Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment
- Original Message - From: Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment Do we need a sanction from anyone to run such an election? If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the Internet. See http://mysafevote.com/ Perhaps IFWPlist would like to give it a try for IFWP subscribers? It would seem that you first need a ballot, or slate of candidates. Then, you are not running an election but more of a straw-poll. In order to assemble a slate of candidates, you would likely have to go through the expensive ICANN screening process, where Arthur Andersen decides if the candidates have enough money and the ICANN legal staff gets their fees for making sure the candidates meet all of the criteria they set up. Then you have to allow enough time to have the I* society insiders jockey to get on the payrolls of the candidates. At that point you are ready for the big vote. If the straw-poll turns out to the liking of the 15 hand-selected insiders, they will of course declare their agreement. If not, then they will do the .WEB shuffle and claim to be doing everyone a favor by waiting until the next round (which never comes) when there is more consensus. While all of this is going on, the candidates (unlike individuals) of course can reorganize and completely change the companies involved. Once that happens, then your straw-poll candidate can be declared the winner, and it will be the same I* society insiders who have moved behind the scenes to sit in the winner's seat. You are dealing with a group of people who swim at the shallow end of the ethical gene pool. Go ahead and vote, poll, etc. and watch the swamp 32-bit DNS swamp churn under your feet. -- JF
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment
- Original Message - From: Richard J. Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the voter EMail addresses are openly available, it should be easy enough to issue a voter ID (DVC) to each and let them vote via the Internet. You don't even need that. If every owned of an .org domain were to add a TXT resource record to their zone file, a simple program could tally the opinions of what .org owners really want to happen to .org. You might want to do that on the Next Generation Internet with 128-bit DNS. That could be done along with whois handled via TXT records. I think it will be more likely that people using 128-bit DNS (with IPv4++) will have direct control of their DNS servers. At the moment, I bet you would find that very few .ORG owners have any idea what a TXT record is and they have no access to their nameservers, because all of that has been pushed behind the scenes with the ICANN MLM machine, that handles all of that. In some cases, you may find the view that ICANN and/or the Registrars own the .ORG names, so the customers have no say. In that case, you may find that the TXT records are added as proxies. As an alternative to your approach, it might save everyone a lot of time, if people were to just vote for all of the I* society insiders who should then go off and run .ORG. That is probably 20 to 30 people who will no doubt game the system this time around, like the last time. It will save a lot of time to just forfeit the 32-bit DNS .ORG to them, and focus on the 128-bit .ORG DNS, along with the 128-bit .COM Registry. -- JF
Re: [IFWP] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] HP/Compaq vote and .org reassignment
- Original Message - From: Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not propose to run an election for ICANN board seats without ICANN's knowledge. Stef, I was under the impression that .ORG people wanted to vote on what company they wanted to run the IPv4 32-bit DNS .ORG Registry that Verisign has given up in a horse-trade for the, ten times larger, IPv4 32-bit DNS .COM Registry. Note the end of the Subject line saysorg reassignment... As for Board seats, it is my impression that those will be 15, hand-selected, people, who have proven over the years to be 100% loyal to the I* society. That will make it easier for the ICANN staff and legal team to do as they please with a rubber stamp bigger than what they have now. Five of the 15 will supposedly have the endorsement of some government, but not be directly from the government. That will help to insure it is an I* society insider with no loyalty back to the government, just a one-way endorsement to fool the press and the general public. -- JF
Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline
Bob, I placed my comments between the two asterisks... /**/ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple... -Original Message- From: Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 2:13 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline Molly Shaffer Van Houwelling wrote Please submit comments to ICANN... Why? Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat http://robin.fcn.net
http://www.east.isi.edu/ was Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
Ronda, If you want to see what a tangled web these people weavecheck out... http://www.east.isi.edu/ http://www.east.isi.edu/projects.html http://www.east.isi.edu/ms/ms.html IPv6 Publicly Available Stack Development for Microsoft Research @@ Here we are in 1999, with the U.S. Government supposedly focused on investigating one of the largest companies and success stories in the history of the world. The claim is, that Microsoft dominates software and that other companies can not compete. While this is going on, Microsoft has a U.S. Government funded group developing software for them. Meanwhile, Netscape is funding essentially the same group by virtue of the fact that the ICANN is the product of the late Jon Postel and the 12 Apostels, some of whom live at USC ISI, compliments of MORE U.S. Government funding. ...follow the money...and IP allocationsthey tell the whole story... P.S. And while this is going on, we see that NSI was requesting IP allocations. Because ICANN was clueless, they referred NSI to ARIN. ARIN is the product of more U.S. Government meddling and was created by NSI people. I think it is fair to say that IPv4 and IPv6 are U.S. Government territory. It makes no sense for the private sector to waste any time or energy on trying to help manage those resources fairly. Thus, I continue to work on IPv8, for the rest of the human race... @@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple... -Original Message- From: Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !! Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 Hmm... as suggested by an esteemed collegue perhaps this list is a nice start to some form of boycott. Add to that the good folks behind the IAHC/CORE http://www.corenic.org/number.htm and we have quite the nice beginings of an anti-ICANN boycott/protest! Bob Allisat And isn't UUNET owned by and part of MCI Worldcom? So + MCI Worldcom, $25,000 + + UUNET, $25,000 MCI Worldcom - $50,000 And at least in the 1980's IBM folks were on MCI Worldcom's Board of directors. And in the privatization of the NSF Backbone, IBM and MCI worked joined together on that and MCI ended up with great benefit as a result (and one guesses that IBM did as well or they wouldn't be back with their hands out for this takeover of public property.) Does anyone know the relationship between MCI and IBM? So the MCI worldcom/IBM investment in grabbing control of the Internet as listed above is $75,000 And what about Microsoft's connection to all this? UUNET is involved with Microsoft. Are the other companies connected to each other or to MCI-Worldcom as well? It would be good to hear why they think it is in the public's interest to give some private, irresponsible and hidden entities control over the controlling functions of the Internet. + Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000 Didn't they encourage the U.S. government to bring an anti trust suit against Microsoft? And yet they are happy to take a much greater forcus of power over the Internet and put it in hidden hands that are likely to include Microsoft's? Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
Re: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention?
Bob, In my opinion, you have to let it go, or let the people go. If you study implosion and black holes (like ICANN) you will see that there is an event horizon. There is a boundary and people crossing that boundary will eventually be pulled into the vortex. In my opinion, it is sad, but reality that people like Stef are doomed to disappear into the black hole. There is nothing you can do. It is like watching someone who has gotten on a boat just as it departs the dock. They move further and further away, and your choice is to jump in and try to swim after them, yet, your instinct is to stay on the dock. We could go on and on...but I refer you to John's Revelation. He does a good job of describing the situation which has not changed for many years. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple... -Original Message- From: Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 9:12 AM Subject: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention? Einar Stefferud wrote: + By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to + obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global + Interent Community? + + Sahdes of IAHC... they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks + before reading and ignoring our efforts. + + But, I suppose this is called trust building, to be able to show NTIA + that they have waced their ideas under our noses and tht our responses + were to weak to bother with;-)... I respect your opinions Mr. Stefferud. But there is a time when mere opinionating is either a sign of true weakness or an indication of at least grudging support for that to which on is allegedly in opposition against. And there is a time, usually arising simultaneous to that, in which decisive action is called upon us all. Merely griping about ICANN is insufficient. I suggest moving our duffs off of those comfortable intellectual divans of ours and into some form of civilly disobedient activity to reverse the course of events. Or kindly allow others to do so and show them the decency of our support, fund raising abilities, etc. Towards this end... perhaps we should, as some have been saying all along, set to forming our own NEWCO, in our own image, regardless of what others attempt. We utilize this list as the founding convention and move, with speed, from there. What say you all? After all, authority is a matter of general confidence and, should we prove ourselves worthy, what more likely successor to Postel than others who uphold the best traditions and principles of not only the Net but also our various cultures in combination and synthesis. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat http://robin.fcn.net
Re: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention?
"Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches:" - Revelation 1:11 -Original Message- From: Bob Allisat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention? Jim Fleming wrote: In my opinion, you have to let it go, or let the people go. If you study implosion and black holes (like ICANN) you will see that there is an event horizon. There is a boundary and people crossing that boundary will eventually be pulled into the vortex. In my opinion, it is sad, but reality that people like Stef are doomed to disappear into the black hole. There is nothing you can do. It is like watching someone who has gotten on a boat just as it departs the dock. They move further and further away, and your choice is to jump in and try to swim after them, yet, your instinct is to stay on the dock. We could go on and on...but I refer you to John's Revelation. He does a good job of describing the situation which has not changed for many years. What you write is sad but probably true. My hard analysis of these individuals leads me to conclude they are all now jockeying for position within ICANN rather than offering citizens any real alternatives or pursuing same. Thought I'd give it a few more attempts until I finally move on. Thank you for your thoughtful comments Jim. I always appreciate your insights. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat http://robin.fcn.net
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
Does Pizza Hut own these ? http://Jump.to/Pizza-Hut http://This.is/Pizza-Hut What about the PizzaHut world in http://www.activeworlds.com ? ...should Pizza Hut have the rights to that ? What about... http://www.pizza.hut ? or http://www.hut.pizza ? and finally... http://www.hot.pizza Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple... -Original Message- From: Martin B. Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure I didn't pick Sweden by accident. Think about the way in which Sweden's NIC administers that ccTLD and you will understand why I said that pizza-hut.firm creates issues that pzza-hut.se does not. Yes, third party ownership of pizza-hut.se could violate PIZZA HUT'S rights. But which is more likely to occur, third party ownership of pizza-hut.se or pizzahut.com, for example. I'm not advocating that the world adopts the .se policy - there is dissatisfaction among various users for various reasons - but Sweden's experience provides some empirical evidence for alternatives to the .com model. Milton Mueller wrote: No, it doesn't. You believe that "pizza-hut.se" is a violation of pizza hut's trademark. You believe that "pizza-hut.firm" is a violation of pizza hut's trademark. My understanding of your position is that pizza-hut.anything is a violation of their rights. Whether or not that is really your position, that certainly IS going to be the position of Pizza Hut's trademark lawyers. That has been the position of big TMOs with respect to .net, .org, etc. So, no, there are no new issues posed by expanding the TLD space. One could also posit that there are no new issues posed by creating new SLD hierachical categories, (e.g., food.us) as long as TMOs believe that mere registration of a character string corresponding to their TM character string, regardless of use, constitutes a violation of their rights. But perhaps this exchange would go somewhere constructive if you would explain what you think those "new" issues are. --MM Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: Not really. New gTLDs create new issues that would not exist if the new gTLDs did not exist. .firm creates issues not currently present with .se I would imagine that a better formulation for your subjectless "it is about" would be how to create a just procedure that provides a fair mechanism for the balancing of the rights of the various parties involved. Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: So the topic at issue here is whether the domain name registration system should be expanded without recognition of the legal rights of others - or perhaps there can be some reasonable compromise. Not really. All of the threats to pre-existing rights exist--or not--regardless of whether "new" gTLDs are created. They exist in current TLDs. It is not, and never has been, about the *application* of existing laws and rights. It is, and always has been, about the *cost* of policing and enforcing existing laws and rights. --MM -- M I L T O N M U E L L E R S Y R A C U S E U N I V E R S I T Y / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / School of Information Studies http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !!
Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN Supporters BOYCOTT !! Hello Ronda, Heretofore, you have been annoying chime, but the following is pure FUD. What are your views on this group and Sun's involvement ? http://www.gip.org/gip1.htm @@@ http://www.gip.org/gip1.htm ... John Gage Director, Science Office Sun Microsystems, Inc. ... @@@ @@@ http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.shtml John Gage [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA-Americas @@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
-Original Message- From: Martin B. Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip What about the PizzaHut world in http://www.activeworlds.com ? ...should Pizza Hut have the rights to that ? It's not a question of "should have the rights" but could a third party create and/or promote a PizzaHut without causing confusion or dilution. Depends on the circumstances. Have you seen MacDonalds there ? Would that be considered confusing ? ...especially with golden arches...in 3D of course... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
Re: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention?
-Original Message- From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jim Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [IFWP] IFWP: Founding Convention? There is more going on than is encompassed within these lists. Is that a revelation ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
Re: [IFWP] Internet Scaling vrs. ICANN
-Original Message- From: Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip The real problem that the DNS wars show is that the U.S. government doesn't seem to be supporting the needed scientific research about how to provide for the scaling of the Internet. Ronda, In my opinion, you raise some very good points, but I am not sure I agree with your conclusions. Firstly, you appear to be interested in "more" government and you start by trying to show that the government is not involved, then show things are not good, and then conclude more government is needed to make things better. In my opinion, we need LESS government. Two years ago, the DNS debates were starting to make progress. People in the private sector (commercial and non-commercial) had educated themselves, tested new techniques and were starting to work together to deploy alternatives. This process was derailed by a combination of NSI, the U.S. Government, and all sorts of "do gooders" who claimed to have solutions. As we now see, NSI and ARIN have laughed all the way to the bank, all the while claiming to be trying to open up the playing field to competition. It is unfortunate that people were deceived. They were told that they should set their agendas aside and place their trust in the U.S. Government and in particular the Department of Commerce. Instead of proceeding with the private sector solutions which would now likely have created more diversity and harmony, people stopped in their tracks and started to respond to the DOC's directives. At the time, I pointed out to people that it was possible that the DOC would not deliver. I pointed out that it was possible that the U.S. Government was being manipulated. People did not listen. They assumed that the U.S. Government is too large to be manipulated. They assumed that justice would be swift and fair. Nothing close to that occurred. Instead, the summer of 1997 resulted in a lot good work being scattered to the winds. NSI helped to scatter the players. The players foolishly thought that NSI would help them and that the U.S. Government would stand by and enjoy the tax benefits of the developing commerce. This did not happen. Instead, one public comment period was extended to another, NSI was able to move far from the situation and allow the U.S. Government to grind everything to a halt. By the end of 1997 people were growing weary that the U.S. Government would never produce anything. Finally, in 1998 they were more or less forced to publish the Green Paper. There was a very brief period of hope. Those who had set their plans aside were told that the end was near, more diversity would be allowed, more jobs would be created, etc. etc. etc. Then, the traditional Internet community stepped in. Based on pressure applied via Jon Postel, the Green Paper was reversed almost 180 degrees and the infamous White Paper appeared. Once again, NSI was able to sit on the side-lines and lauch all the way to the bank. By the Summer of 1998, people who had given the process a chance, could see that they had been deceived. They had already wasted a year, after being derailed in 1997. In 1997, they had already invested TWO years just getting to a point where progress was being made. This meant that some people had three years invested. During that time NSI and ARIN had laughed all the way to the bank. The recent history with ICANN, while interesting, in my opinion is largely irrelevant. Since the late summer or fall of 1998, some people (like me) have picked up where we left off in 1997. In my opinion, we are oce again making progress, but this time we are wiser. Will NSI be able to fool us again ? I doubt it. Will NSI be able to buy up 100% of the people ? I doubt that. Will some new systems emerge that are way beyond what NSI or the U.S. Government can imagine ?.I think so... ...I think I will return to working on those...good luck to you all... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
Re: [IFWP] Re: Time out Re: ORSC Protest of NIST Solicitation No. 52SBNT9C1020
-Original Message- From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing. The "vast bureaucracy" is a result of the U.S. Government Department of Commerce caving into Jon Postel's vision when pressure was put on them between the Green Paper and the White Paper. Jon Postel and the 12 Apostels are to blame Jim Fleming Unir Corporation vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
