > > > Hello Ken, > > The article can be found at the IDNO website, still reacheable at > www.idno.org/organiz.htm > This article came into being when the newborn IDNO had to protect itself > from "members" who's goal was not to help the IDNO forward. > It has never been applied. > It is not something that ICANN had to worry about. Not yet. It is > something it does worry about when it has to come up with a membership. > > In case action needs to be taken against a member, a Fair Hearing panel > will be called into being to hear all sides and determine the extent of the > harm. > > > > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of > the Cyberspace Association, > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ >
[IFWP] TIIAP's Network for People Conference - 1999 Sep 28 (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:10:03 -0400 From: Kevin Taglang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: TIIAP's Network for People Conference Posted for: Judy Sparrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIIAP's Network for People Conference The Department of Commerce's Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) promotes the widespread availability and use of advanced telecommunications technologies in the public and nonprofit sectors. As part of the Department's National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA), TIIAP awards grants for model projects, demonstrating innovative uses of network technologies. TIIAP will hold its annual Networks for People conference on November 1 and 2, 1999, at the Key Bridge Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Each year, TIIAP holds a forum to discuss how people are using information technology to change the way they live, do business, get educated, receive services, and stay healthy. Last year, more than 600 people ¯ practitioners, industry and government leaders, TIIAP grantees ¯ attended the NFP conference. Plans are underway for this year's conference, so watch the NFP '99 web page for more information and registration details. WHO SHOULD ATTEND? Executive Directors, MIS Directors, and program managers from non-profit organizations and foundations Government leaders, federal, state and local Educators Healthcare providers and public health officials Public safety officials Social service providers Leaders from arts and culture programs Telecommunications, computer and software vendors Leaders and staff from organizations involved in international telecommunications Potential TIIAP applicants 1998 NFP CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS What people attending last year's NFP conference had to say: "Exceptional information presented in an exceptional manner" "Interesting, informative, thought-provoking" "...gave me ideas regarding where my organization should go next" "Very useful, instructive, and conceptually stimulating..." "This was information I could take back to my agency!" "...quick, to the point presentations..." "...diversity of the program was excellent; geographically dispersed presenters" "...The conference focused on communities, problem-solving, and technology uses -- as opposed to technology itself..." Tentative AgendaMONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1999 8:00 - 9:00 a.m.REGISTRATION 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. WELCOME Dr. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera Associate Administrator, NTIA INTRODUCTION The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information 10:00 - 10:45 a.m. KEYNOTE SPEAKER Where is Information Technology Taking Us? Gary Chapman, Director of the 21st Century Project University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs 10:45 - 11:15 a.m. BREAK 11:15 - 12:00 p.m. KEYNOTE SPEAKER How Are People Reacting to the New Information Technologies? J. Lynn Jacobs, Chief Technology Officer (invited) City of Seattle, Washington 12:00 - 1:30 p.m. LUNCH ON YOUR OWN 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. SESSION 1 Network Technologies and Organizations The TIIAP evaluation report found organizational problems were twice as likely as technology problems to create obstacles for projects. The introduction of information and communications technologies will fundamentally change your business. As project managers, your challenge is to make sure that the change allows you to do business better. Focusing on non-profit, public sector, and institutional services, the panelists will share the experiences they have had with staff, partners, stakeholders, vendors, board members, and funders. They will also share ideas for building your organization for a smoother start-up and a more sustained impact. SESSION 2 Cutting Edge Technology on an Outdated Budget Broadband, e-commerce and web-based applications, video streaming and other emerging applications can advance the goals of non-profit and public service organizations ¯ when they are available. The panel will discuss emerging technologies and strategic opportunities for TIIAP and other mission-driven projects. This is an important session for those seeking to use advanced network technologies to enhance the quality and efficiency of their service. You will also get tips on agencies interested in helping non-profit organizations explore the next generation of services. 3:00 - 3:30 p.m.BREAK 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. SESSION 3 Sustaining Telecommunications Technology Projects When the Federal Money Stops Few tax-based programs provide ongoing or categorical support for non-profit telecommunications projects. How do you continue beyond the end of your federal grant period? Of the 210 projects funded in TIIAP's first two years, 90 percent are still operating, and 66 percent have expanded to serve additional end users. Experts in this session will explain how to nurtur
[IFWP] NETWORK SOLUTIONS TO GIVE RIVALS ACCESS TO DOMAIN NAMES DATABASECommunications-related Headlines for 9/28/99 (fwd)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:36:53 -0400 From: Kevin Taglang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Communications-related Headlines for 9/28/99 INTERNET & ONLINE SERVICES Network Solutions To Give Rivals Access To Domain Names Database (SJM) NETWORK SOLUTIONS TO GIVE RIVALS ACCESS TO DOMAIN NAMES DATABASE Issue: Internet Network Solutions, the Internet address registrar, and the Commerce Department have finally reached an agreement, which will be announced today at the Commerce Department, to allow competitors long-term access to the company's domain name database. After a year of negotiating, Network Solutions has finally agreed to let competing firms register new Internet addresses for a fee of $6 per year, well below the $35 per year Network Solutions charges its customers. The company had been battling the Commerce Department and Congress asserting ownership of the more than 5 million domain names it registered before the onset of competition. Network Solutions will continue to manage the database of already registered names for at least four more years under the agreement. The company has also agreed to be overseen by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California non-profit organization designated last year by the Commerce Department to administer the domain name system. [SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Reuters] (http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/001932.htm) See Also: UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF DOMAIN NAME DISCUSSIONS Commerce Secretary William M. Daley will provide an update on discussions among the Department of Commerce, Network Solutions and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding management of the domain name system. September 28, 1999 11:30 am, U.S. Department of Commerce Room 4830. For more info contact: Morrie Goodman 202/482-4883 or Ranjit De Silva 202.482.4358. [SOURCE: NTIA] (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/92799sec.htm)
[IFWP] INTERNET TAX DEBATE RETURNS TO THE HILL - Communications-relatedHeadlines for 9/28/99
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:36:53 -0400 From: Kevin Taglang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for SEPTEMBER 28, 1999 INTERNET & ONLINE SERVICES Digital Dispatch: Internet Tax Debate Returns to the Hill (CyberTimes) INTERNET TAX DEBATE RETURNS TO THE HILL Issue: Internet As a congressional panel of elected officials and high-tech executives grapple with the question of whether and how to tax the Internet, two bills banning taxes on electronic commerce are currently in the works. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has just filed a bill to make the current ban on new Internet taxes permanent, and to outlaw any future attempts to impose a sales tax structure on Internet purchases. Other lawmakers are preparing a sequel to the original three-year moratorium on new Internet taxes that will ask the World Trade Organization to adopt a global moratorium on Internet taxes. A final report from the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce appointed by Congress is not due until next year. "It seems to me to be premature to be introducing new legislation until the commission finishes its work and makes recommendations," said Larry Naake, executive director of the National Association of Counties. "This sort of prejudges that work." [SOURCE: CyberTimes, AUTHOR: Jeri Clausing] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/cyber/capital/28capital.html)
Re: [IFWP] Domain for sale
> Russ - > > Thanks so much for the lovely fan site! And thanks for the high valuation > you put on my name.. I'm impressed at all the trouble you went to, > including finding out that Hampsterdance was one of my favorite sites. Of > course, as you know, that kind of pseudo-public information is often > inaccurate and outdated, and I now have a *new* favorite. Translation of EstherSpeak .. "I'm not impressed .. go away now." See, esters not going to sue. Bad PR. > Best, > Esther > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: domainiac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 7:52 PM > > >Subject: Domain for sale > > > > > > > > > > First $1,000,000 takes it. > > > > > > > > http://EstherDyson.com > > > > > > > > Note: Web site content NOT included!! > > > > > > > Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! > chairman, EDventure Holdings > interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1 (212) 924-8800 > 1 (212) 924-0240 fax > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) > New York, NY 10011 USA > http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org > > High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest > PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona > Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" > > >
[IFWP] Re: Basket and eggs, was Re: ICANN and IBM
Kent - on the 26th you mentioned a survey of nameservers. What is that survey called - and where can I find it. When I first asked these questions JeffW said you were lying. Is he right, or does such a survey exist. Please be brave Kent, and answer the question. Regards Joe On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, J. Baptista wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > My recollection of the only signifant survey that was done was that > > 1/2 of one percent of the *nameservers* in the NSI database gave a > > response to a query for alternate TLDs. There were no significant > > ISPs or other large sites involved. So on an individual user basis > > the number must have been FAR lower than 0.5%. > > Kent: > > Excellent stuff, where can I find this survey. > > Cheers > Joe Baptista > > -- > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > >
[IFWP] DOMAIN NAME AGREEMENTS, NSI, DOC - Re: whois database only costs$10,000
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Rick H. Wesson wrote: > Yea! > > looks like NSI ICANN and DOC came to some agreements, lost of info. > > read it at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/ rick - these are tentative agreements. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee
Hello: William. Before I respond to you I want to say how refreshing your correspondence with me has been of late. It's almost like a new you. You've been polite, well behaved and good natured. You know that sort of thing is infectious. If this sort of thing continues, we may yet find ourselves gayly tromping hand in hand down the yellow brick road. This would be a good thing, as we can then focus our attention on more important things - like who get's to take over the world ;-) On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > Hello Joe. I regret you see it that way. However I respect your right to that > opinion. I will point out that what you had access to was not the full picture, > and even now that full picture is not available, regretably. Also, you were > not around when this was started, and hence missed so much of what occured at > the beginning, and the inspiration we all had in Joop and his leadership, and > how he has done a total 180 degree turn from that position since then. Well, that's what it looks like. I honestly think you spend too much time nit picking at unimportant issues, like Jeff William, PCCF and me. You gota grow out of it. I don't know if you have noticed William, but you live on a fucked up planet. So by default there are assigned priorities. The whole IDNO screwup happened because of me. My only concerns were privacy, and the net result of my addressing my concerns was utter destruction. If I had known the place was a house of cards, I would of waited. Then again, the IDNO - like all tests - if it survives, then i'll water it. In any event i got what i wanted. Your out of the steering committee, and the IDNO is back in the control of it's founding fathers. The idno is an egg which is not yet ready to be layed. What has happned to the IDNO is a sort of reverse abortion. I have faith Joop can continue the delivery of the child. > Unfortunately, myself and others feel it was Joop who instead betrayed us, and > the principles that had united us. No - Joop is OK. He's one of the good ol' boys. I understand him completely. Walsh - you spend too much time wanting to play hitler. And that can easily cause major organizational failure. Look at the IDNO SC. One week everybody loved everybody, you nominated Joop, Joop seconded you, - then bingo, I bring up some minor issue concerning privacy, and everyone ends up playing the brutus - cesear tango. I call that unstable. Now Joop can start with less hot heads in charge. > I will also note that you fail to recall that it was I who nominated Joop to > the steering committee, and that I was also his nominator in the previous > election were he declined to sit. I assure you that this betrayal has been a > most difficult issue for many on the SC to deal with, and that hope remained > even as recently as Saturday, that the issues could be resolved and the IDNO > restored. I remember. > I regret that was not able to be acheived, but we cannot accept a flawed > process IDNO simply for the sake that it is the only place that is actively > working for their representation. If it is not holding itself to at least the > standard it desires to hold ICANN to, and indeed is betraying its founding > principles, then it cannot hold on to its mandate. The IDNO is OK. It needs to develop slowly, like a desert flower. > The IDNO is not the body that should be representing Individuals in the > ICANN/DNSO. I still hold out hope that it can become that, but right now, I > would have to oppose its recognition as such. I'm on your side there. It's still too early for the IDNO to be recognised. Recent event have shown it's too unstable and immature. But it has potential, and I want it to see that potential. William. Let's work together at building the idno membership. Let's stick our big magic wands together and see what fizzels ;-) Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
[IFWP] Re: Basket and eggs, was Re: ICANN and IBM
Pity - we will be incorporating a root server check into our bind2000 survey. If even a slim survey exists I would be interested in seeing it. I hope your wrong and Kent is not full of hot air. Too much hot air in these conferences. But winter is here, so it may not be such a bad thing, all this hot air. Regards Joe On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Joe and all, > > Joe, Kent is just throwing crap up at the wall to see how much will > stick. There never was such a survey ever done. Another fable > of FUD. > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > > My recollection of the only signifant survey that was done was that > > > 1/2 of one percent of the *nameservers* in the NSI database gave a > > > response to a query for alternate TLDs. There were no significant > > > ISPs or other large sites involved. So on an individual user basis > > > the number must have been FAR lower than 0.5%. > > > > Kent: > > > > Excellent stuff, where can I find this survey. > > > > Cheers > > Joe Baptista > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > Regards, > > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > >
Re: [IFWP] Re: response
>From what I can see, Ken Stubbs and friends have not only lost the battle, they have lost the war. If they feel they have the right to run the world, then they can appeal to those who control it, just like everyone else will have too. Regards Joe On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Mr. Baptista and Everyone, > > Mr. Baptista, your observations here are likely very close to being > correct, given Mr. Stubbs history. I would add that he seems to have > a fixation problem with anyone interfering in what you outline here > in brief as well > > My observations an reading on ICANN, CORE, and some within > some of the various constituencies also seem to have this very same > motivation as well. This is not necessarily a bad thing if the larger interest > in in the stakeholders themselves. But i am not seeing this presently from > either ICANN, CORE or any of the constituencies thus far. > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > Ken. Let's get real, what this is about is if Ken ever makes the millions > > he needs to live a great life, and will Ken's friends make those millions > > with Ken. Ken's afraid all his plans and those of his friends are going > > to go down the drain. Ken worried he's going to lose power, a power he > > never had, and if PCCF has anything to do with it, we gurantee Ken, your > > never going to have it. > > > > That's what it's all about Ken, the rest is bullshit. What - you won't be > > able to reply to any of the questions below. > > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote: > > > > > > > > > Now - with respect to myself, you know I'm real - and have a very > > > > respectable background. You also know we expect you to shut your mouth in > > > > respect of it. > > > > > > it is exactly for that reason that i include you with this esteemed group > > > > Can you explain in detail how you arrive at this position? > > > > > > What I object to here, is you lumping me in with a group that is unknown > > > > with the intent of causing me libel by association, and you know better. > > > > > > you dont need anyone to liabel you , you do it with your own actions. > > > > and specifics you'd like to draw from - or point out in support of your > > claim? > > > > Cheers > > Joe Baptista > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > Respectfully, > -- > Brian C. Hollingsworth > Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet > Communications Affairs and Policy > Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European > Union > > >
Re: [IFWP] FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brian C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Mr. Baptista and Everyone, > > Yes I say Mr. Walsh's resignation form the "IDNO". A very wise > decision on his part. Now if he would only resign from the internet > all together, I am sure thousands would be grateful. Maybe this is > just wishful thinking on my part I feel very sorry for the man myself. I think we both agree, he can really be an idiot and two faced. But he has such talent, it's a pity it's all to waste. Regards joe > > J. Baptista wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > > > > > > > Forwarded for informational purposes. > > > > > > -FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee- > > > > I've deleted the rest, because only notice of your resignation is > > important, the rest is the usual gibbersih and nonsense you ususally trade > > in. But you resignation is a clear indication the idno is on the right > > path to the future. > > > > The herd is being culled. And indeed - why should you be there. Only a > > few weeks ago, you William X. Walsh were nominated to the IDNO Steering > > Committee by it's founder Joop - who you later assasinated in the > > discussion group. > > > > As I said when I left the idno-discussion for my well desearved vacation, > > you William X. are like Brutus. You kiss Cesear gently professing a great > > deal of love, but when the opportunity makes itself available, you stab > > Cesear with the brutality of a wonton lover in destress. Or in the 20th > > century vernacular - you sir are a back stabber, dismissed. > > > > Cheers > > Joe Baptista > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > Respectfully, > > -- > Brian C. Hollingsworth > Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet > Communications Affairs and Policy > Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European > Union > > >
Re: [IFWP] FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 06:20 PM 9/27/99 , J. Baptista wrote: > >in. But you resignation is a clear indication the idno is on the right > >path to the future. > > > >The herd is being culled. And indeed - why should you be there. Only a > > it's pretty tacky to refer to the IDNO group as cattle. Tacky, yes - Rude, absolutly, but a damn accurate description of what just happened over at the idno. Regards Joe
[IFWP] Re: PCCF please focus on facts....
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, John D. Goodspeed wrote: > Joe and pccf, > > Your often vulgar tone makes it hard for anyone to believe that you have any > particular respectability. I for one have serious doubts about both you and > the pccf organization which you purport to represent. Perhaps if you were a > bit more eloquent and a bit less vulgar we might better understand your > views. First of all, you'd be hard pressed to establish your argument of vulgar. As for you appeal that I be more eloquent, let me ask you this. Alot of eloquent people in these conferences and nothing of substance has ever gotten done. You see sir I am efficient. While others make promisses, I deliver on them. That's why I'm here, not to provide you with elegant chatter, but effecient results. As for your doubts with respect to PCCF. Feel free to expand on them. >From what I can see you have a complaint but have not expressed yourself in an understandable fashion. > If the pccf were an organization worth respecting, I'd imagine that they > would engage the services of a more articulate spokesperson. No one here knows much about pccf. When it's time for you to respect PCCF, we'll let you know. PCCF has always earned it's respect and has no interest in appealing to you for respect. I've delt with this issue before, I wish people would clean out their ears so i can refrain from being repetitive. Regards Joe > > John D. Goodspeed > > > - Original Message - > From: J. Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 9:41 PM > Subject: Re: Domain for sale > > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > Now - with respect to myself, you know I'm real - and have a very > > respectable background. You also know we expect you to shut your mouth in > > respect of it. > > > > What I object to here, is you lumping me in with a group that is unknown > > with the intent of causing me libel by association, and you know better. > > > > Your a little spring pea when it comes to business, trust and legals. > > Your very important to ICANN and ISOC, so try not to fuck up and end up > > like Shaw. When one knows better - one should act accordingly. Remember > > them teaching you that at school. > > > > Cheers > > Joe Baptista > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. > 1033 >
[IFWP] Re: Domain for sale
If Esthers good, and I know she's top drawer - I'm certain she won't even blink. Domainac's chance in being sued by Esther is remote. On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Rusty H. Hodge wrote: > I suspect that Domainac is trying to get himself sued by Esther, so > he can get some of the ICANN issues he's concerned with out in the > open. > > I think this is great. Do you think the media and public at large are > influenced by what we discuss here? Doubtful. There are too many > important issues here. 40 people talking about it on a list aren't > going to do a bit of good if no one hears what we're saying. > > It's a political move. (And a nice move in my book). Come on, Esther > Dyson isn't even a registered contact in the whois database. Maybe > this will inspire here (or other people in similar positions) to do a > little hands-on with the system. > > --Rusty > > >an incredibly juvenile move !! > > > >a perfect example of why this list has lost so much credibility recently and > >heading south in a big way !! > > > >this used to be a forum for legitimate concerns here.. granted we may very > >well have been on separate sides but at least we tried to communicate and > >effect change. > > > >its sad to see the recent events with baptista, hollingsworth,rizzo etc > > > >i hope that william x walsh continues his recaps & excerpts because this is > >the only way to get substantive information any more.. > > > >so sad > > > >ken stubbs > > > > > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: domainiac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 7:52 PM > >Subject: Domain for sale > > > > > > > First $1,000,000 takes it. > > > > > > http://EstherDyson.com > > > > > > Note: Web site content NOT included!! > > > >
[IFWP] Re: response
Ken. Let's get real, what this is about is if Ken ever makes the millions he needs to live a great life, and will Ken's friends make those millions with Ken. Ken's afraid all his plans and those of his friends are going to go down the drain. Ken worried he's going to lose power, a power he never had, and if PCCF has anything to do with it, we gurantee Ken, your never going to have it. That's what it's all about Ken, the rest is bullshit. What - you won't be able to reply to any of the questions below. On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote: > > > Now - with respect to myself, you know I'm real - and have a very > > respectable background. You also know we expect you to shut your mouth in > > respect of it. > > it is exactly for that reason that i include you with this esteemed group Can you explain in detail how you arrive at this position? > > What I object to here, is you lumping me in with a group that is unknown > > with the intent of causing me libel by association, and you know better. > > you dont need anyone to liabel you , you do it with your own actions. and specifics you'd like to draw from - or point out in support of your claim? Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
[IFWP] Re: Domain for sale
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Ken Stubbs wrote: > its sad to see the recent events with baptista, hollingsworth, rizzo etc Ken. You have nothing to say with respect to hollingsworth or rizzo, because in your own words, you don't know if their real or imaginary. Now - with respect to myself, you know I'm real - and have a very respectable background. You also know we expect you to shut your mouth in respect of it. What I object to here, is you lumping me in with a group that is unknown with the intent of causing me libel by association, and you know better. Your a little spring pea when it comes to business, trust and legals. Your very important to ICANN and ISOC, so try not to fuck up and end up like Shaw. When one knows better - one should act accordingly. Remember them teaching you that at school. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
[IFWP] Internet Tax Panel Faces Thorny Issues (CyberTimes) Communications-relatedHeadlines for 9/15/99 (fwd)
E-COMMERCE Internet Tax Panel Faces Thorny Issues (CyberTimes) House Republican leaders sent a letter to the 19-member Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, a commission appointed by Congress last year to report back on Internet taxation, reminding them that the reason the body was formed was to decide whether or not to tax Internet transactions, not how to tax them. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and 34 colleagues signed the letter. "We recognize the challenge you face, as members of this national commission, in trying to tackle some very important issues regarding the future of e-commerce," the letter said. "...We are concerned, however, about the fact that most of the news reports from the first commission meeting seemed to focus on how to tax the Internet, rather than whether to tax the Internet." The Congressional leaders discussed Internet taxation saying, "This idea is not a popular one in Congress or among the American people. You should also know that there are many members who will oppose any new taxes on the Internet." There are now more than 30,000 tax jurisdictions with varying tax rates and rules in the country, so the idea of taxation and the Internet opens many taxation jurisdiction issues, which Congress faces in the future. The panel is expected to begin discussing its various options today, but no final recommendations to Congress are expected until spring. [SOURCE: Cybertimes, AUTHOR: Jeri Clausing] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/cyber/articles/15tax.html)
Re: [IFWP] FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee
He was exposed. On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > Thats the longest thing you've ever written, Will. What happened? > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Sometimes you have to have patience with things that annoy you." > -Xena, "Xena: Warrior Princess" > >
Re: [IFWP] FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > Forwarded for informational purposes. > > -FW: My resignation from the IDNO Steering Committee- I've deleted the rest, because only notice of your resignation is important, the rest is the usual gibbersih and nonsense you ususally trade in. But you resignation is a clear indication the idno is on the right path to the future. The herd is being culled. And indeed - why should you be there. Only a few weeks ago, you William X. Walsh were nominated to the IDNO Steering Committee by it's founder Joop - who you later assasinated in the discussion group. As I said when I left the idno-discussion for my well desearved vacation, you William X. are like Brutus. You kiss Cesear gently professing a great deal of love, but when the opportunity makes itself available, you stab Cesear with the brutality of a wonton lover in destress. Or in the 20th century vernacular - you sir are a back stabber, dismissed. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's claims of disinterest of the public are clearlyfalse
How you manage to make ICANN's claims of a disinterested public into a William X. Walsh website promo campaign is trully glorious to behold. On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > ICANN's MAC and staff have tried to portray the Internet Community as > disinterested and lacking motivation to be informed and be a part of the > process. > > An experience of mine over the last several weeks has shown me that this claim > has no real factual basis, and is instead nothing more than an assumption. > > As many of you know, I have been running a website at www.dnspolicy.com for the > last several weeks. In the initial days, I saw from my logs and statistics > package that several hundred people were visiting every day, and that many of > them were visiting more than once each day. On average they would view the > front page and 1-3 internal article pages. > > In the last 3 weeks, for several reasons I will elaborate on later, the site > has seen a vastly higher number of unique visitors and page views. The > average daily unique visitors has been over 1,200, with approximately 1,400 > average unique "visits" meaning that some of these 1,200 were coming in and > visiting more times. A visit is counted as an additional visit when they > return after a 30 minute period of not accessing the site. > > The average page views have been around the same per person, with the daily > average of page views now exceeding 3,500. (Note, these are page views, not > file hits, for those that know the difference). > > The reasons for the site becoming well used are many, I believe. One is that > I have seen a great increase in the number of sites that are linking to the > site, and it has been mentioned in two online news articles, as well as a > couple other "columns" and features on news related sites. This has spread > awareness of the existance of the site. Another phenomena that has resulted > in the strong traffic is the existence of a "back end" file access so that > portal sites which provide customized pages for their users with collections of > information from sites around the internet can provide the option of people to > include the headlines and links to the articles on their "portal" page. I > never realized how many of these there were, or the diversity in their target > usergroups, until now. They include sites that cater to technically advanced > users, to business people using their Palm Pilots to keep current on the > issues, to relative newbies who like the easy of having all the information at > one location such as Netscape's Netcenter. These have enabled people to make > this site, and other sites that have content of interest to them, a part of > their daily net routine, and to quickly see a quick summary of what content is > available there on any given day. > > In short, I think that the fact that approximately 1,200 unique people make use > of a site with such a narrow focus as this one on any given day, after the site > only being really operational for only 6 weeks, shows that the interest in this > process, and in the many facets that surround it, is much higher than ICANN > would have us believe. > > This site has mainly been used by people for whom following the lists on the > subjects, or being active in the forums, is not an option or would be too much > for them. ICANN's use of the mailing list numbers to come to some conclusion > about interest was faulty. > > But of course, they won't admit that, and will instead try and continue to > justify their attempts at making a public membership impotent within their > structure. > > > Regards, > > -- > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 > Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ > > Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list! > http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss > http://www.idno.org > >
[IFWP] domain names and east timor
Hello: I just wondering, why would the US government and the brits have anything to do with the top level domain for east timor. Is there a political thing going on here? Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM (fwd)
John Patrick confirms his position and statements: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:26:14 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: J. Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM (fwd) Yes, I did. John Patrick Vice President - Internet Technology, IBM Corporation Chairman, Global Internet Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ibm.com/patrick www.gip.org "J. Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/25/99 10:42 AM To: John Patrick/Somers/IBM@IBMUS cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM (fwd) Hello John Patrick, Vice President - Internet Technology at IBM Corporation - can you confirm that you made these comments. Thanks -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 05:52:56 -0500 From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM >Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 05:51:29 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ICANN and IBM >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >[please note this is from John Patrick from IBM not me (some IPers >assume everything they read comes from me :-) djf] > > >Dave, recently there has been a lot of discussion about ICANN and the role >IBM plays in the organization's efforts. A lot of what I have read is >inaccurate and I'd like to use this posting to clarify what's really going >on. > >Let me start with my strong belief -- shared by IBM, government leaders >and many technology organizations -- that the Internet is rapidly becoming >the global medium. Not a medium. *The* medium. We already see that >e-business is dependent on the Internet, and we're starting to see people >around the world relying on it for education, disease management, >entertainment, real-time communications and collaboration, and even >government services, to name just a few uses. In fact, it's hard to see >what won't be dependent on the Internet. So what makes the Internet work >and who is responsible to ensure it will continue working in the future as >the growth continues? That's the role that ICANN was designed to play. > >We all know that when you type "www.myfavoritewebsite.com," it has to be >translated to an all-numeric address that the Internet infrastructure >understands. Because the Internet is made up of many heterogeneous and >separately-managed networks, the early Internet inventors and pioneers >realized that a central third party was needed to manage the assignment of >domain names and network addresses so that "www.myfavoritewebsite.com" >always translated to the correct address, even though different users >would consult different servers to do the translation. > >And because most of the early Internet development happened under U.S. >Government auspices, that central third party was originally designated by >the US government. But now that the Internet is a global entity, there is >broad agreement that having one country be the ultimate authority is >inappropriate. In fact, it's clear that the central third party needs to >be a global, non-profit, private-sector organization. And, after a long >and public design process, ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned >Names and Numbers) was created to fill that role. IBM was one of the >many private sector organizations that chose to provide input into the >design process, and we felt then, as we do now, that a neutral, global, >non-profit organization is the right choice to oversee the administration >of Internet domain names. > >Once the ICANN charter was recognized by the U.S. and the European >governments, the organization was quickly recognized as the legitimate >manager of the domain names and numbers by more than 40 countries and many >of the major private sector organizations with an interest in this area. >The Internet Society, International Chamber of Commerce, Internet >Engineering Task Force, U.S. Council for International Business, >International Trademark Association, Global Internet Project, World Wide >Web Consortium, and all of the Internet IP address registries (APNIC, >RIPE, ARIN, etc) are just a few of the organizations that have publically >supported ICANN. > >So who pays for ICANN? ICANN depends on fees charged to users of its >services. But those fees will not be determined or charged until ICANN >has a permanent board which will determine the appropriate fee structure. >Right now, ICANN is in "start-up" mode, with an acting board of directors, >and no income. As a result, transitional funding has been necessary. > >Toward that end, there have been some private sector organizations and >companies that have stepped up to h
[IFWP] NO COST .com, .net or .org (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Referred by [CENSORED] Hello, You are receiving this message because your friend [CENSORED] has pre-registered for a soon to be launched service featuring a NO COST .com, .net or .org personal Web address (domain name), free e-mail account and Personal Portal at NAMEzero.com. [CNESORED] thought you would be interested in pre-registering for a no cost Web address, e-mail and Personal Portal too! So what's so great about that? For the first time in Internet history you will be able create a permanent, personal online identity, such as http://www.yourpersonalportal.com, at absolutely no cost. Your Personal Portal is your permanent, personal home on the Web where you can create a unique Internet experience just for you. It's easy, fast and free. Click here http://www.namezero.com/ to pre-register now! Thank You! To unsubscribe to this e-mail and receive no future offers from iDirections.com or NAMEzero, please reply to this e-mail with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject field. The NAMEzero.com Team For You. For Free. Forever. http://www.namezero.com
No Subject
http://www.idg.net/idgns/1999/09/24/IDirectionsPromisesFreecomRegistration.shtml IDirections promises free '.com' registration by James Niccolai, IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau September 24, 1999 For the would-be famous who can't seem to get their name in lights, including it in a Web site address might be the next best thing. Domain name registrar iDirections.com announced plans this week to offer a service that lets people to do just that -- and for free. The service will allow users to register Internet addresses ending in .com, .net and .org at no charge. Aimed primarily at consumers, the service also lets them build a "personal Web portal" that can incorporate free e-mail, instant messaging, and links to online retail stores and other Internet content, the company said. iDirections began accepting preregistrations for the service on Tuesday. It is encouraging customers to register Internet addresses that include their own name, such as www.FredBloggs.com. iDirections.com will pay the required fee for registering the domain name. The company hopes to make money through advertising and marketing deals, and by offering online vendors a spot on the portal pages that users create, said Bruce Keiser, iDirections' president. The start-up firm, which has six full-time staffers and was founded earlier this year, hopes to launch the service by the end of November, Keiser said. iDirections.com will face stiff competition from market leader Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), however, as well as from dozens of other firms expected to roll out domain name registration services in the next few months. iDirections is hoping its "free" service will lure users away from its larger, more established competitors, most of whom charge $70 to register a domain name for two years. Until recently, NSI handled all registration for the .com, .net and .org top-level domains under a contract with the U.S. government. The business is currently being opened to competition, and other firms are stepping up their efforts to cash in on what many analysts expect to be a huge market. Tonic Corp. this week began allowing customers to register Internet addresses ending in ".to" for 100 years for a fee of $2,500, according to information on the company's Web site. The .to domain is the country domain for of Tonga, a tiny island in the South Pacific. Most other registrars, including NSI, register domain names for only two years at a time. Tonic hopes that saving customers the inconvenience of having to keep renewing their registrations will make its service more attractive. The company also offers a two-year registration for $100, a five-year registration for $200, and other options. Meanwhile, NameSecure.com Inc. launched a Web site called Qwho, where users can search to see if an Internet address is already taken and, if so, find out who owns it and where it's registered. Several companies already offer so-called "who is" services, but NameSecure claims its site, at http://www.qwho.com/, is unique because it searches the databases of all other domain name registrars. The service is designed to drive users to NameSecure.com's own domain name registration service, and the company will
RE: [IFWP] Re: [Attention William Daley]Possible Displanary acti
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: > > Before anyone believes a word this particularly personality in the PCCF > repertoire spoots off accusing Mr Kelly of acting inappropriately, it should be > noted that the information mentioned is PUBLICLY available, and this is just > more evidence of his drivel that is intended to do nothing more than inflame > and disrupt. Of course the information is publically available. But please notice the change of mode. Yesturday according to your PCCF did not exist, and according to you and a few other personalities I was Richard, and Jeff, and Frank, and whomever else your derranged minds felt confortable in associating. But today, all of a sudden PCCF is real, and all of a sudden - it's documents our part of the official PUBLICLY available record. Walsh, have you ever had "Spotted Dick", it's an english thing. In any event I think your a bit of spotted dick. You see whalsh. The issue is not if the record is PUBLICALLY available, trhe issue is that membership secretaries of organizations should keep their big yaps shut. It's no ones business, and it's not their business to play whore and tell. i don't like this - this was very wrong. If someone want to go the distance and get at the public record, fine. i don't expect idno executive members to be pimping private communication and data on us to everyone without permission, of which they have non. That's why I don't think your qualified for much. your too much of a busy body and so is Kelly. Regards Joe > > the offer for a filtered feed of these lists still holds. It would be trivial > to setup, and would leave the INEG,PCCF, LAW.COM, and RIZZO personalities to > talk only to themselves and those who support their games. > > This is the harm that anonymous individuals using pen names to participate in > these lists can do when they are granted unrestricted access. > > Some of you may receive this twice. Apologies in advance. > > > On 21-Sep-99 J. Baptista wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Kevin M. Kelly wrote: > > > >> Hey Jeff! > >> > >> Before you lay your credibility on the line, you may want to note that > >> PCCF.Net is registered to a Canadian Company. So, PCCF et al. probably does > >> not pay Mary Wiening's salary. > > > > Mr. Kelly: > > > > Thank you so much for our privacy. May I point out to you that you are > > privilaged, by means of your position to have copies of of legal documents > > of organization. I did not provide you this documentation so that you > > could disclose it to people who have no business with that information. > > And to do so in public. > > > > I am bringing this to the attention of the GA, and the IFWP as I beleive > > this reflect badly on the idno's rights to seek position. How dare you > > sir violate my privacy. > > > > As for your assumption of our tax position based on jurisdiction, may I > > advise you that your out too lunch. only 25% of our operation are in > > Canada. > > > > I'm really pissed off with you Kelly. Your a real twit. When it comes to > > privacy, to you people it's a cheep pissing contest. Do you really care > > about the idno, or is it a place to pick up information on the > > competition. > > > > Joop, this is your baby. I smell problems here with existing management. > > > > Cheers > > Joe Baptista > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. > > 1033 > > -- > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 > Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ > > Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list! > http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss > http://www.idno.org > >
[IFWP] Re: [Attention William Daley]Possible Displanary action for Mary Wiening
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Kevin M. Kelly wrote: > Hey Jeff! > > Before you lay your credibility on the line, you may want to note that > PCCF.Net is registered to a Canadian Company. So, PCCF et al. probably does > not pay Mary Wiening's salary. Mr. Kelly: Thank you so much for our privacy. May I point out to you that you are privilaged, by means of your position to have copies of of legal documents of organization. I did not provide you this documentation so that you could disclose it to people who have no business with that information. And to do so in public. I am bringing this to the attention of the GA, and the IFWP as I beleive this reflect badly on the idno's rights to seek position. How dare you sir violate my privacy. As for your assumption of our tax position based on jurisdiction, may I advise you that your out too lunch. only 25% of our operation are in Canada. I'm really pissed off with you Kelly. Your a real twit. When it comes to privacy, to you people it's a cheep pissing contest. Do you really care about the idno, or is it a place to pick up information on the competition. Joop, this is your baby. I smell problems here with existing management. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] a picture of Roberto Shaw
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote: > Joe, you must embrace the love. We need you on our team. Fight the dark side. Frank, trust me on this one. I've got alot of love. Plenty to share. But it helps the love to flow with a picture. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
