Re: [IFWP] RFC1591 bis
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Ken Freed wrote: Neat trick, Jon! with regards, -- Harry Houdini Hello, I'm only down here for a couple of hours. There seems to be some dissatisfaction with the current version of RFC1591 so I've brought it up to date: http://annotated.rfc1591.com/ Jon P.S. You people that think Elvis is still alive are just kidding yourselves. )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# Server Error The following error occurred: Could not connect to the server Please contact the administrator. )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# )-# -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 -- THAT'S A CHANGE OF ADDRESS: I'm no longer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's records
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Michael Sondow wrote: From: Karl Auerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] My recourse is to either abandon my obligations as a Director or to initiate such steps outside of the corporate boundaries as are consistent with my obligation of loyalty to the corporation. What steps, I wonder, does Karl have in mind? If he's thinking of legal The real question is why Karl or anyone else would feel an obligation of loyalty to ICANN. Karl's obligations are those of any director of a California corporation. He is obliged to make sure that ICANN is acting in accordance with the law. If it isn't, he is obliged to take steps to bring the company's actions in accordance with the law. Now that we have gotten this far, how does this differ from what an obligation of loyalty to ICANN would call for? measures, I'm afraid he isn't going to get very far. It should be -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB / the Astra Group http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Introduction
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Joanna Lane wrote: Thank you Ellen, Nice to meet you. Joanna on 9/10/01 10:16 PM, Ellen Rony at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Joanna-- Many of us have been on this IFWP list since it was launched in about June of 1998. It went through a period of non-use and then disappeared for a while into the ether, but for most of us here, this is an ongoing dialogue, with new people joining in (and perhaps leaving) from one month to the next. That nothwistanding, here is my intro: I am co-author of The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in SNIP The obvious needs to be pointed out: if every time someone new joins the list, several hundred people must (re)introduce themselves, this list will consist of nothing but endless introductions. And everybody sensible will unsubscribe. New people should introduce themselves. Silence from the old folks, please. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
[IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: Whatever can be done to provide diversity and resilience in the management of the Internet should be done. Keeping .EU clear from ICANN's entanglements was a small but real step in this direction. How does another ccTLD in any way "provide diversity" for gTLDs? Several hundred million people live in Europe. .EU is likely to become the TLD of choice in this continent. It will attract many who would otherwise register names in .COM/NET/ORG; it's likely that many millions will register names in .EU. One option was that .EU would be chartered as a new-style ICANN TLD; this would have given ICANN nominal control over what will become a substantial part of the domain name system. Fortunately the decision was to have .EU classified as a ccTLD. It had sounded as if you were concerned about that set of domains. I do believe that EuroISPA's comment on the US government green paper on the DNS suggested that the best thing to do with .COM, .NET, and .ORG was to push them under .US. In other words, no, I am not much concerned about the gTLDs. Your original note and latest response continue to ignore the hard work of providing and pursuing detailed plans to remedy the problems you cite. Over the last several years I have spent a great deal of time and done a lot of hard work in lobbying for sensible government policies towards the Internet, both in the UK and in Brussels. In particular, EuroISPA proposed the creation of .EU to the Commission several years ago and has been active ever since in arguing for rational policies in its management. We have tried very hard to avoid the sort of senseless wrangling that has characterized the US-centric DNS wars. Had .EU been classified as an ICANN gTLD, it would have been entangled in those wars. .EU as a European ccTLD is free of ICANN and free of the DNS wars. This is a Good Thing. This is not to say that there will be no problems in the management of .EU. Doubtless there will be problems; but they will be solved by different people in a different way. That is, the management of the DNS will be somewhat more diverse than it otherwise would have been. In my opinion, we don't need grand solutions of the type that you seem to be arguing for. What we need are small, practical steps towards greater diversity in the management of the Internet. This is all becoming a bit repetitious, so with apologies, unless you have something new to say, this will be my last word on this subject. It was good to see you in Yokohama, Dave. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, jim bell wrote: Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. But that's not the whole problem, here. ICANN may be, arguably, subject to I didn't say that this was the whole problem. I said that it demonstrated a (one) basic flaw. On the other hand, I didn't say that the problem simply involved US law. In this case the problem seemed to be pressure from the executive branch. "those laws," but it isn't clear that those laws (per se) were responsible for the disconnection. Is there a law, somewhere, that said "anybody who we determine appears to be violating the law in America, we 'unaddress' them before they get a trial." That certainly isn't normal procedure: There are probably over a thousand Internet Casinos who are (the thugs would argue) in violation of some American law, yet they are still accessible to us. There is a very large world outside of the United States. There is no reason why issues involving .UK, for example, should be subject to the jurisdiction of California courts. Britain is not a colony of the United States, nor is it a California county. Nor is there any justification for US government control over the allocation of IP address space within Europe. But when you look closely at ICANN, this is what you are getting. ICANN was supposed to replace IANA. IANA had a narrow technical role that depended upon voluntary cooperation. Having IANA arbitrate decisions about .UK actually worked, because IANA did not claim any ultimate legal authority. It was just obvious to everyone that if they didn't cooperate the Internet would not work. It may seem odd, but because IANA was gossamer thin, it had real power and legitimacy. ICANN doesn't and shouldn't. ICANN needs to be taught a very painful lesson: "Even if you feel that you must obey a specific law, you must not do it without initiating a legal process and continuing it through any valid appeal. Given that the election was only a few days away, it is obvious that no such process would be completed before the point becomes moot. You screwed up." ICANN is a California corporation subject to state and US laws. It has an obligation to obey those laws. There is or should be no question about this. ICANN is after all a legal fiction, a body whose very existence rests upon the authority of the state of California. The question is whether the domain name system, the IP address space, and other fundamental Internet infrastructure should be subject to US and California law. These are global, not local, resources. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: At 11:31 PM 11/3/00 +, Jim Dixon wrote: Given the now-crucial role that the Internet plays in the global economy, ICANN's hegemony gives, for example, representatives of small towns in California sitting on the right committee in Sacramento remarkable and truly unique power over the rest of the planet. Let's assume that the situation is as simple and unreasonable as you imply: As usual: 1. it is vastly easier to criticize the status quo than to propose something superior; and 2. it is vastly easier to propose general ideas than to provide detailed plans; and 3. it is vastly easier to specify a plan than to make it happen. So what is the point of offering the criticism, absent having done steps 1 2, and some of 3, above? I do believe that this is called begging the question. Given ICANN's peculiar legal status and vulnerability to law suits, I strongly recommended to the European Commission that steps be taken to ensure that .EU would be delegated as a ccTLD rather than (as proposed) a gTLD under ICANN's new procedures. Fortunately this advice was accepted. That is, we did steps 1, 2, and 3, and in consequence .EU will be largely free from the ICANN mess. ps. Absent a U.N. basis, SOME national jurisdiction why apply. With a U.N. basis, other problems apply. This, of course, leads to the question about any of this line of complaint, rather than seeking to make the current structure work as well as it can. Those involved in actually building the Internet on a day to day basis spend a good deal of time engineering away single points of failure. ICANN is just such a weak point. Having power over the DNS, the Internet address space, and various other essential bits of Internet infrastructure all concentrated in one private company in California -- especially this particular private company -- is simply foolish. Whatever can be done to provide diversity and resilience in the management of the Internet should be done. Keeping .EU clear from ICANN's entanglements was a small but real step in this direction. Need I point out how unnecessary and how destructive your habitual sarcasm and contempt for others is? -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Re: Ken Stubbs @ core deletes vote-auction.com
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: our ol friend Ken is up to no good again. On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: it seems that core (i.e. the root servers) has deleted the entry for vote-auction.com - while the whois still works and their primary nameserver (in austria) still resolves, a regular lookup returns with "host unknown". rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds. here in europe the sentiment today is that by doing so core has stopped being (if it ever was) an independent and purely technical instance and has entered the realm of politics. for example, no matter whether or not vote-auction.com is or is not illegal in the US, what business has a US court or lea in blocking the site for *me* (in germany) or, for that matter, the rest of the planet? Tom Vogt pointed out in a follow-up email that 'CORE' should be replaced with 'InterNIC'. CORE as the registrar actually still had the name listed. Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the California legislature as well as those of Congress, the executive branches, and various and sundry US state and federal courts. Some argue that ICANN should itself have authority over all of the Internet domain name system and the IP address space and in fact things are creeping in this direction. Given the now-crucial role that the Internet plays in the global economy, ICANN's hegemony gives, for example, representatives of small towns in California sitting on the right committee in Sacramento remarkable and truly unique power over the rest of the planet. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Re: [awpd] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Jay Fenello wrote: He therefore informed me that there was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage, though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been compromised. This is where Berkman could have provided assistance, but instead, took the easy way out. The IFWP Steering Committee had three votes for a wrap-up meeting, and three times, it passed with a slim majority. The only time the Steering Committee was in disarray, was when the Berkman Center surprised everyone by calling off the final meeting. I was on the IFWP steering committee from the beginning and participated in all of its many conference calls. I agree with Jay's version of events. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Don't shoot the messenger (was Where Does Lessig Stand?)
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Ellen Rony wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Jay Fenello wrote: He therefore informed me that there was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage, though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been compromised. On Tues, 19 Sep 200, Jim Dixon wrote: This is where Berkman could have provided assistance, but instead, took the easy way out. Sorry, but I didn't. You have made a mistake in editing the original. Someone else wrote that. I don't recall the exact details of the last few days of the IFWP and so have refrained from assigning any specific blame to Larry Lessig _or_ the Berkman Center. As I have pointed out in earlier email, in fact I defended Lessig at the time. However, I found myself profoundly dissatisfied with the role that the academics played in the IFWP process. As someone else said, they were all too much inclined to defer to what they saw as the centers of real power, governments and large corporations. And then again I think that they found it impossible to see what was in front of them; they saw everything in terms of old models. While it may seem like we are flogging a dead horse to spend any more time to discussing the fateful wrap-up IFWP meeting, it is clearly an issue that continues to ignite controversy among those who had such high hopes for the IFWP process. I think that in fact there is a great deal of agreement among those of us who had high hopes for the IFWP process. Things went badly wrong. There was no wrap-up meeting. Those who fault Berkman for the demise of the wrap-up need to look elsewhere. And one must ask, would a wrap-up meeting have changed the outcome we have today? IMHO, not likely. Would it have changed how the interim ICANN board was chosen. IMHO, not likely. Humans have a fondness for closure, but that's not likely to be forthcoming any time soon on matters relevant to the curious and debatable birth of ICANN. Would a wrap-up meeting have changed things? Oh yes, I think that it would have. But that opportunity has gone now. We had IANA, which was a very useful tool. Now we have ICANN. gack Oh well, the Internet nevertheless rolls on. ;-) -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [DOMAIN-POLICY] [IFWP] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote: [Lessig:] But second, and more to the point, I know first hand what lead to the end of the IFWP process, as I was part of the negotiations in that process. Of all the "parties" in that negotiation, Berkman was the last pushing for the final meeting. We had been asked by NSI and IANA and IFWP's Tamar Frankel to help broker a deal among these three actors to facilitate a final meeting within the IFWP framework. Berkman had been, as you will recall, a strong supporter of the IFWP process over IANA's; I personally had gone to Geneva to help facilitate the drafting process, and had helped draft a final statement of principles that was to constitute the source document for the final meeting. [Dixon:] I was very much involved in this process and this doesn't square with my recollection of what happened. Tamar Frankel was set against any last IFWP meeting; she said as much at the Singapore IFWP conference and at other times. She was afraid of what might happen at an open conference; she wanted a controlled solution. And she got it: ICANN. That makes it sound like Tamar wanted ICANN and didn't want a wrap up meeting. Aren't you the same Jim Dixon that got me off to the side in Singapore and talked about a closed door wrap up meeting followed by an open meeting saying that Tamar, to be an effective negotiator between NSI and CORE had to have some semblnce of control over the meeting? Yes, that was me. And it was a "semblence of control" that I had in mind. ;-) She and I had a long conversation in which she first expressed her dislike of/grave doubts about an open meeting or any wrap-up meeting at all. Then she suggested that Harvard would be willing to supply a venue, so long as the text to be agreed upon was decided in a closed workshop and then ratified in an open meeting. This sounded to me like a workable compromise, so I supported it. In other words, Tamar wanted a wrap up meeting but not in the same format as the other 3. No ? She wanted a controlled solution. In this she agreed with the rest. I was willing to agree to anything that got us to an open and therefore uncontrolled wrap-up meeting. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [DOMAIN-POLICY] [IFWP] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote: Although Jim and I had many differences of opinion both on the desired result and how to get there I have to agree with his version of history. But Singapore was a long time ago. I think what we are doing here is finger-pointing. What good is it to asssign blame now? I dont see it changing anything. You are quite right. It doesn't change anything. However (a) Sandow and Lessig were disagreeing, and Lessig was claiming, essentially, superior knowledge as a participant. I wrote to support Sandow's version of events. And (b) we have a future. People need to be reminded of what really happened, so that history doesn't repeat itself. One of the lessons of the IFWP for me is: don't trust academics. Jim Dixon wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote: [Lessig:] But second, and more to the point, I know first hand what lead to the end of the IFWP process, as I was part of the negotiations in that process. Of all the "parties" in that negotiation, Berkman was the last pushing for the final meeting. We had been asked by NSI and IANA and IFWP's Tamar Frankel to help broker a deal among these three actors to facilitate a final meeting within the IFWP framework. Berkman had been, as you will recall, a strong supporter of the IFWP process over IANA's; I personally had gone to Geneva to help facilitate the drafting process, and had helped draft a final statement of principles that was to constitute the source document for the final meeting. [Dixon:] I was very much involved in this process and this doesn't square with my recollection of what happened. Tamar Frankel was set against any last IFWP meeting; she said as much at the Singapore IFWP conference and at other times. She was afraid of what might happen at an open conference; she wanted a controlled solution. And she got it: ICANN. That makes it sound like Tamar wanted ICANN and didn't want a wrap up meeting. Aren't you the same Jim Dixon that got me off to the side in Singapore and talked about a closed door wrap up meeting followed by an open meeting saying that Tamar, to be an effective negotiator between NSI and CORE had to have some semblnce of control over the meeting? Yes, that was me. And it was a "semblence of control" that I had in mind. ;-) She and I had a long conversation in which she first expressed her dislike of/grave doubts about an open meeting or any wrap-up meeting at all. Then she suggested that Harvard would be willing to supply a venue, so long as the text to be agreed upon was decided in a closed workshop and then ratified in an open meeting. This sounded to me like a workable compromise, so I supported it. In other words, Tamar wanted a wrap up meeting but not in the same format as the other 3. No ? She wanted a controlled solution. In this she agreed with the rest. I was willing to agree to anything that got us to an open and therefore uncontrolled wrap-up meeting. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson's reply
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of people worldwide, yes, but only of interested parties who know what they are voting about. Hilarious. Exactly how does this get us to the ICANN board? The original participants in the IFWP process were interested parties who knew what they were voting about. They didn't choose ICANN. They didn't even have the opportunity to choose ICANN. Mike Roberts and other representatives of vested interests blocked the wrap-up meeting that might have given us a legitimate successor to the IANA. ICANN represents a repudiation of the IFWP and all open processes. Did the little secret cabal represent interested parties? Of course they did. Did they know what they were "voting about"? Sure -- they were choosing a small band of biddable people to carry out their wishes. Is this in any sense a legitimate process? No. It's about as legitimate as a bank robbery. yes, I know, who decides? maybe we should have a global vote on that! (just kidding!) it should organize bottom-up, It may be hard for you to recognize the nuances of English as it is normally spoken, but if we are going to organize a successor to IANA "bottom-up", we start from the bottom. Not from your little club of friends. We start instead with those who use and operate the Internet. Better yet where possible are global markets, where people get to choose for themselves without imposing their choices on others. Well, Esther, then stop trying to impose your tax on the Internet. esther -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: Dyson's reply RE: [IFWP] Representations to WTO Conference
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Ken, I've already said most of what I have to say, and you can go find it and repeat it as well as I can. I think ICANN is heading in more or less the right direction despite its many imperfections, and I want to help make it better. It is not governing the world, and god forbid *anything* should be put to a global vote. It is trying to organize bottom-up courtesy of the people most concerned with the Net's infrastructure, and draw them in through outreach. It implements its policies through contracts, not by "governing." George Orwell would appreciate this sort of English. ICANN is "trying to organize bottom-up". This is why it was imposed on the Internet by a small group that has never been clearly identified. No broadly based Internet group ever asked for ICANN or has endorsed it. ICANN is here "courtesy of the people most concerned with the Net's infrastructure". The totally naive, those not fluent in this NewSpeak, would confuse this group with, for example, the Internet service providers who operate most of the Internet infrastructure. The fact that ISPs as a group do not endorse ICANN, the fact that ICANN ignores ISPs' input -- these are irrelevant. Because, after all, ICANN is trying to "draw them in through outreach". Most importantly, the fact that ISPs, like most of the rest of the people most concerned with the Internet's infrastructure, have no interest in signing contracts that give away control over their assets to ICANN -- that's totally irrelevant. The Internet has many legitimate organizations that draw such authority as they have from the endorsement of those that they represent. ICANN is not one of them. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
RE: [IFWP] My nose
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote: [Roberto Gaetano:] That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee. I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation. This is the essential point. Really it doesn't matter where ICANN gets its money. What matters is that ICANN is responsible to no one. The ICANN board has no legitimacy. They were appointed by who knows who to meet who knows what agenda. For good reason they lack the trust of the Internet community, ICANN's only possible source of authority. To meet calls for openness they hold rigged meetings around the world, an itinerant mockery of us all. In Berlin, in Singapore, in Santiago sycophants and bureaucrats, clowns and the power-mad, all the classic enemies of the Internet dance for their favour. It's hard to remember that this circus was supposed to replace IANA. The fundamental objection to the $1/name Dyson tax is that that tax gave no one any influence over the ICANN board. The objection to ICANN's being funded by a couple of multinationals is not all that different: it gives control of the Internet to the few. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion after reading what you wrote. I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I know who Ivan is. This was one of my points at the beginning of this sub-thread: if you don't know Ivan, you might misunderstand his point. snip. And unfortunately, given the small size of the registries concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to afford the investment necessary to take action. NSI is of course a different proposition. Its market in Europe is relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a monopoly within the European Union. In short, it's an easy target. I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion. It is not an easy target, it is the priority target. As you have described, the problem with NSI is: - qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country - quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution. I don't know if you have ever done any shooting. Easy targets are big targets. In a war, easy targets are also targets that can't shoot back. NSI is an easy target because (a) it's big, (b) they are a bunch of foreigners (to a citizen of the EU) and therefore there isn't much risk in shooting at them. If the Commission were to take action against, let's say, either the .DE registry or the .FR registry, there would be significant backlash from powerful forces in Europe, people who could do harm to whoever at the Commission was responsible. NSI has no similar power. Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address the "smaller" problem? I have no objection to the European Commission investigating NSI. They are a monopoly, they are doing business within Europe, they are large enough in revenue terms, or nearly so, to justify DG IV's attention. What I have a problem with is abuse of power. I don't believe that NSI is being investigated because they are a monopoly and so forth. I think that they are being investigated because certain elements in the Commission have a vested interest in damaging NSI. They are not acting on behalf of the people of the European Union. They are acting on their own behalf. This is plain old-fashioned corruption. One of the problems with the Commission is that this is not considered a problem. When I have discussed this matter with people knowledgeable about the Commission, no one was at all interested in the facts of the case. Instead they warned me that if I highlighted what was going on, everyone at the Commission would be against me. This is how people think and behave in a corrupt institution. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: We believe that restrictive ccTLD policies are anti-competitive within Europe. And Jim Dixon replied: I think that few readers will gather from this that Ivan is one of the directors of Nominet, the .UK registry. Exactly who is the "we" in this sentence? Are you saying that Nominet's policies are anti-competitive? I think Jim is being a bit unfair here. I don't think so. I post with a NetNames signature. I work for NetNames. I am a non-executive director of Nominet. If I ever post with my Nominet director hat on I would make it very clear I was doing this. Few people reading this are likely to be aware that you are a director of Nominet. Unless the reader understands that you are a director of the .UK registry, he or she is very likely to interpret what you said as applying to all of the ccTLD registries of Europe. In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames. Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that non-restrictive policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to the conclusion that I believe Nominet to be non-restrictive. While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion after reading what you wrote. As Nominet has over 1000 members, no restriction on who can become a member and participate, and no restrictions on who can register a domain name, it would be hard to make a case that there was any sort of anti-competitive behaviour going on. Unlike some European ccTLD registries. Of course. You and I agree that the policies of some European governments and some EU ccTLD registries are unlawful because they discriminate against companies and individuals from other member states of the EU. Because the national government either colludes in or turns a blind eye towards these practices, victims of these practices (such as Netnames) have good grounds for complaints to the EU competition authorities (DG IV). However, separate complaints need to be made in regard to each of the ccTLD registries concerned, because these are separate entities, each following different policies under different national laws and regulations. And unfortunately, given the small size of the registries concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to afford the investment necessary to take action. NSI is of course a different proposition. Its market in Europe is relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a monopoly within the European Union. In short, it's an easy target. My usual disclaimer: I don't think that the Commission should be taking action against NSI at this time. I think that DG IV has been given bad advice by elements elsewhere in the Commission who have a vested interest in ICANN. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
RE: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Ivan Pope wrote: As I think you understand perfectly well, DG IV is responsible for enforcing competition policies at the EU level. I don't know of any European ccTLD that could be regarded as having a substantial presence outside of its national market. It would be inappropriate for DG IV, the European competition directorate, to intervene in the UK market in regard to .UK, for example. We believe that restrictive ccTLD policies are anti-competitive within Europe. I think that few readers will gather from this that Ivan is one of the directors of Nominet, the .UK registry. Exactly who is the "we" in this sentence? Are you saying that Nominet's policies are anti-competitive? That is, a policy that restricts a ccTLD to companies that are 'local' or that are registered for tax within that country or that are part of some local organisation are clearly anticompetitive within Europe. We believe that the ability of our clients to compete on a level playing field is affected by their inability to register 'local' domain names within Europe. Having read this several times, I think I understand it. Your concern is that the .FR registry, for example, prohibits non-French companies from registering names in .FR for their own use. I agree that if the French authorities will not act on this, then in this specific case (the .FR registry) you can justify a complaint to DG IV, the competition directorate of the European Commission, this complaint being made by or on behalf of your customers, and others similarly affected. The complaint would be that the local authorities are acting in such a way as to fragment the single market. We also believe that NetNames' ability to compete within Europe is affected by the 'local' requirements that stops us being a Registrar within certain territories. We are not able to compete effectively within some markets for this reason. Agreed, as above. The EU is supposed to be one market. Any company registered anywhere in the EU should be able to register names in any member state; or perhaps more correctly, should be able to register names in compliance with the same regulations as those applied to local companies. We believe that it is the role of the EU to look into such anti-competitive situations and to remedy them. It is not about ccTLDs themselves being anticompetitive, it is about the NICs being anti-competitive in their rules and regulations. Agreed, insofar as you are talking about some of the ccTLD registries in some of their operations. However, as you know quite well, your comments do not by any means apply to all of the ccTLD registries in the EU. The problem from the perspective of the European Commission is that the ccTLD registries taken individually are too small a market to justify the attention of DG IV.* I think that the bottom limit is a market of say $25 million or so year. I think that the ccTLD registries are on the order of 10% of that. Taken as a whole, the ccTLD registries might be that big, but they simply are not one market; they are separate little markets, each with different characteristics. On the other hand, NSI's market in Europe is large enough to justify DG IV's attention, is a natural monopoly, and cannot be said to be operated for the common good. What has protected NSI so far is the European perception that NSI has been operating under a contract with the US government. -- * Note: the European Commission is quite small relative to the population of the EU; only a few thousand civil servants. In consequence, even a phenomenon as important as the Internet has only had the part time attention of a few people. By "a few" I don't mean 30 or 300 - I mean perhaps one person full time, half a dozen more part time. The UK has its own competition authorities -- who have, by the way, already come to a conclusion about Nominet, the .UK registry (that conclusion being, more or less, that .UK is a natural monopoly but one that isn't large enough to justify regulation and that in any case Nominet, the .UK registry, is being managed in the public interest). DG IV is concerned with .COM/NET/ORG because they are the only TLDs that have a substantial market across Europe. It would be very difficult to argue that their concern is not justified. This is not to say that DG IV's actions are well-advised at this time. As I have already said, in my opinion DG IV is receiving advice from others in the Commission without understanding that that advice is based more on self-interest than the realities of the situation. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecom
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Mark Measday wrote: Odd, given your arguments, that, with the good advice Mr B received at the EC, we do not see him at the helm of some more adventurous venture. Good advice? From who? Mr Bangemann headed up DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate. He was of course one of the 22 Commissioners forced to resign because of corruption and mismanagement at the European Commission. He then went on to compound the scandal by accepting a position with Telefonica at a million dollars a year, give or take the odd hundred thousand. Why would a man so much more in possession of the facts than most choose merely to learn Spanish at such a high salary when he could have burst from his straitjacket and reaped the rewards of entrepreneurial endeavour according to your account below? Did someone claim that a position at the European Commission implied some sort of entrepreneurial skills? Not me. What I said was The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike. What is a commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be data, not voice. By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be obsolete and irrelevant. No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit. There are many bureaucrats at the Commission trying to stuff the Internet into a straitjacket. DG XIII, Mr Bangemann's lot, has specific responsibility for telecommunications and is largely staffed by people with a telco background. They are the ones trying to do the stuffing. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
[IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
in the operation (e.g.
administration, maintenance and up-dating) of the database into which
registrants details as well as the second-level domains details are
registered. The registrar function consists in the registration in that
database and allocation of second-level domain names to registrants, as well
as all related marketing, billing and other related activities.
As provided for in the US Government's White Paper, a private not-for-profit
corporation called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers) was incorporated in the US on 1 October 1998 to administer policy
for the Internet Name and Address System and succeed to IANA in that role.
The NSI-USG co-operative agreement expired at the end of September 1998, and
was renewed while amended on 7 October 1998, for a period running until 30
September 2000, by so-called 'Amendment 11', which set out a first timetable
for a stepwise liberalisation of the registration system for gTLDs.
The timetable under which the stepwise liberalisation was to be implemented
was amended twice, first through Amendment 12 on 12 March 1999, and further
on 25 June 1999 by the US DoC. Thereafter, NSI was by 26 April 1999 to
establish a test bed supporting actual registrations in .com, .net, and .org
with 5 registrars to be accredited by ICANN ("Test bed Registrars") (Phase
1) by that date in accordance with ICANN's published accreditation
guidelines. Phase 2 with an unlimited number of competing registrars to be
accredited by ICANN ("Accredited Registrars") is currently set to start on
16 July 1999.
That liberalisation is to be implemented thanks to a system called the
Shared Registration System ("SRS"). To implement this system and allow for
competing registrars, NSI was (directly or indirectly) to develop a protocol
and associated software supporting a system that permits multiple registrars
to provide registration services for the registry of the existing gTLDs.
The licensing by NSI to registrars of such protocol and software is the
purpose of the NSI-registrar standard licensing agreement published on 21
April 1999 by the US Department of Commerce (US DoC) as an annex to
Amendment 13 to the NSI-USG co-operative agreement.
On the basis of that standard Licensing agreement, NSI has entered into
agreements with the five test bed registrars selected and accredited by
ICANN. These licensing agreements are aimed at enabling the latter to
register second-level domain names within the registry of Top-Level Domain
Names managed by NSI such as .com, .org and .net. Thereby NSI licences to
those companies the necessary software, application programming interfaces
and protocols enabling these companies to access the NSI Shared Registry
System.
DGIV has identified a certain number of clauses in that standard
NSI-Registrar licensing agreement that may raise anti-competitive concerns.
Under Amendment 13 to the NSI-US Government Co-operative Agreement of 21
April 1999, this standard agreement is intended for being used only during
the test-bed period (Phase I).
Apart from the five test bed registrars, ICANN has approved until now
fifty-two other companies to be accredited as registrars. These companies
also include a number of EEA based companies. As of 9 July 1999, still only
two out of the five test bed Registrars have started offering registration
services.
END without comment ------
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316
---
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: Have any potential registrars filed complaints with DG IV to open up competitive registrar opportunities for the various monopoly European country member domains? Not to the best of my knowledge. There is good understanding of these issues at DG IV (the competition directorate). I have heard them argue that .COM is sold across Europe and sales volumes are large enough to justify DG IV's interest, whereas national TLDs, ccTLDs, are sold in their respective national markets with little leakage, and therefore the national TLDs are better handled by the national authorities. In the UK what was then the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked carefully at .UK and decided that (a) the .UK registry is a natural monopoly, (b) the market wasn't large enough to justify setting up a regulator, (c) Nominet, the .UK registrar, is well-managed, (d) the market is open and competitive, in that anyone can become a registrar upon payment of a nominal fee, and (e) Nominet's being operated as a shared registry managed by the .UK registrars in common removed any remaining doubts. Nominet passed the thousand-registrar mark some time ago. They have been dropping prices regularly since the beginning. From September a registration in .UK will cost registrars about $7.50 for two (2) years. If (b) isn't clear: it costs money to set up a regulator staffed by career civil servants on high salaries with generous retirement benefits and union dues to pay. It is very likely that if .UK were to fall under the authority of a regulator prices would have be to increased to pay the costs of regulation. Given Nominet's sensible management, low overheads, and falling prices, it would take a brave and foolish government to act against it. Please do not read this as an argument in support of DG IV's movement against Network Solutions. I think that DG IV's position in this matter is reasonable. DG IV has a well-deserved good reputation, unlike some of the other directorates. (*) They do a good job, and much of the success of what used to be called the Common Market is due to DG IV's good work. However, it looks to me like DG IV been misinformed and badly advised in this matter by other elements of the European Commission who have a strong interest in the success of ICANN's plan for consolidating power over the Internet. - (*) I know of nothing in American history to parallel the recent sacking -- OK, OK, mass resignation under pressure -- of the European Commissioners. And few were surprised or shocked, though many were angry, when the head of DG XIII, the telecommunications directorate, then accepted a position paying about $1 million a year with Telefonica, the Spanish telco, while he was still responsible for regulating it. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
RE: [IFWP] Analogical thought
to do so. Nothing more. Nothing less. We don't need anything more than this level of coordination in the Internet. That is, we need IANA. We need someone to formally say that the next protocol number after 17 is, yessir, 18. We don't need ICANN as the Great Regulator. We don't need ICANN as a Global Taxation Authority. We don't need a vast grey bureaucracy in the Southern California desert telling the whole world what to do. We don't need ICANN's unelected, unknowledgeable, uninformed, and generally rather useless board demanding money from us with menaces. What we need is the sort of thing that IANA used to be: a small group of intelligent, earnest people with good intentions who help us all to voluntarily cooperate for our mutual benefit. Sometimes a name corresponds to many IP addresses (as in round-robin DNS) and sometimes an IP address corresponds to many names (some Web servers permit many names to be associated with one IP address). The domain name system is not really like the telephone system. So what? Regards Roberto P.S.: Of course it is not. If they were identical we wouldn't need both ;) "Similar to" is not the same as "identical to". What I said was that the domain name system is not really similar to the telephone system. In fact they are very very different. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Analogical thought
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Mark Measday wrote: Jim, It is a commonplace, I think, that if you can disprove the phone system analogy below with sufficient force, or a sufficiently powerful replacement analogy, you win. However, noone has done so. I have to disagree. The Internet's amazing and continuing growth has shattered the complacency of telcos and governments alike. What is a commonplace is that by 2001 most telecoms traffic everywhere will be data, not voice. By 2005 voice will be a tiny fraction of the bandwidth in use, and all of the equipment, practices, laws, and regulations developed over the last century of voice telecommunications will be obsolete and irrelevant. No matter how hard the bureaucrats try to stuff this huge and growing elephant into the straitjacket that they developed for the mouse that they are used to, it just ain't gonna fit. The US PTO, the large telcos, the lawyers and bits of government involved, have to hang a hook on some regulatory precedent to give them a feel for they territory they are dealing with.. They see phone system deregulation and the games that can be played with the numbers and 1-800 names as that precedent. They're reasonable people, but not visionaries. Give them a series of hooks and they will hang their coats on them in a civilised manner. However, revolutionary rhetoric leaves them cold. So? The awful truth is that THEY DON'T MATTER. People who can't see what's in front of them -- bureaucrats, businessmen, technologists, and politicians who insist on seeing the world in terms appropriate to the mid-20th century -- are going to retire, go broke, or get the sack. Maybe in some places and some contexts they will succeed. All the evidence is that this just means that those places will stagnate until finally it becomes totally obvious even to the most blind that their policies are wrong. Then the blind bosses will be replaced. To cite two of the worn, but valid clichés that are known territory, (i) the best solution does not necessarily win, aka Betamax; (ii) well-intentioned people working consensually and democratically do not produce good solutions aka OSI. There's probably about to be (iii) technical innovation is always stifled by the genius that produced it aka In ternet, unless the creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system into existence can be marshalled to demonstrate the difference of that system from the metaphors that are being forced upon it. There are lots of applicable cliches. The 20th century began in a world dominated by vast empires, highly structured societies, armies in elaborate uniforms run by crusty old men steeped in honourable routine. At the century's end all of these are gone. Change at a blinding pace (accompanied by a lack of respect for precedents, rules, and regulations) has done away with all of them. The collapse of the old telcos is obvious. The telcos that are thriving today have become ISPs. They aren't resisting change, they are driving it. The comfortable regime of trans-Atlantic half- circuits, with each country's monopoly vying with the other to see which could charge the higher price, is gone: over the last year or so aggressive new carriers have driven prices down by more than 80%. They are now rolling out data networks across Europe. Prices are plummeting and the old monopoly telcos are on the defensive everywhere. My analogies are very different from yours. The Internet is the future, it is irresistable, protean, it will transform everything. The world that you think will curb the Internet is the past, rigid, static, and we can see it crumbling before our eyes. MM Jim Dixon wrote: I find the analogy with the phone system (as you present it) not fully applicable, as the phone number is a "key" in the system, and therefore unique due to the way that the system is built, while the domain name is an "attribute" of the unique key (the IP address), and therefore could be duplicated. I don't want to dwell on pseudo-technical side-issues but: You are simply wrong. You have domain names that map into multiple IP addresses (round-robin DNS) and Web servers with many domain names mapping into one IP address. The DNS is not 1:1 and it's not 1:N. It is N:N. The telephone directory system and the DNS are two very different things; a telco background does not qualify you to pontificate on Internet issues. Insofar as you are commenting upon this, you seem to have missed my narrow technical point. Roberto Gaetano asserted that an IP address uniquely identifies a domain name. This is not true. Sometimes a name corresponds to many IP addresses (as in round-robin DNS) and sometimes an IP address corresponds to many names (some Web servers permit many names to be associated with one IP address). Th
Re: [IFWP] Double ditto
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Weisberg wrote: It is incredible that anyone should have to restate this basic principle of our discourse. Dan Steinberg wrote: it's really simple: If any listmember finds another member's posting unpleasant, a waste of bytes, boring, etc. then in the future just hit the delete key without reading their posts. If they post too often or your delete key is getting too much use then set up filters. Beauty and good sense are in the eyes of the beholder. If a comment is faulty, demonstrate the flaw. We will each decide for ourselves whose arguments are most on point. Indeed, abusive comments only reflect upon the author, not the intended victims. The form of ostracism proposed is mindless and destructive. It can be turned against anyone, and there is no reason to expect that you will always be on the serving end of that stick. Of all the thousands of people who send me email, I filter three. There is good reason for this in each case. In the case in question I found that I was getting and reading several pieces of email each day. The email had no positive content; it consisted of one personal attack after another. I also found that I was wasting my time reacting to this stuff. I begin each day by reading and responding to email. So each day was beginning with a nasty taste. So I started filtering and my life became more pleasant. We are under no moral obligation to continue to receive and read email of no value. On the contrary: there is only so much time. What time and energy we have should be used constructively. Speaking of which: At this point, what the Net needs is a more distributed DNS, one that has no single control point. What we have instead is ICANN, which is attempting to control not just the domain name system but the entire Internet. There is no need to speculate as to motives; as I said in my earlier posting, the one great lesson of the twentieth century is that concentrating power in one point is a recipe for disaster. What we need is diversity and variety, the opposite of what ICANN has on offer. For an example, consider routing. Routing across the Internet is handled by a large variety of organizations: ISPs of all sizes, schools, Internet exchanges of all types (the MAEs are owned by Worldcom, the LINX in London is a co-op of sorts, I believe that the exchange at CERN is funded by a consortium of governments, etc), trans-national corporations, and so forth and so on. There are now more than 12,000 autonomous systems, each at least potentially representing a different routing policy. The fearsome power of the Internet comes in large part from the ease with which anyone can plug into the Internet backbone and pour money and time into their own notion of how things ought to be done. This approach works. The approach taken in designing the DNS doesn't. It has resulted in the last several years of DNS wars, it has led to the current spectacle in which the remnants of IANA are buried below a massive, wriggling, jostling pile of control freaks, would-be billionaire monopolists, middle level government bureaucrats looking for a new world to tax and regulate, glib politicians (some claiming that they invented the Internet), and an amazing and diverse assortment of others, all intent on becoming our rulers. None interested in delivering benefit or value. Do I have an instant solution, a quick alternative to ICANN's view of a global Internet in subjugation to a dull, grey, vast, and omnipresent Southern California bureaurcracy? No... But it is in the nature of the Internet that if enough of us put our weight against this bad solution, other solutions will appear. If enough of us put our time and energy in working on a variety of diverse solutions, we will get a DNS -- or something roughly equivalent to today's DNS -- that works remarkably well, has no one central control point, and becomes more varied and diverse with each passing day. That's something to work for. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
[IFWP] Block the Crock
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Quite some time ago I looked at the stream of bad-tempered and ill-considered vitriol that Dave Crocker pumps into various lists and decided to filter it. ICANN was selected by hidden forces, lacks any support from the Internet community, is trusted by precious few -- but ISOC, the ITU, the IAB, CORE, One comes to cherish the ease with which such sweeping and baseless assessments are made. This got by the filters because Dave is rude enough to post over and over to this list without subscribing to it. Glancing through it does remind me of why I Block the Crock. Time to improve those filters ;-) -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: sondow vs dixon unhealthy Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Gordon Cook wrote: Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions. snip please count to ten... Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly discussion. Same here ;-) I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now, where's Kent Crispin... Right behind you. Watch out! -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
[IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
owing how they reach the decisions that they lack the authority to make. There is good reason to believe that they keep their deliberations private to prevent the outside world from seeing that certain board members never participate and from learning just how ill-informed and partial this board is. Personally, I think that the arrogance of the ICANN board is astounding. Your insistence that we bow to it is incomprehensible. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of the Internet or any vision of where it should go. This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no accident. It is Unless you are suggesting than Jon Postel's death was no accident, then you are simply wrong. Postel was supposed to be ICANN's brain. Take away the brain and you get the shambling farce that we have today. the carefully laid plan of a coalition lead by the big Internet businesses that control ISOC (MCI and IBM primarily) together with a combine of second-tier telcos and registrars in CORE. These people know everything about the Internet. Many were involved in its creation. ICANN is their political creation and cover for taking control, or taking back control, of a runaway successful Internet that has gotten out of their hands and threatens their continued businesses. I know how much fun this sort of conspiracy theory is. But if you look carefully at the numbers, there is nothing to back up the theory. ICANN's annual budget wouldn't warrant five minutes of discussion at an IBM board meeting. The kind of funding ICANN gets is the kind of discretionary spending that middle level managers have for marketing budgets, the kind of money that goes into sponsoring _single_ trade shows. Look down the list of contributors to ICANN. There are very few contributors and none has put in a great deal of money. All these naive statements about ICANN being an "error" or an "accident" just play into their hands. It's what they want you to think, which is why Joe Sims and Becky Burr repeated over and over in the hearings last October, and repeat ad infinitem until you weaken and start to believe them, that the selection of the Board was indiscriminate. I haven't suggested that the selection of the board was indiscriminate. What I have said is that ICANN lacks all legitimacy because of the way in which the board was selected. that has conspired to gain control of the Internet infrastructure. That goes as well for the GAC, the Root Server Advisory Committee, the DNSO constituencies, the Names Council, and every other structure within ICANN. They are not comprised of a representative cross-section of international Internet interests. They are all, every one of them, directly controlled by members of the team that has conspired to put ICANN in place. We don't need this. We don't need a secret cabal formed by all-powerful dark forces. The reality is sufficient: ICANN was formed by a secret process and continues to cloak its proceedings in secrecy. It has no mandate from the Internet community. There is no legal basis for its claims of vast authority. Its board as a group knows precious little about the Internet. We don't need 007 and Blofeld to explain what's going on. Simple incompetence, no legitimacy, no authority for their actions -- that should do nicely. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 11:27 AM 2/27/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote [replying to Dave's relentless personal attacks]: Dave, you are boring everyone. ... That's true. You have nothing positive to say, nothing to contribute. In other words, stop attacking me, stop attacking other people, start getting on topic. Given how vigorously you asserted the incorrectness of my assessment of your positions concerning gTLD and IANA proposals, and given that your response to the repeated request that you cite contrary data is, instead, to continue a barrage of attacks at me, one is left with a pretty strong basis for believing that the original assessment was correct. Your original claim was that I never contributed anything, that I just complained. I replied by listing some very solid contributions to real, working Internet bodies. As always, anything you wish to provide to the contrary would be helpful. To the extent that you have any doubt about the nature of such contrary data, please note that ad hominem's do not qualify. Dave, what exactly are your contributions to this debate? IHAC? The well-named POC? If I search through the last couple of weeks of contributions to this list from yourself, what I find is this: --- a compendium Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:19:26 +0800 Lisse, Presumably the "Dr" in your title came from doing something constructive, at some point in the past. Please consider returning to that realm and refraining from constant personal attacks on others who are trying to do constructive work in THIS realm. Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:20:08 +0800 Oh, isn't this rich. Is that a subtle way of saying that you approve of Lisse' constant ad hominem responses to Kent? Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:36:59 +0800 Tt is me saying that I find it rather humorous that you would accuse someone else of attacking people, and criticize them over it. I see. So the way to deal with concerns expressed about one set of ad hominem abuses is to pursue another set. Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:18:16 +0800 I'm sure NSI appreciates the constructive nature of this offer. Since this puts forward no viable alternative, its sole effect is to assist pursue further delay, maintaining NSI's uncontrolled monopoly position that much longer. Very helpful, indeed. Internet users must also appreciate how much this helps their access to competitive services. Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:18:49 +0800 Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativity of your multiple interpretations, particularly since they have nothing to do with anything I said. 1. You use a style of logic which says that if one is not in favor of one thing, then one must be in favor of another other, no matter how extreme or unfounded the second and no matter how many other possible positions are Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:58:01 +0800 I'm just putting all this together with the things you have stated in the past. It is possible that I have mis-interpreted them, of course. I've never stated that I wanted anything remotely like a pact with the devil and I've never stated anything remotely like wanting NSI crushed. So, no, I rather think your interpretation comes from somewhere other than my own statements. Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:00:20 +0800 In other words, we need delay. We do not need a vast bureaucracy overseeing the Internet. If the cost of killing off the vast bureaucracy is a few hundred million going to NSI, let them have it. It's the cheaper solution. The ICANN empire will cost far more. Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing. But too many people chose to vocally and vigorously and politically oppose that much simpler effort and these people pressured things towards the current develops. Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:48:52 +0800 What "compromise" effort? The IAHC. It's been convenient for the constant complainers to attack it, as they attack everything else, but it was created after two years of efforts to Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:33:52 +0800 At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the paragraph you spoke to was thus; "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits *always* are short of funds. That's not real good for stability." Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN are correct? Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:50:30 +0800 Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN are correct? Sure, if they were correct. IMHO, they weren't. I said that IC
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 09:38 PM 2/25/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote: You made a flat assertion without any limitation on it. Your assertion was demonstrably false. What you said was: I then listed real, functioning Internet organizations (ISPA UK, EuroISPA, the LINX, the Internet Watch Foundation, MaNAP) where I have made the contributions you claim I haven't. I am still a director of three of these. In other words, Dave, you are wrong. Have the grace to admit it. Note that our Dave has omitted what he said. Just as well, I suppose. Jim, you provided an extensive vitae of your various community involvements. My question was rather more simple than that and your response was, well, non-responsive. You didn't ask a question. You said that I only complained and never actually contributed anything. My reply was that in a time in which you helped give the world IAHC and the well-named POC, I helped build working Internet institutions. Real ones, that actually do something, with real constituencies. What detailed proposals, in the realm of gTLD and/or IANA enhancement, that have been put forward and that have developed a constituency working to move it forward have you supported? Dave, I don't care where I am on the CrockMeter. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
ains a base of support. Oh yes, I know. ICANN, for example, is distinctly lack in support, because its board has been unable to persuade the Internet community to trust it. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
[IFWP] ICANN Supporters
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: http://www.icann.org/contributors.html ... + + The ICANN Board of Directors thanks the following contributors + to the ICANN Startup Fund for their generosity: + + Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000 + IBM, $25,000 + MCI Worldcom, $25,000 + Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000 + Paul D. Stauffer, $1,000 + Symantec, $15,000 + UUNET, $25,000 Just to make things a wee bit clearer, both MCI Worldcom and UUnet are owned by Worldcom. So Worldcom is covering 38% of the bills. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 09:00 AM 2/23/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote: ICANN has four objectives: management of the top level of the DNS, management of IP address space, protocols, and operation of the root name servers. ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the other areas, though none existed before. The mother of all conspiracy theories. What is as obvious as the nose on your face or the beard on your chin is that ICANN itself is a major source of confusion and concern. the same problem on all fronts: people don't trust it. Gosh, Jim, do you think it might have something to do with "people" haranguing about it and making it impossible to make serious progress? (I'm skipping over the rather remarkable leap of faith needed to buy into the sweeping generality in your use of the term "people", as if there is a broad consensus of criticism, though there is not.) I asked at ICANN's Boston meeting how many people would trust the root name servers to ICANN. I saw one person put up his hand. This was quite remarkable. There were no murmurs of protest. No one stood up to speak of universal trust for ICANN. Quite the contrary. There was silence. When I finished speaking -- and the theme of what I said was that ICANN lacked trust -- and concluded with a recommendation that the ICANN board delay taking action until it had that trust, there was loud applause. [Dave, unwilling to deal with qustions of substance, replies with the usual personal attack and diversion of focus to psychological misinterpretations of history:] Jim, you have pretty much always challenged and complained about whatever current proposal was on the table. Attack? I thought it was an objective tally. Perhaps you actually HAVE supported a proposal that was on the table and I missed it. If my memory is faulty, what real project/effort/proposal -- that is, something detailed and having an organized effort to implement it -- have you supported? I am a director of ISPA, the UK's Internet trade association. I chaired the working group that rewrote its articles to give power to its members. I chaired the working group that wrote the constitution of Internet Watch Foundation, the watchdog body now being copied across Europe. I was the founding president of EuroISPA, the pan-European Internet trade association and played a major role in writing its articles. I was one of the founders of MaNAP, the UK's second major peering point. I chaired the working group that changed the articles of the LINX, the London peering point, to end a bitter internal dispute that lasted more than a year. And I was also of course on the IFWP steering committee. ISPA, the IWF, EuroISPA, the LINX, and MaNAP are all fully functional bodies that play important roles in the operation of the UK and European Internet. Each of these bodies is the result of compromise. Each is run openly and transparently. ICANN could learn a great deal from studying these organisations. The IFWP failed. In my opinion, it failed because of the no-compromise commandos exhorted by Don Heath to "overwhelm" the IFWP. Well, Dave, you guys overwhelmed it. Congratulations. But don't blame ICANN on us. WE face the possibility of having to deal with an unregulated monopoly with seriously flawed policies, developed in a closed manner, one with a non-existent operations record, a monopoly that is attempting to assert jurisdiction over the entire planet: ICANN. ... It is somewhere between fantastically bizarre and unprofessionally misleading to equate the two activities. I didn't equate NSI and ICANN. I said that NSI seemed likely to be the lesser of two evils. It's somewhere between fantastically bizarre and unprofessionally misleading to claim that I equated the two. Legal mechanisms exist for dealing with the NSI monopoly. It's just a No, actually, they don't. NSF and the White House has sufficiently muddied things so as to make a serious attack on NSI's position remarkably tough, never mind the fact that NSI now has vastly deeper pockets than anyone who is likely to attack it, especially since its policies favor larger organizations. The fact that the US government hasn't chosen to follow your preferred policy regarding NSI does not mean that the US has no legal mechanisms for dealing with monopolies. monopoly, like many others. The US government has complete power over NSI. If the USG fails to act, the European Commission's DG XIV and The claim of US power is demonstrably false, by virtue of the continuing pattern of poor decision-making the USG has made with respect to NSI and If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Prove that the US government l
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 12:53 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote: For whatever it is worth, ORSC is willing and able to lend whatever support it has or can muster to another protest or move to compete with ICANN in this "no-cost" award by NTIA/NIST. What ORSC is not in position to do is to become an opperating compay able to make a credible proposal;-)... That is all...\Stef I'm sure NSI appreciates the constructive nature of this offer. Since this puts forward no viable alternative, its sole effect is to assist pursue further delay, maintaining NSI's uncontrolled monopoly position that much longer. Very helpful, indeed. Internet users must also appreciate how much this helps their access to competitive services. Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins to look like the lesser evil. In other words, we need delay. We do not need a vast bureaucracy overseeing the Internet. If the cost of killing off the vast bureaucracy is a few hundred million going to NSI, let them have it. It's the cheaper solution. The ICANN empire will cost far more. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote: Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins to look like the lesser evil. In other words, we need delay. We do not need a vast bureaucracy overseeing the Internet. If the cost of killing off the vast bureaucracy is a few hundred million going to NSI, let them have it. It's the cheaper solution. The ICANN empire will cost far more. Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would What "compromise" effort? not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing. But too many people chose to vocally and vigorously and politically oppose that much simpler effort and these people pressured things towards the current develops. Uhm, "current develops"? It would, in fact, be helpful for those who have been active in this topic to consider the real effects of their efforts, in particular the extent to which their constant complaining and constant pressing for delays has served only to creat more problems and more delays, rather than making things better. They should reflect on the very basic question which asks what is going to happen that will make meaningful change, or whether it is, perhaps, time to stop complaining and instead make progress. The IFWP represented a genuine opportunity for compromise. For the first time all the warring factions came together in one place, for the first time there was genuine progress. For whatever reason certain elements chose to kill off the possibility of peace. They did everything they could to prevent progress; they contrived to shatter the emerging consensus and blocked the IFWP wrap-up meeting. As you say, they created more problems and more delays until finally things fell apart. This is where we are today. One of the persons most responsible for blocking the IFWP wrap-up meeting and destroying compromise is president of ICANN. He sits on a board that cares nothing for progress, that every day displays its contempt for the Internet community, that seeks to impose an iron grip on everyone everywhere. The Internet has until now been an agent for universal progress; ICANN sees it as an opportunity to create a new imperium, the first truly global law. Those who have been active and constant complainers against efforts to progress should consider these questions very, very carefully, Jim. You who were one of the most active and constant complainers against the IFWP, which was a real effort to progress, should consider these questions very carefully indeed. When I met you in 1997 in Munich I, like many others, was convinced that NSI represented an intolerable monopoly. You and your allies have succeeded in creating something that has persuaded me that there are things much worse than NSI's monopoly in .COM/NET/ORG. I see no risk or loss in delaying ICANN. As time passes, the ICANN board may learn something about the Internet. Or they may just give up and let someone else take over, and those replacements may actually be competent. The risk is in letting ICANN proceed. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: [bwg-n-friends] Re: Another view on Ogilvy and ICANN
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Jay Fenello wrote: Hi Dave [Farber], The engagement of Ogilvy resulted in many complaints from the Internet community. Here is how I would categorize these complaints, in order of importance: 1) Going public *before* going to the Net 2) Where is ICANN getting its funding? 3) Discount arrangements with Ogilvy. Your comments only address item 3! I have to disagree with your interpretation of things. The principal problem is ICANN's sense of priorities. There are widespread calls for the ICANN board to become more open, so that we can better understand the real reasons behind their actions and so that we can better judge whether it is sensible to put any trust in ICANN. ICANN's response is to hire a PR agency, to put a better gloss on their actions. The net effect of this action has been a burst of adverse publicity, offsetting whatever benefit hiring the PR agency might bring. It would have been far more sensible far the ICANN board to just relax and open their proceedings up. The cost of this would be very close to zero. If you stand back and look at all of this, it suggests a group of people who simply cannot understand the value of openness. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: Another view on Ogilvy and ICANN
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Sean Garrett [of Ogilvy] wrote: I know that some will say that no amount of PR could help ICANN if deliberative meetings aren't completely open. That's an interesting spin to put on what people have actually said. It subtly implies that they are stubborn, extremist fools. The reality is that the ICANN board has refused to open up their meetings at all. They have gone further: they have said that if the rules were changed to require board meetings to be open, they would simply hold private meetings in advance that would turn the supposedly open meetings into charades. This is extreme, stubborn, and foolish. What people like me have said that hiring a PR firm instead of opening up is completely wrong-headed. We don't need a nice gloss on the same old dumb policies. We need changes in those policies. Given those changes, it makes all sorts of sense to retain a PR firm to brag about the good news. Try to understand that. What we need most is some good news. We don't need a better spin on the same old bad news. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: ICANN flame on ICANN Announces Public Outreach Effort /flame
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: Jim, any comments on http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17678.html? My understanding of the situation is this: The police in the UK asked the Internet industry to set up a joint police and ISP committee to give ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers, I think) technical advice on how to deal with crime over the Internet. This is the ACPO/ISP committee. There are about 50 police forces in this country. ACPO is a semi- official body for coordinating their activities and educating the various forces. The police sent invitations to meetings of this "secret" committee to a very wide list, presumably to every address they had. As far as I know, every ISP and every Internet body in the UK got an invitation; ISPA UK got one and we (VBCnet) received two. Three meetings were held, one in Edinburgh to coincide with the overlapped LINX and RIPE meetings being held there. An organisation called Cyber-Rights Cyber-Liberties (UK) decided that this was the ACPO/ISPA committee (possibly just misreading the name of the committee) and have sent out press releases making claims that ISPA and the police are making "secret deals" of one sort or another. In fact the members of the committee represented a number of ISPs. David Kennedy, a Department of Trade and Industry civil servant on secondment to ISPA, attended committee meetings on behalf of ISPA UK and helped write a draft report. To the best of my recollection, David was the only person from ISPA itself who attended the supposedly secret ACPO/ISP meetings. Please remember he is a DTI civil servant who is very knowledgeable on Internet matters. ISPA has from its beginnings spent a great deal of time educating UK government bodies on the Internet. We have been very successful in kiling many ill-conceived government programs before they made it into law. We helped kill the bit tax, for example. And we helped stop plans to force ISPs to examine each and every Usenet news article for illegal content by explaining to the DTI and the Metropolitan Police (the Met) how impossible this is from a technical point of view. Our involvement with ACPO is a continuation of this educational program. The police have very little understanding of the Internet. A year or so ago, the Met's child porn unit consisted of five people with no connection to the Internet. There is a real problem with child pornography over the Net. The police have no intelligent way of addressing it without cooperation from industry. The UK Internet industry could pursue a policy of absolute non-cooperation. If we did so, the tabloid press and Parliament would be up in arms, and very shortly a strict and doubtless poorly-designed regulatory regime would be imposed on us. In fact, ISPs have no problem with educating the police and other government bodies on how the Internet works. We want Parliament to have a clear understanding of the Net before they write laws. We want government departments to be able to design regulations sensibly. And we want the police to know what is practical when they set out to enforce the law. Perhaps I should mention that the relationship between the police and the public is less adversarial in the UK than in most countries. By the way, this educational program works both ways. The question of what rights the police have has been discussed repeatedly on the ISPA members email list. Most ISPs have no objection to cooperating with the police, but refuse to divulge information without a proper warrant. On the particular question of child porn, there are very few ISPs, if any, that object to cooperating with the police. As regards Cyber-Rights Cyber-Liberties, it may be relevant to point out that a few months ago they demanded that ISPA require its member ISPs to send CR-CL literature to all of their customers. We declined, saying that this would be regarded as spam. They have something of a grudge against us in consequence. CR-CL appears to be two individuals with a desire to make a name for themselves; I believe that they are students at Leeds University. As regards any possible comparision with the ICANN board, (a) anyone in the UK with an interest in the Internet can join ISPA, (b) any member can stand for the ISPA board, (c) all Council [board] minutes are published shortly after meetings, and (d) the membership can at any time remove directors at a general meeting upon 21 days notice. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
Re: The Internet, Surveillance, and Public Accountability
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Esther Dyson a écrit: Jim, any comments on http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17678.htm Here's a passage from the news item: "Free speech organizations say that the report points to a lack of accountability in the self-regulatory industry. Organizations such as the ISPA are accountable only to their members, work to their own guidelines and policies, and have resisted calls for increased public accountability." Sounds about right. This is why people and groups from the public sector receive nothing but prejudice and slander on this and other lists, and why the leaders of ISP associations try to co-opt the voice of the public by pretending to represent the end-users. The people pretending to represent the end users in this case are two law students calling themselves "Cyber-Rights Cyber-Liberties". To the best of my knowledge CR-CL has no other members. I would guess that if pressed they would get a few friends to sign up. With the usual casual abandon, CR-CL claims to represent the millions of end users in the UK because, uh, well, they feel like it. They would like to head an organisation of millions. Since no one volunteered to be headed, they just declared themselves the spokesmen for the UK's end users. ISPA UK first heard of these people when they demanded that we tell our ISP members that they had to email CR-CL literature to all of their customers. I know what most of our members would tell the ISPA board if we tried to impose such a requirement. With my VBCnet hat on, I know what I would tell ISPA: we don't spam our customers or demand that they spam theirs. So ISPA declined the opportunity and CR-CL went off to dream up other schemes. It's obvious that ISPs DO NOT represent the best interests of the end-users, In fact END USERS represent the best interests of end users. This may be hard for you to appreciate, the users of the Internet are as a group intelligent and knowledgeable. Any ISP can tell you that end users as a group express themselves loudly and forcefully whenever things are't as they like. We listen to them every day. The larger UK dialup ISPs have on the order of 100 support staff handling thousands of support calls each day. How many end users did you listen to yesterday, Michael? -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: ISP's do not represent Citizens
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: Jim Dixon writes: In fact END USERS represent the best interests of end users. This may be hard for you to appreciate, the users of the Internet are as a group intelligent and knowledgeable. Any ISP can tell you that end users as a group express themselves loudly and forcefully whenever things are't as they like. We listen to them every day. The larger UK dialup ISPs have on the order of 100 support staff handling thousands of support calls each day. How many end users did you listen to yesterday, Michael? Irrellevant. Your companies no more represent the citizenry than oil companies, Microsoft or any other This reply is bizarre. I made no claim that ISPs represent end users. Nor did I claim that ISPs represent the "citizenry". We fly no flags and field no armies. However, the original question was about a group which purports to represent end users in the UK. My question to Michael, who also heads a group claiming to represent millions of end users, could equally be addressed to the group in the UK. It boils down to: "what is the basis for your claim to represent end users? Do you ever listen to them?" corporate or commercial entity. And citizens are *not* merely "END USERS". In every Democracy it is "We the People" who must choose representatives. And we do that through open sufferage elections not via the subtrefuge of indirect market choice libertarian models. The sooner you and your collegues get the silly idea that you speak for us out of your heads the sooner "Us" includes me, Bob. I don't think that these end user groups should so casually claim to represent the users of the Internet. You and I are both users. Does Michael Sandow represent you? Does the CR-CL represent me? I think not. you will understand that it's our right, as citizens, to determine how you behave in your various corporate capacities as part of civil society. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: ICANN flame on ICANN Announces Public Outreach Effort /flame
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Esther Dyson wrote: You cancomplain about us either for not saying enough or for hiring someone to help us say it (because most of us have day jobs), but it doesn't make sense to complain about both. As far as I know, no one is complaining that ICANN is not saying enough. The complaints are 1 that was is said in public is often deliberately misleading 2 and that the proceedings of the ICANN board are private, which is wholly inappropriate for a group holding a great public trust, but appointed by a secret process and accountable to no one These complaints are being addressed by hiring a public relations agency. This doesn't address either complaint. Indeed it suggests that ICANN's intent is to be more professionally misleading while still, of course, maintaining its secret ways. Try to remember that what ICANN needs is trust. Slick PR won't buy you that; openness, transparency, and accountability would. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: ICANN flame on ICANN Announces Public Outreach Effort /flame
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 08:11 AM 2/4/99 +, Jim Dixon wrote: 2and that the proceedings of the ICANN board are private, which is wholly inappropriate for a group holding a great public trust, but appointed by a secret process and accountable to no one The claim of non-accountability is false in several regards. Well, perhaps you have a personal private definition of the term you might want to share with us. In the UK the various Internet bodies are set up as companies limited by guarantee. They have members. When the board suggests something silly, they can be (and are) called to task by the members. If they ignore the membership, one or all directors can be removed. That is, the UK bodies are accountable in the normal sense of the term. Precisely who is the ICANN board accountable to? No one but themselves. As to secret selection processes, you might want to note that IETF and IAB appointments are through a group that deliberates in private and the the IETF and IAB have closed decision-making meetings. Be serious. We don't even know for sure how the ICANN board was selected. Recall that Joe Simms testified to Congress that he didn't know. These are by no means the only groups that behave in this fashion AND have I beg to differ. I know of no similar Internet group of any importance selected by a similar secret process. plenty of community support, but I thought the irony of being able to cite them in this context would be appealing. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
Re: ICANN flame on ICANN Announces Public Outreach Effort /flame
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: 2 and that the proceedings of the ICANN board are private, which is wholly inappropriate for a group holding a great public trust, but appointed by a secret process and accountable to no one The claim of non-accountability is false in several regards. Well, perhaps you have a personal private definition of the term you might want to share with us. No doubt I do, but public definitions will suffice: These are in fact more appropriately described as personal, private definitions. 1. Accountability to the U.S. government during the development phase The ICANN board is not accountable to the US government in any normal sense of the term. 2. Accountability to the Internet community on an ongoing basis. One This reduces the term to meaninglessness. As I said in the section that you ignored, the Internet bodies in the UK are accountable in a normal meaning of the term. It's simple: members can override the decisions of directors and they can replace the directors. ICANN is not accountable to anyone at all in this normal sense of the term. As to secret selection processes, you might want to note that IETF and IAB appointments are through a group that deliberates in private and the the IETF and IAB have closed decision-making meetings. Be serious. We don't even know for sure how the ICANN board was selected. Recall that Joe Simms testified to Congress that he didn't know. Be respectful and try not to be frivolous. Your above 3 sentences fail both requirements. Who is it that I am supposed to be so respectful to, Dave? You? Why? The ICANN board? Why? Because they were imposed upon us by a secret process? Because somewhere up there there is a Daddy who knows best? Joe Sims? Why? Because he so casually told Congress one thing and us in Boston something quite different, without even apologising for the glaring discrepencies between the two stories? Questions as to the origin of the ICANN board and Joe Sims's role in its selection are not frivolous. They are fundamental. Respect and trust are intertwined. I have no trust in this board. They were selected by unknown parties in a secret process. They insist upon conducting their affairs in secret. They have not displayed the competence that their positions require. Neither do I have any more respect for them than they have for the rest of us. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65
[ifwp] Re: IFWP Mailing List - Take Two
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: [regarding the adoption of the ORSC civil discourse rules:] a. How does the charter of the ORSC list differ from the IFWP list as you see it? So long as the lists are roughly interchangeable when people post, it would make them completely redundant if they both had the same civil discourse rules. This remark may seem logical to you, but it seems psychologically/socially naive to me. It's like saying that all big city street corners are equal. In fact they aren't; different corners belong to different gangs. The IFWP list has never had an agreed charter, but the list has certainly always been open (except of course during the peculiar period after 11 December 1998 when some people were unsubscribed). Everyone has been free to come and talk and so a wide spectrum of viewpoints has always been represented here. The ORSC has always represented (to my understanding) a particular viewpoint as to how the Internet should be run and its list has been a place where that faction meets to talk. That faction has always been an extremely small one. (Please do not interpret this statement as an attack on the ORSC or its positions.) Should the ORSC civil discourse rules be adopted? These require the appointment of three all-powerful moderators. Given the wide disparity of views represented on this list, and given the rabid dislike that some individuals have for each other, it's difficult to see how this list could agree upon who the moderators should be. Equally, I don't know who could be trusted to act in this role without using it to promote their own positions. I have two questions I'd like to see the group address and come to consensus on: a) should this list adopt the ORSC civil discourse rules? (http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/) No. b) should we stick one of Ellens grey ribbons on the mailing list website ? What mailing list website? -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] a test ...
Is the IFWP list down again, or is it just that I have been dropped off it again? -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] CORRECTION (was Re: Membership Models)
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote: The Domain Name Rights Coalition was thrown off the IFWP steering committee because it was not incorporated despite the fact that it was an organizer of the "entity." We did not like that exercise before, what will make it more paletable, now? This is simply not true. It never happened. As I recall I participated in all of the oh-too-many steering committee conference calls and all of the face to face meetings. Nobody was ever thrown off the IFWP steering committee for any reason. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Scott Hillstrom wrote: Jim, At the end of the posing you said, " TEXT ADDED BACK IN Whether you like it or not (and have you looked up the word "canard" in the dictionary?) the ccTLD / gTLD distinction is here to stay. Foreign (ie, non-US) countries are not going to tolerate any attempt by the US government or ICANN to attempt to regulate the ccTLDs. END ADDED TEXT This isn't an issue that can be settled by supposedly logical arguments. Many issues can only be settled by diplomacy or, failing that, force. This is one of them." What do you mean by "force"? Some examples of force: * the US government or ICANN takes things to the edge by, for example, removing .FR from the root because the French ccTLD registry will not comply with US-imposed regulations, * in retaliation, the European Commission organizes an alternative root and launches a vigorous international campaign to get everyone to switch; this splits the root * simultaneously the competition directorate of the European Commission, DG IV, takes action against ICANN as a monopoly operating within the European Union; to make their irritation clear, they take action against Network Solutions, who run the .com/net/org registry, as well * Congress intervenes to declare that the domain name system of the Internet and IPv4 address space are subject to US jurisdiction, and requires that anyone operating a TLD registry or allocating address space obtain a license from the FCC * the European Union imposes a bit tax on all Internet traffic originating in the United States and urges all other governments to do the same ... and so forth. We all know politicians who love defending the interests of their country like this, especially when they find themselves in awkward positions. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: [Membership] Membership Models
en talking about is the cost of verifying that members are real and unique individuals, to get rid of the phantoms. This would be very expensive. We haven't dealt with the equally serious problem of armies of directed voters. There are many countries in the world in which governments or organizations have complete control over real and unique individuals. They can create small armies of ICANN voters at whim, and so can control ICANN at whim. So the prognosis is not good. You seem to wobble between two models of ICANN membership. In the first, which has reasonable cost, there will inevitably be many phantom voters; if ICANN attracts the attention of the hacker community or others with a similar sense of humor, there will be armies of these among the membership. In the second model, which has extravagent costs, you will have real, verified members, but all that money won't protect you should my "directed" elements take an interest in ICANN. What precisely do you do if 10,000 Hari Krishnas from all over the world register and vote in an all Hari Krishna board? Once again, you simply ignore these arguments, choosing instead to be able to divine my real intentions, and then argue with them instead: I am not sure who you think should be enfranchised, you do seem to want to limit individual members in quantity and in other ways. No, I think that ICANN would benefit from a large individual membership. However, I also believe that IANA's legacy is already being destroyed by widespread distrust in ICANN, and that if ICANN's membership consists only of individuals, then that distrust will grow rapidly, and whatever value ICANN might have will be entirely gone. To recap my real beliefs: * ICANN currently does not have the trust of the Internet community * Only a broad and diverse membership that reflects the complexity of the Internet community and has the power to replace the board can give ICANN legitimacy * Some sort of system of classes of membership is necessary to balance the interests of the various stakeholder groups * Individual memberships should be very valuable, but in the near term at least it will not be practical for this to be the only type of membership in ICANN or for this membership class to have predominant power * If ICANN is to be responsible in any degree for the operational stability of the Internet, if it is not to be just a debating society, then those who now have actual responsibility for the day-to-day responsibility of the Internet must be persuaded that ICANN can be trusted If the last point is too obscure, what I am saying is that if, for examples, the ISPs who actually operate the Internet backbone don't come to trust ICANN, they will ensure that ICANN's influence over their operations is minimal. The ISPs don't need ICANN. But ICANN needs the support of the ISPs. The same applies to the TLD registries. It is only NSI, the InterNIC, that is at risk from ICANN. The ccTLD registries can walk away from ICANN. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent the ISPs from endorsing an alternative set of root name servers, or some equivalent system. None of this is desirable. What is desirable is that ICANN continue IANA's role as a focal point for cooperation in the Internet; one requirement for this is that it have an acceptable membership structure. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: I think what they are trying to do is prevent people from using multiple "net identities" to register. It's very easy to establish multiple net identities. Secure registration would not help unless it required the person to present a unique token that somehow binds strongly to the individual and can't be duplicated. And doing so is easly doable, and is being done every day! So I find your point here invalid. I'm quite aware that this sort of thing is done every day. However, does it prevent someone who is registered in multiple certification authorities from submitting multiple certificates under different identities? Verisign's, for example, costs $9.95 per year. The Berkman center would have to consider whether requiring someone to use this CA is better than charging a cheaper registration fee. So long as you are willing to pay the $9.95, you can have as many identities as you like from Verisign. Verisign does not certify that each identity corresponds to one and only one human being. It simply certifies that the identity itself (the digital certificate) is unique. Someday there will doubtless be authorities that issue digital certificates that are tied to unique biological signatures -- say retina patterns or something derived from the person's DNA. Mind you, you will still not be able to confirm that the person corresponding to the certificate is the one using it. In 1999 there is no practical way to prove the identity of a person voting in a large-scale election over the Net. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Milton Mueller wrote: Jim Dixon wrote: IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy regarding gTLDs. Not true. IANA assumed that it had the power to create NEW gTLDs.This assumption was dashed twice, by the way. Draft-postel was never implemented. The gTLD-MoU was never implemented. I guess it really didn't have that authority, now did it? Did I say that it did? I didn't say that it had any authority at all. What I said was "IANA assumed". It was very clear at all times that IANA understood that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt a policy of deference to the relevant sovereign government. Again, untrue. Postel gave the right to run the ccTLD to the first person who applied. And how do you know this, Milton? Only in cases of conflict was there any deference. OK, I will spell out what I have written here many times before: Postel chose, very wisely, to defer to the relevant sovereign government _whenever there was a dispute over which server the entry in the root zone should point to_. I'm sure he would have used the same "common sense" deference if two people from the University of California or the Mitre Corporation came to him claiming to be the system administrator for either of those institutions' domains. No. The point is that wherever there was a dispute and the relevant sovereign government indicated a preference, IANA deferred to the sovereign government. If you know of a case where this is not true, please educate us. More like, "do what you like with the gTLDs, but use common sense when dealing with the ccTLDs". Were ICANN to attempt to assert authority over the ccTLD registries, the minimal result would be that they would quietly ignore ICANN's "regulations". A more likely result is an international uproar and the elimination of ICANN. Jim's insistence that there is any basis for a policy distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs is a transparent canard. Read Jim's paragraph above. Now substitute the word "NSI" for "ccTLD registries" and a singular pronoun for the plural. Think about the result. I have never at any time insisted that there is a legal basis for a distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs, and I have not done so in this case. What I have done is talked about practicalities and the real world. It may be that under some readings of California or US law ICANN or IANA or the US government could drop .FR from the root zone or transfer .UK to Milton Mueller's garage registry. The practical effect of either of this would be disasterous, so no one in their right mind is going to do it. This is what matters here. Not your reading of the law or mine or Esther Dyson's. What matters is the very practical fact that for a California corporation to attempt to overrule the wishes of a sovereign state in this matter would result in an international uproar and at minimum the elimination of that California corporation as a force for mischief. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Query on regional representation
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Diane Cabell wrote: ICANN by-laws [V(6)] say (a) at least one citizen from each region should serve on the Board of Directors and (b) no more than half of the At Large Directors can come from one region and (c) no more than half of the aggregate Directors (including the SO nominees) shall be citizens of one region. Who gets to chose their candidates first? Which organization's candidate gets deleted if that person's region has already met the quota? Conversely, which unit has to make up for a missing region in its slate of candidates? What happens if a Director leaves office early and there is no available candidate from an unrepresented region? Is there a less complicated way to ensure the broadest range of interests are represented? Sure. Use single transferable voting (STV) modified so as to give candidates increasing the overall representativeness of the board a higher preference. http://www.euroispa.org/papers/balanced.diversity.html is a first cut at giving an ICANN board a "figure of merit", a score representing the board's representativeness. STV is a system which allows multiple seats to be filled from a single election. If there are N seats to be filled, each voter assigns 1 to the most preferred candidate, 2 to the next most preferred, and so on up to N. This is easily computerized (fractional STV) and is used fairly widely -- in New Zealand, various US states, and some elections in the UK, as I recall. It would be possible to devise a version of fractional STV that modified the selection algorithm to take into account the regional diversity of the board and preferred candidates who brought it closer to an "ideal" balance. Precisely what is ideal would of course be a very controversial question. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote: [Dixon:] IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy regarding gTLDs. It was very clear at all times that IANA understood that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt a policy of deference to the relevant sovereign government. Rather, Postel chose, very wisely, to choose wisely when it was wise to do so, if you take my point. Yes, certainly. I am quite happy with this formulation. In some cases the government was deferred to; in others, where they were being unfair, IANA solved the problem by mediating it; in some cases where the mediation didn't work, the domain simply ceased to function while the parties tried to work something out. There was never a consistent policy in practice. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
up the word "canard" in the dictionary?) the ccTLD / gTLD distinction is here to stay. Foreign (ie, non-US) countries are not going to tolerate any attempt by the US government or ICANN to attempt to regulate the ccTLDs. This isn't an issue that can be settled by supposedly logical arguments. Many issues can only be settled by diplomacy or, failing that, force. This is one of them. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Berkman Center membership study -- Membership fees?
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: Things would move much closer to practicality if rather than tying votes to the elusive individual you tied them to either domain names or IP address space. The most straightforward thing is to tie them to an email address at registration time. When the voter is identified at registration, they must supply an email address as their voting address -- in fact, registration is essentially the process of binding an individual or an organization to an email address. While some email headers can be spoofed easily, it is actually very difficult to create a really good forgery, with complete delivery information. And a public rollcall vote, with every vote posted on a public web, would be extremely resistant to voter fraud -- easily as strong as a physical mail based system I think that we have different scales in mind. In actual fact, for anyone with reasonable resources (like a sovereign government, for example), forging massive numbers of votes is easy. And, as you must know, creating email accounts is trivial. If I run the Bristol telephone book through a scanner and generate 500,000 or so email addresses, how to you propose to decide which email address is "real" and which isn't? Another example: Freeserve, a new UK ISP, has signed up a million or so subscribers in the last few months. [Apologies to Freeserve, this is just an example! no offense intended...] Let's say that they chose to sign up their entire subscriber base. It would be trivial for them to forge subscriptions from all of them and then intercept all relevant correspondence coming back to these subscribers. The headers and all would be perfect. Focus on the principles, please: how do we prevent this sort of mass forgery? Sure, it would become obvious fairly quickly if Freeserve did this. What if the North Korean government or some other totalitarian state decided to take over ICANN with this sort of mechanism? How would you prove what was going on? Given the fact that anyone can have as many domain names as they are willing to pay for, it would make more sense to tie the vote to registered IP address space. This very roughly corresponds to the method used in generating the UK electoral roll, and has many of the same advantages. The IP address space is finite and at least the newer blocks allocated through the RIRs are tracked very carefully, so that there is an audit trail leading back from an IP address to whoever is responsible for the address block. Oh -- are you looking for some kind of automatic binding of the form "every individual who 'owns' an IP address gets a vote"? No, I am trying to arrive at a simple scheme for identifying real people at reasonable cost, one that scales up to the size of the Internet. And at the same time I am trying to tie the right to vote to some minimal understanding of the Internet. If we say "one vote per email address", then the cost of forging names hovers around zero. If we say "one vote per registrant", then the cost of acquiring a vote for an imaginary person is $70 at NSI. Limiting votes to people who are the admin contacts for IP blocks makes it considerably more difficult to acquire a vote. Also, such people are likely to have a real interest in the Internet. And the process of acquiring address space from one of the RIRs is sufficiently fuzzy to make it difficult to automate. However, ISPA UK uses electronic voting. We hold elections over the Net using single transferable voting (STV). We announce elections by broadcast to the membership. Members vote through a Web page. When a vote is cast we email the registered voter, verifying the vote as we understand it and giving him or her the chance to complain if there is an error. We also publish an up-to-date version of the vote on the Web as voting proceeds, listing each voter and how they have voted. Is that software available? Sure. As it is, the software is modified by hand for each election (by me), but it would not be difficult to make it table driven. However, it's Perl code; this and other factors limit its scaleability. My guess is that it could be modified to handle elections with say 10,000 voters. Above that I would redesign the software and rewrite it in C. In consequence there is little chance for fraud. What we have found, however, is that voting is so easy that we have a problem with apathy. Before people had to take the day off work and go down to London to vote. Now they just use their browsers. Oddly enough, the voter turnout has fallen, and the degree to which elections involve the same old people has risen. Oh well ... #-} Once people learn how truly boring all the ICANN stuff is going to be I expect interest to dwindle dramatically. With that I am in the most whole-hearted agreement. -- Jim Dixon
[ifwp] Re: Commentary on ICC submission
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Christopher Ambler wrote: Negative. The ICANN's role, and the DNSO's role, with regard to ccTLDs must be minimal. Their object should not be to remove ccTLDs, especially on the basis of as-yet undefined criteria, nor should it have any say in how they are managed or developed or assigned, except within the limits of a basic contract with ICANN for use of the root. ccTLDs and gTLDs should and must be treated separately. This will be a show-stopper for most ccTLDs. So what you're saying is that ICANN takes on IANA's role WRT gTLDs, but not WRT ccTLDs? IANA always treated ccTLDs differently from gTLDs. Specifically, IANA assumed that it had the power to create IAHC to devise a new policy regarding gTLDs. It was very clear at all times that IANA understood that it had no power over ccTLDs. Postel chose, very wisely, to adopt a policy of deference to the relevant sovereign government. Smacks of, "Do anything you want, but leave me alone!" More like, "do what you like with the gTLDs, but use common sense when dealing with the ccTLDs". Were ICANN to attempt to assert authority over the ccTLD registries, the minimal result would be that they would quietly ignore ICANN's "regulations". A more likely result is an international uproar and the elimination of ICANN. All or nothing - either ICANN has control of the roots, or it doesn't. Nobody gets treated unfairly or under different terms. This will be a show-stopper for most gTLDs. Come on, Chris, the only significant existing gTLDs are those controlled by NSI. The would-be gTLD registries have been protesting with all their might for the last few years; no one would much notice any new protests. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: [bwg-n-friends] A New Paradigm (was: What is this? Why are we surprised with it?)
of self governance. This isn't one problem. It's lots of them. ICANN's position is unique, as I said above, in part because of the way in which it popped into existence (with no one willing to admit who selected board members, with no mandate from the Internet community, etc), in part because it sits at a unique pivotal point in the Internet infrastructure, in part because of its board of unknowns. Your nested lists might actually be appropriate for ICANN. However, I think that what would do the job would be a single [EMAIL PROTECTED] list that anyone could subscribe to as a reader but only board members could post to, plus a filtered input list, say [EMAIL PROTECTED], which could be used to query the board. If you are suggesting that as you go up the pyramid you get more and more email, I think that you will get a lot of resistance to this idea from the people at the top. ;-} I don't think that your nested lists have general applicability. They assume, for one thing, a well-defined hierarchy, one in which people know their status and are satisfied with it. That is not the Internet as we know it today, nor the Internet that most of us would like to see tomorrow. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: ICANN's legitimacy
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: What I'm suggesting is that despite the fact that ICANN may have unclear origins, people are willing to go along with it because they believe it can work. So in a sense ICANN's legitimacy stems from the trust that people have placed in it. Sure, ICANN can work, in that, yes, it is theoretically possible to create a corporation and transfer IANA's functions to it. In fact, the practical reality is that if we drop ICANN then we are taking a giant step backwards. It would delay things for at least a year. The other practical reality is that, yes, ICANN's legitimacy derives from trust -- BUT it doesn't have that trust from the Internet community. Those of us who are not extremists of one sort or another want ICANN to succeed. However, that is not going to happen unless the ICANN board comes to understand that its legitimacy can only come from the Internet community, and that requires trust on both sides. The ICANN board must trust the Internet community sufficiently to open up its processes to the light of day. It must trust in the intelligence and good sense of the Internet community as a whole. If the ICANN board does this, if it makes its proceedings open to all, then it has the chance of earning the trust of the Internet community, and acquiring the legitimacy that you seem to think that it already has. At this point, ICANN is simply something created out of secret processes and imposed on us. When the ICANN board opens up its proceedings and shows us that it understands what it has to do, when it earns our trust, then it will have legitimacy. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Constituencies
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Bret A. Fausett wrote: Eric Weisberg wrote: This discussion illustrates how arbitrary an attempt to populate a board through designation of defined constituencies must be... Exactly my point. Why not apply the KISS principle? Let nature dynamically allocate the seats among interests and philosophies by a proportionate representation system such as Single Transferable Vote (STAVE). It is proven to work. Can you explain the STAVE system? A typo, I think. Eric means STV. This system of voting is used quite widely for electing a number of representatives in a single election. Search Altavista (or whatever) for "STV" and "single transferable vote". -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: Much of the fighting is over ICANN itself, and comes from the fact that ICANN operates in secret. A good deal of the fighting is in fact a form of speculation: people are arguing over different interpretations of ICANN's intent, or what today's version of the ICANN bylaws really mean. But the fighting existed even back in the IAHC days. Not the fighting over ICANN. Calm comes from confidence and understanding. ICANN can easily take actions to increase both. The simplest is to make the meetings of the ICANN board open. It seems ICANN is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. ICANN is supposed to provide a legal basis for IANA, a framework in which that work can be continued. It was supposed to be a solution. Unfortunately ICANN was selected by a secret process. Unfortunately the ICANN board has chosen to keep its deliberations secret. And so ICANN has simply became part of the problem. The longer ICANN delays opening up its internal proceedings, the fiercer the scrutiny it will be subjected to when it does open up. In that sense you are right: it is being damned now for being secretive and when it opens up it will be damned for each and every mistake. But there is a difference. The rows that are now being caused by secrecy and obfuscation will continue until ICANN chooses to shine that light into the darkness of its proceedings. This might be forever. Those rows affect each and every part of this process. No one knows what is going on; this ignorance creates uncertainty, confusion, and anger. If and when ICANN chooses to make its proceedings public there will be anger too. Much of this willl be over what has been done in secret. But this will pass: if the ICANN board has the sense to admit its mistakes, if they make obviously needed corrections, the anger will pass and in time be replaced by trust. The same applies to the board's new mistakes. If they are mistakes made in the open, they will attract sharp and focussed criticism. But so long as the board pays attention, so long as it clearly hears the criticism, that criticism will be limited; the DNS wars will be over. What we will hear will be just the carping and grumbling that is normal life on the Internet. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: rumor: dnso.org and trademark community have cut a deal
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: But this list is (supposedly) a forum for consensus, and yet people fight. People were fighting before ICANN appeared on the scene. ICANN has no control over the fighting, from what I can see. This is generous. Much of the fighting is over ICANN itself, and comes from the fact that ICANN operates in secret. A good deal of the fighting is in fact a form of speculation: people are arguing over different interpretations of ICANN's intent, or what today's version of the ICANN bylaws really mean. Calm comes from confidence and understanding. ICANN can easily take actions to increase both. The simplest is to make the meetings of the ICANN board open. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: WHY DNSO.org and ICANN don't conduct their affairs in public Re: DNSO APPLICATION TIMETABLE
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Gordon Cook wrote: I offer some evidence below as to the likely outcome. The quality of this evidence for some of your statements at least is highly questionable. supporting organization - make no mistake about it. What's more, judging by the identities of the sponsors of the january 22 meeting, it is very likely that CIX and the major ISP's are now fully supportive of the stacked ICANN/DNSO deck. [evidence 1 for ISP support:] Why do I say this? Simple enlightenment when one of the best salesman of internet connections in the world told me that he was not in favor of any new top level domain names being added to the root servers. Who? Here are some of the supporters of dnso.org ... 13. ATT 14. Bell Atlantic Two telcos who bankroll middling and loss-making ISP divisions. 15. Microsoft Your third "ISP" ? That *these* are most of the people who the dnso.org folk think are the stake holders in the DNS game speaks volumes about where their hearts and minds are. This is scarcely evidence of ISP support for the Monterrey/Barcelona DNSO. In the real world ISPs are in general totally indifferent to it. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: WHY DNSO.org and ICANN don't conduct their affairs in public Re: DNSO APPLICATION TIMETABLE
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Gordon Cook wrote: This is scarcely evidence of ISP support for the Monterrey/Barcelona DNSO. In the real world ISPs are in general totally indifferent to it. I admit to having been a bit ambiguous. Note above I used the word "supporters" Please note that IO am talking about the Jan 22, 1999 washington DC meeting organized by jon englund and supported by dnso.org although I am now getting the impression that dnso.org is not totally happy with the jan 22 meeting. anyway for the jan 22 wash dc meeting the sponsors are below List of Sponsoring Organizations: Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) Council of European National Top level domain Registries (CENTR) European ISP Association (EUROISPA) Uhm, what can I say? I am on the EuroISPA Council (board of directors) and this is the first I have heard of our sponsoring this meeting. I would suggest that you take this list of sponsors with a gram or two of salt. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Trademark Association (INTA) Internet Council of Registrars (CORE) Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) Policy Oversight Committee (POC) World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: The IFWP is an open list -- no one has been purged.
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Michael Sondow wrote: Ken Stubbs a écrit: to the best of my knowledge this list maintenance is strictly a volunteer effort and the tone used here reeks of paranoia, sounds more like someone speaking to an indentured servant, and certainly is not called for. Ken- You'll have to excuse Jim Dixon. He's British, you know :) I certainly forgive Ken Stubbs. He's American, you know. Have a good new year, Michael. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: The IFWP is an open list -- no one has been purged.
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, interactivehq.org pop wrote: THE IFWP IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE AN OPEN LIST. NO ONE HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE LIST. Some people may not have been receiving their mail due to errors in our nameserver entries, which would cause your ISP to reject messages from the list. These technical problems, they are my fault, and should be fixed by now. Fix the problems, but this explanation doesn't wash. My ISP is run by me and I see every message rejected by our mail servers. We have not been bouncing email messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; there have been no such messages. I believe that Richard Sexton, also dropped from the list, is his own ISP. If you have a question as to your status on this list, or are having trouble receiving mail, feel free to contact me directly. I will fix it. My name and phone number are on this message, my personal email is in the footer of every message. I do respond promptly to problems. I sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to try to resolve this problem ten days ago. It bounced. I also tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] That came back "unknown user". I know that other people had the same experience. The DNS and TLD conspiracy theories that populate this list should not extend to the management of the list itself. This is an open and honestly-run list. These problems have been going on for three weeks now. If they are being solved now, that's fine. But expect criticism and suspicion when things go this badly wrong. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltdhttp://www.vbc.nettel +44 117 929 1316 --- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679tel +32 2 503 22 65 __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
