[IFWP] Internet Pioneers Panel Discusses Challenges for Future- Sigcomm99 (fwd)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:24:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronda Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Internet Pioneers Panel Discusses Challenges for Future - Sigcomm99 Internet Pioneers Panel Discusses Challenges Facing the Internet by Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] The place: Sanders Theater, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. The date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999. The time, 17:15. (1) The Moderator is Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of ethernet. Among the panelists are Louis Pouzin and Hubert Zimmerman who created the Cyclades packet switching network in France in the early 1970s; Larry Roberts and Len Kleinrock pioneers of the ARPANET, the earliest packet switching network; Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf, also ARPANET pioneers, who went on to design the TCP/IP protocol for the internetworking of diverse packet switching networks; and Paul Baran, whose research helped to pioneer the development of packet switching technology. The occasion: the 10th anniversary of the creation of the award honoring lifelong contributions to the field of computer communications research which has had an important impact on the work of others. On the stage is a panel of those who have won the award over the past 10 years. For his first question, Metcalfe asks what the panelists think of the new protocol IPv6 which has been created to replace IPv4, the current version of the protocol that makes the Internet possible. Surprisingly, almost all the panelists say that they see IPv6 as problemmatic. Vint Cerf notes that there isn't any pressure from users or vendors to make the change. He adds, however, that lots of devices are being planned which will need IP numbers and thus justify converting to the new protocol. Len Kleinrock asks why there has not been any attention given in the new protocol version to make future changes easier. Sandy Fraser, another of the panelists, points to expenditures by big business which he believes will lead to a large installed base making it expensive to make future changes. Bob Kahn reminds the other panelists about how the earliest version of the TCP/IP protocol only anticipated that there would be a few networks as part of the Internet. They thought they would never need addresses for more than 1/2 dozen or dozen national networks. But soon the maverick invention of the ethernet spawned local area networks, changing the landscape. In hindsight, Kahn notes, what should be the future is clear, but when going forward, it is hard to see ahead. "We are going to get it wrong again," he warns, if there isn't adequate thought put into what will be needed. Instead of going by the principle "ready, aim, fire," when tackling such problems, he observes, there's the tendency to "ready, fire, aim" or "fire, aim, ready." He suggests the need to get ready first and then to take aim at a problem, in order to be able to recognize whether or not the correct problem has been identified. Kahn proposes that the problem which led to the creation of IPv6 may have been looked at in a way that is wrong or that there was a need for a different approach to the problem. He notes that this is an example of where the research community hasn't done a good job of thinking through the future and what is needed. The discussion moves on to what the problem is that causes long delays for some in accessing the world wide web. The panelists consider whether there are technical causes of the delays which the appropriate research efforts could identify. Changing the focus of the discussion, Metcalfe asks Louis Pouzin what his view is of the creation of ICANN. He asks Pouzin if ICANN will blow the whole thing apart. Pouzin responds, that since he lives in France, he isn't sure what the issues are in the United States, but that you can't give up on the concerns of people around the world. The task of assigning unique IP numbers is not a real problem, Pouzin explains. But there has been a warp in handling it at the international level. Pouzin asks: What is wanted? Is there a desire for a situation whereby a few years from now a number of countries will be up in arms and decide after all they could just as well organize their own Internet? That it may be problemmatic, but that they can handle it among themselves. Pouzin explains that the ITU is in charge of allocating virtual international resources of communication. That such sensitive issues must be handled by an international committee. There is no other way as they have the experience and the relationship and the habits of diplomacy. Vint Cerf comments that he can't believe he is hearing Pouzin say that the ITU is better. Cerf disagrees that the ITU would be appropriate to solve the problems. Pouzin admits that they are difficult problems but that this is the way to handle such difficult problems because there are so many items that are national obligations
[IFWP] Communications-related Headlines for 9/17/99 (fwd)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:22:41 -0400 From: Rachel Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 COPYRIGHT Judges Pick David Over Goliath in Domain Name Suits (CyberTimes) Issue: Copyright While the courts have tended to side with large trademark holders in many Internet domain name cases, a Boston judge has recently ruled in favor of the little guy in such a suit. Hasbro, the giant toy maker, had charged Clue Computing, a tiny Colorado-based computer consultant, with trademark infringement and dilution for registering the "clue.com" domain name. In this case Hasbro had to prove that the well-known trademark for its board game "Clue" was inherently diminished by Clue Computing's use of the domain name. Judge Douglas P Woodlock was not convinced, finding that the legitimate competing use of the domain name is not dilution. "Holders of a famous mark are not automatically entitled to use that mark as their domain name; trademark law does not support such a monopoly," the judge wrote. Carl Oppedahl, an intellectual property lawyer based in Colorado, predicts that the ruling in this case is "going to help domain-name owners avoid being panicked by cease-and-desist letters [from large trademark holders]. It should give should give them courage." [SOURCE: CyberTimes, AUTHOR: Carl S. Kaplan] (http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/09/cyber/cyberlaw/17law.html)
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
I didn't inhale. Honest. I was just being polite. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote: > Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that > night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. > > -riz > > > At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: > >They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what > >they say. > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Greg and all, > > > > > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > > > > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > > > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > > > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > > > > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > > > to make such a switch at the time. > > > > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > > > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > > > suspicion. > > > > > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > > > show your leadership. > > > > > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > > > error. > > > > > > > > --gregbo > > > > > > 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] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Greg and all, > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > to make such a switch at the time. > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > *sigh* > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > suspicion. > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > show your leadership. > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > error. > > > > --gregbo > > 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] ANNOUNCE: Santiago Constituency Recordings (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 18:56:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ben Edelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ga] ANNOUNCE: Santiago Constituency Recordings well this is really pretty - no one else can post to ga - but Ben's having no problem. I wonder? On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Ben Edelman wrote: > RealAudio recordings of the 8/24 gTLD, ISPCP, and NCDNH Constituency > meetings are now posted in the ICANN-Santiago archive at > <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive>. Unfortunately the > Registrars Constituency meeting recording was inaudible, and organizers of > the ccTLD, Commercial, and Trademark constituencies did not return audio > cassettes (or the recording equipment the Berkman Center had loaned them to > make such recordings!). > > I'm still hoping to add additional content to the archive. If anyone has > audio cassettes for digitization (or Berkman-owned equipment to return), > contact me off-list for details on where to send them. Also, I'm happy to > post or link to minutes, official or not, from the constituency meetings. > > > Ben Edelman > Berkman Center for Internet and Society > Harvard Law School >
Re: [IFWP] Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You!
I dont have a copy. Baptista and Fanego have it. I'll let them know you want a peek. On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > JeffM and all, > > JeffM, I would be very interested is seeing the rest. If you could > please forward it to me privately. However I would likely not > be surprised. > > Jeff Mason wrote: > > > That's not the half of it Jeff W. You should see what this twit said > > about you and our beloved pccf. Shame. This is not the full > > communication. Essentially we have been called NSI family spi's by the > > ITU internet head. > > > > On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > jay and all, > > > > > > Jay, thank you for sharing this with us all. It is interesting to say the > > > least that some of the recent and older history of this ICANN dictatorial > > > and unrepresentative process very much parallels the gTLD-MoU/CORE > > > fiasco so closely it is difficult to tell the difference. I guess a rose > > > by any other name smells the same, as long as you recognize that it > > > is a rose indeed! > > > > > > Jay Fenello wrote: > > > > > > > FYI: > > > > > > > > Original Message > > > > Subject: Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You! > > > > Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:23:18 -0400 > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To: Robert Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom > > > > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > Robert Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > > > > > > > I'm somewhat disappointed to see TELECOM Digest also become a platform > > > > > for ICANN bashing. Having participated in the Internet Ad Hoc > > > > > Committee (IAHC) in 1996/1997, I was once (and thankfully am no more) > > > > > at ground zero of the three-ring circus that attempted to overhaul the > > > > > administration of the Internet generic top level domains. How this > > > > > has turned into a bizarre discussion of "Internet governance" is > > > > > beyond me. > > > > > > > > > > When the IAHC started its work in 1996, I doubt that any of us had > > > > > ever heard of the term Internet governance. In fact, we were very > > > > > careful to limit the scope of our activity and would have been accused > > > > > of absurd hubris to equate this work with the much grander sounding > > > > > "Internet governance". > > > > > > > > > > Someone once said "trying to govern the Internet is like trying to > > > > > herd cats: it just doesn't work". And as someone else noted -- "cats > > > > > are clearly much smarter than dogs: the proof is that you could never > > > > > tie eight cats together and get them to pull a sled in one > > > > > direction". One could argue that what we need is a few dogs pulling in > > > > > the same direction. > > > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > How do you reconcile your comments above, > > > > with those of your boss in the ITU's own > > > > magazine: > > > > > > > >I am pleased that the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary > > > >Conference held in October-November 1998, gave ITU > > > >a very clear mandate for a role in questions of > > > >Internet governance (see ITU News, No. 10/98, > > > >pages 17-18). The need for an impartial international > > > >organization to be involved in Internet governance > > > >was clear nearly four years ago. I recall underlining > > > >this need at the Internet Days event, which we > > > >organized in April 1995. > > > > > > > >The IS Department has participated very actively, > > > >on ITU's behalf, in key Internet governance forums, > > > >notably the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) > > > >for domain name issues and the Memorandum of > > > >Understanding on Internet generic Top Level Domain > > > >names (gTLD-MoU), for which ITU is the depositary. > > > > > > > >--Lucio Goelzer > > > > > > >
Re: [IFWP] Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal ForYou!
eports about our work to forever distrust quasi-real-time web > > > journalism. Getting seriously involved in this topic is the best way > > > to become intimately familiar with your email filters -- and a thick > > > skin. > > > > > > And with ICANN, it is deja-vu all over again. In any endeavour, there > > > are always going to be people who disagree with you. What is different > > > is that the Internet allows those who have endless energy and access > > > to email (and large distribution lists) wonderful opportunities to > > > attack with whatever dirt they can dream up. Some are very clever in > > > how they do it. I put Mr. Fenello into that category. > > > > On this we agree, it *is* deja-vu all over again. > > > > Rather than debate issues of substance, you would > > > > rather resort to personal attacks and inuendo. > > It's the IAHC all over again :-( > > > > I'm just happy that Pat is willing to put all > > sides in this debate online for public discussion, > > even though his future funding may lie in the > > balance. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Jay Fenello > > President, Iperdome, Inc.770-392-9480 > > --- > > What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com > > > > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is > > ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, > > it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) > > > > > So it is especially strange to see TELECOM Digest falling into > > > this same trap and being used for this platform of ICANN bashing > > > by these supposed "experts". The warning bells go immediately off > > > when one of your postings on this topic starts with an email from > > > Jeff Williams, a one-man (?) argument against anonymity on the > > > Internet. As your message from Mr. Williams shows, he claims to speak > > > for a group called the INEGroup which represents over 95,000 members. > > > This claim pales next to other assertions about himself: for a > > > sampler, see http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08018.html. > > > > > > Some folks got so fed up with his claims that they created a web site > > > at http://www.inegroup.net/ to debunk him. He has another identity, > > > Brian C. Hollingsworth, who supposedly works for some Internet > > > commission of the European Union, but who has to post from the same > > > ISP in Texas as Mr. Williams. :-) Of course, when confronted with > > > this, Mr. Williams says he forwards on Mr. Hollingsworth's messages > > > using his Nextel mobile phone in Europe to post his messages (or some > > > silly stuff like that). I guess Mr. Williams' expertise does not > > > include spectrum allocation or radio transmission technologies. > > > > > > Now Patrick, let's move down in your same posting where you have a mail > > > from a supposed 'Jeff Mason' at Planet Communications Computing Facility > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - this mail can be found at the archives > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Archives/msg00590.html. The mail is > > > sent to a "Sr. Francis Fanego" at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Amazing coincidence > > > that both use the same name 'pccf', isn't it? Well, let's go to > > > www.samspade.org and find out who pccf.net is. Samspade says pccf.net > > > belongs to the same person the mail is supposedly being sent from. > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > And the billing contact is shown as who the mail is send to (Fanego). > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > Another coincidence? Note the primary name server is vrx.net. > > > O.K., so now we have another address, bigbird.earth-net.net. Who's that? > > > Again we use Samspade to look it up and lo and behold, this is clearly > > > somebody who wants to hide. Note no telephone or fax numbers, a public > > > email service address at 'altavista', and another fake name "John Hunt" > > > I recognize from the IAHC days. Again the name servers are at vrx.net. > > > > > > Who's vrx.net? It's a service run by Richard Sexton, one of the people > > > that Network Solutions, Inc., the current provider of .com, .net, > > > and .org services, tried to appoint to the ICANN Domain Name Supporting > > > Organization (DNSO). It doesn't take a rocket sc
