Re: [IFWP] working within ICANN
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:08:16AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Beautiful. But who gave you your IP number? The same place ICANN got their. A regional registry. ICANN uses NAT addresses so this is rather moot. Where did you get that idea? -- Kent Crispin Be good, and you will be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome. -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voting issues with ICANN @Large election
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:29:47PM -0700, Ellen Rony wrote: Brian Reid has made a web site with full documentation of his ICANN election problem. Its URL is http://reid.org/brian/icann/ He encourages wide distribution of this URL so that as many people as possible know this information before they vote. ICANN voting runs through October 10. The description given of STV is not at all accurate, however, and Mr Reid's concern is largely unfounded (I do agree that a pointer to a description of the algorithm would have been nice). There is effectively no difference between ranking a candidate seventh and not voting for them at all. See http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sep/votingsystems/stvi.htm -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voting issues with ICANN @Large election
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:51:22PM -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 04:29:47PM -0700, Ellen Rony wrote:
Brian Reid has made a web site with full documentation of his ICANN election
problem. Its URL is
http://reid.org/brian/icann/
He encourages wide distribution of this URL so that as many people as
possible know this information before they vote. ICANN voting runs through
October 10.
The description given of STV is not at all accurate, however, and Mr
Reid's concern is largely unfounded (I do agree that a pointer to a
description of the algorithm would have been nice).
Actually, my mistake. There is a description of the algorithm
prominently displayed on the ICANN members web site -- it's a direct
link off the main page: http://members.icann.org/rules.html
They say, in part:
1. ICANN will use the Alternative (also known as "Preferential" or
"Single-Transferable") Voting System to conduct this election. Members
will rank the candidates in order of preference ("1" for their first
choice, "2" for their second, etc.). Members may rank as many or as few
candidates as they choose. The votes will be tallied according to the
first preferences (the "1"s). If at that point one candidate has an
absolute majority (50% + 1) of the vote, he/she is selected. If not,
the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The eliminated
candidate's votes are redistributed to the next ranked candidates (the
"2"s). The votes are counted again to determine whether any candidate
has an absolute majority. If not, the elimination process is repeated
until one candidate gains a majority.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Re: [Nc-tlds] RE: ICANN received 44 applications for new TLDs
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:13:25AM -0700, Anupam Chander wrote: [...] Mr. Sondow's future postings will go unanswered by me. Generally, that is the best policy. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 09:23:29PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: Tell this to my brother, a world-famous mathematician who disdains the Internet. But I would love to tell it to your brother. Who is he, and how can I contact him? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [icann-board] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members WhoAttemptTo Register
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:14:36PM -0500, Weisberg wrote: "vinton g. cerf" wrote: The trouble is, it is too little, too late - we're already over the top in terms of what we can handle in a reasonable time frame, taking our funding (now expended) into account. More time is more cost and more delay - it doesn't add up. It is a bad situation. No good will come of it. Whatever is done, now, will poison the well in the coming elections. Hindsight is clear. The membership drive should have occurred sooner and there should have been a "shake-down" cruise before the first "race," as had been suggested. You mean like the first couple of months, while the system worked fine? That water is under the bridge. So, what is the best bad choice, now? I suggest extending the deadline; accepting registrations online, only; and distributing PINs by email. That would be silly beyond belief. Whatever security there may be in the system depends on the fact that pins are shipped to a physical address. Changing that rule midstream would completely alter the requirements for voting, and would certainly destroy whatever validity the system might have. If necessary, you can bump the election a few weeks. That would cause minimal harm. Extending the deadline sounds good, but probably won't change things one bit -- it will only delay the period before people start screaming about being disenfranchised. The news about the ICANN elections has been filtering out slowly -- more people will know about it tomorrow than know about it today; the rate of registrations has been increasing steadily, with no upper limit in sight. It is quite possible that the number of registrations could grow to the millions, given more time. Moreover, there are obviously many many people such as Mikki Barry and Dan Steinberg who have known about this for months, but put off registering until the last few days. Heavy load on the system during the last few days is predictable no matter how it was sized to begin with. Finally, a moments thought indicates that the feedback loop is intrinsically unstable: as soon as the system starts to slow down, people start retrying. The retries clog the system even more, which leads to more retries. It gets into catastrophic failure mode very quickly, where the system is completely clogged, and no registrations can proceed. Consequently, it doesn't make much difference how you sized the system, or how long you delay -- similar problems are very likely to occur. Once again, hindsight is wonderful -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:53:05PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: [...] Sure, a million users is nothing to sneeze at. I think part of the problem here is the notion that the decision to support 10,000 users wasn't ever made public - perhaps it was and I just missed it although that seems unlikely - but, I'm utterly convinced it that hard limit was made public people woild have freaked out and severely questioned and warned about such a small number. Nobody set a hard limit. At the end of the day, planning for 10,000 anf getting 143,000 gets you in trouble. Planning for a million and getting 143,000 doesn't. Sure it does. You've wasted money, lots of it. As for the money, Becky Burr/NTIC/DoC has stated in open fora that if it came right down to it and ICANN couldn't afford to do what it was doing, DoC would not let it fail because of money. I have no reason to believe she was lying. Of course! It's so simple! ICANN can spend as much money as it wants because the DOC will bail them out. Alternatives are always an option. If people were asekd "do you want only the first 10,000 to be able to vote or do you mind if we ask you to send a self addresses stamped envelope or a doller or two if you're outside the US" my off the wall guess is people would pick the latter. Hindsight is wonderful. Planning with off the wall guesses is a breeze. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Mikki Barry wrote: [...] Regardless of whether predicting load is difficult or not, this was something that was a part of the contract from the beginning. Government contractors generally must abide by the terms of their contract, even if it is difficult. That is a part of the risk of doing business. Poor planning is rarely an excuse. Irrelevant. The contract in question is basically for a joint research project. This experience and the ensuing study will shed a lot of light on the difficulties of doing such a thing -- from the point of view of research, this is a completely successful result... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
there were multiple complaints that the ICANN requirement of 5000 registered voters before an election was held was a cynical ploy by ICANN to eliminate the possibility of elections. There were lots of people who thought that 5000 was an impossibly high target. Now, of course, all such thoughts have vanished from the fickle minds of the critics, and the shrill chorus is "*anyone* could have anticipated the load!!". These guys are just too funny, you know :-) Markle has also said, in public, "if you need more money it's here". Please note that 1) Talk is cheap. 2) Sometimes money just can't solve the problem. You are surely familiar with Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-Month"? Alternatives are always an option. If people were asekd "do you want only the first 10,000 to be able to vote or do you mind if we ask you to send a self addresses stamped envelope or a doller or two if you're outside the US" my off the wall guess is people would pick the latter. Hindsight is wonderful. Planning with off the wall guesses is a breeze. All we hae is hindsight cause they never made it clear what they were doing. Now that we know Nothing has changed. You would be finding anything you could to criticize, regardless of the outcome. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 08:02:11AM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Allen Simpson wrote: The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners are not the target audience for ICANN membership. I do hope this isn't the official ICANN view. I imagine that a disability discrimination lawsuit would soon follow. how many text-to-speech audio browsers support frames well? Support for the disabled does seem to be a concern in some quarters; for example, see http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Internet/World_Wide_Web/Browsers/Lynx/ The secure registration page requires https, which isn't available in lynx as far as I know. 1) The web page does NOT use frames -- as far as I know, there are no frames in the entire ICANN site; 2) the secure registration page is OPTIONAL; you can register through a nonsecure path. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To Register
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:47:18AM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: How can you be sure of this? I can imagine that there are that many applicants from the countries you cited that have sufficient understanding of the issues ICANN is supposed to be concerned with. How can you say that with a straight face? I can be sure of this, because after N years of participating, it is clear that a substantial number of the active participants don't really understand the issues. Nor do they understand the history. Many of the absolutly critical issues have to do with fairly obscure points of US law and governance structures that are not familiar to most Americans, let alone non-Americans; many of the points concerning DNS are not familiar to most technical people, let alone non-technical people; many points concerning intellectual property rights are unfamiliar to everyone except IP lawyers. The fact is that the whole picture is extremely complicated and obscure. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To Register
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:54:32PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: To the extent that the late registrations are coming predominately from China (as I have seen reported) or non-English speaking and/or emerging nations -- where information about ICANN may have been slow to reach potential members -- these "random rejections" have a disproportionate impact on these groups. People who get news late will not be as well served as people who get news early. There is nothing, even in principle, that can be done about that -- the problem exists completely independent of the performance of the server. People who find out about the election after the election occurs won't be able to vote. I'm not at all concerned with protecting those who hear about ICANN after the deadline expires or who try to register on August 1st. But if people are trying to register today, but cannot, there might be a couple of things to do about that: (1) Allow potential members to e-mail their registration data to a mailbox on another server, rather than requiring that they use the overloaded web form. You just move the problem to those who don't hear about the email. Moreover, you open yourself to the challenge that you changed the rules midstream without adequate notice... (2) Allow potential members to mail to ICANN, via postal mail, their registration data, with a postmark or other 'proof' of mailing prior to the deadline. Same problems as above; plus you have to hire staff to go through the letters and input the data. Data entry for another 10 letters is a nontrivial job. You'd have to move all deadlines back by 30 days, to allow mail to reach Marina Del Rey and to process the e-mail registrations. But you would have ensured that anyone who wanted to register had been able to do so. Nope. You wouldn't ensure any such thing. There are still all kinds of things that might go wrong, all kinds of reasons why letters might not get there -- eg, could be a postal strike in Marina del Rey. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] There's something dirty in the works
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 06:52:02AM -0500, Carlos Vera wrote: well there should be one way. What about electronic signature? You should be aware that the message from "Jeff Williams" is actually from me -- If you examine the headers of the mail message it states quite plainly that it is from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The crude forgery (anyone can change the "From: " header on an email) was sent partly as a joke, and partly as an example to remind us that "identity" on the Internet should not be taken for granted. [*] I don't know if Bill (if it was really Bill) was joking or not, but it is clearly absurd to accuse ICANN of "padding" an unverified (and unverifiable) attendence list -- the list has no formal value for good or ill, and is just presented as is for informational purposes, as a courtesy to participants. Besides, I haven't noticed any press releases from ICANN saying "Look everybody, we are OK: Bill Lovell engaged in electronic participation with us." As to your comment about electronic signatures: yes, there are techniques that could be used to better identify people. However: 1) deploying those techniques has a cost; 2) they are not easy for people to use; 3) it is not clear that there *should* be any identification requirements -- this is supposed to be open to general public participation from anyone who can connect to the Internet. [*] For those whose mail readers may not give them easy access to the headers, here are the headers of the message I sent as "Jeff Williams". Also, there may be some people who are not aware that "Jeff Williams" is a fabricated persona managed by a person or persons unknown. The fact that the persona is fabricated has been established beyond a reasonable doubt -- the internal inconsistencies alone are sufficient proof. The headers: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 18 00:59:05 2000 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from ns1.vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by songbird.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA28846 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:59:04 -0700 Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) id 33EF0F045; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074) id C721BF100; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from songbird.com (songbird.com [206.14.4.2]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C366F045 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kent@localhost) by songbird.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA28838 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:58:49 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:18:57AM -0800, A.Gehring wrote: [...] ICANN has no authority to tell ISPs how to do things without their consent. Though proponents of internet governance would like it to be otherwise, it is the ISPs and other infrastructure providers that are the "governed" in this situation -- not individuals. This is the fundamental reason that individuals have little power in the ICANN structure, and there is essentially nothing that can be done about it unless you turn ICANN into an arm of government. That is, if you were to modify the ICANN structure so it was operated by popular vote of the "people", then the ISPs, registries, IETF, etc would simply ignore ICANN, and the "people" would have no more power than they did before. My neighbor owns the largest grass seed farm in the world. While I may not agree with the action his government brings against him, I do not believe that because he 'owns' the land that he should be exempt from governance. If an ISP commits fraud, the principles can go to jail. So they are not "exempt from government". But that is completely irrelevant to our situation. Despite the delusions that many people suffer, ICANN is *not* a government. It does not have the coercive power of the state to back its actions. [*] You have two choices -- you can turn ICANN into a government tool with real power over registries, ISPs etc, in which case the GAC becomes the real power in the organization, and the Internet is run by international government agreements (formal or informal). Or you can try to continue the Internet tradition of private coordination. In the first case individuals have no significant power -- the GAC or its successor will have all the power. In the second case individuals have no significant power, either, because the entities being coordinated (ISPs, registries, etc) are under no compulsion to pay attention to ICANN. Your arguments Ken, are deeply disturbing. I'm not sure why that would be. Think about the auto industry. There are numerous government regulations that affect the auto industry. Imagine that there was an entity like ICANN involved -- "IBCAP, the International Body for Coordination of Automotive Policies" -- to coordinate certain policy and technical issues in the auto industry. Of course, its activities would affect individuals. Of course it would have to worry about anti-trust issues. But do you think that the auto manufacturers would turn over *control* of IBCAP over to random individuals? No way. On the other hand, there might very well be a place for individuals to participate, because that would be useful input. What is deeply disturbing to me is that so many members of the "membership roundtable" -- obviously very intelligent, capable people -- seem completely deluded about what ICANN really is or can be. [*] ICANN has a bit of power related to .com/.net/.org. But that is mostly an illusion -- the USG is the entity that holds all the real power there. Kent -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:17:42AM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The
fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the
Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old
Harry doesn't have any right to tell me how to run my computers
The airplanes and ships of the world are largely owned by private
interests. Yet there are very strong regulations that say exactly how they
shall be flown or sailed.
Of course. I mentioned automotive companies, but the principles are
precisely the same for airplanes and ships. Let's just think about that
-- we have shipping companies with assets in the billions, and they are
going to let themselves be regulated by a barely solvent private
non-profit corporation controlled by anybody who can get 5000 people to
send in a registration? Sorry. That doesn't pass the "ha-ha" test.
Regulation of the Internet is both legitimate and proper. The question is
by whom, over what, what the regulations shall be, and what processes are
used to apply them.
..and you can bet that it isn't going to be a bunch of people who
happened to stumble across an email list :-)
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:59:48PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote: [...] Hill: We seem to have a "fear of the masses." We don't have to worry about capture through elections; people like Berman in the CDT can go online and drum up a couple hundred people to take their position. This was a joke, right? Please tell me that people laughed. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Key quotes and ideas from ICANN membership roundtable
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote: Richard J. Sexton wrote: I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At Large membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry that he's a voting member of internet government? Limit it it to nameserver owners. That's who it's supposed to be coordinating isn't it? (Like they ever asked to be coordinated). Provided that 'Old Harry' and his children will never be impacted in any way whatsoever by the Internet, I would then and only then emphatically agree that they should not have an avenue for their voices to be heard within the halls of Internet Governance. Nobody wants to be coordinated. But that is exactly what government does. Whether her mandate is narrow or broad THE ICANN WILL COORDINATE ALL OF US, not just those of us who own nameServers. We all ought to get in on the voting. Even Harry. Arnold Gehring A nice sentiment, but simplistic to the point of uselessness. The fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old Harry doesn't have any right to tell me how to run my computers -- not directly, and not indirectly through the medium of ICANN. Nor does he have the right to tell ISPs how to do things, except through the medium of the market. The fundamental issue here is the assertion of authority over private entities that actually own the Internet infrastructure. The issue is not individual rights, at least not in the sense that ICANN would be considered as a representative organ of the "people". ICANN has no authority to tell ISPs how to do things without their consent. Though proponents of internet governance would like it to be otherwise, it is the ISPs and other infrastructure providers that are the "governed" in this situation -- not individuals. This is the fundamental reason that individuals have little power in the ICANN structure, and there is essentially nothing that can be done about it unless you turn ICANN into an arm of government. That is, if you were to modify the ICANN structure so it was operated by popular vote of the "people", then the ISPs, registries, IETF, etc would simply ignore ICANN, and the "people" would have no more power than they did before. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Photographic satire of ICANN available at
On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 Gordon Cook wrote: http://cookreport.com/neptibalb.shtml these are the costumed buddhist monks of the tengboche monastery near mt everest Costumed Buddhist Monks. More appropriate than you realize. "Last Refuge from ICANN" -- fairly accurate, I would say. Incidentally, the picture linked to by the "Crock and Crispy" thumbnail is not the same as the thumbnail -- you have interchanged the full-size picture with the "GAC Rules" full-size picture. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] FW: [FAIR-L] Initial Reports from Seattle Gloss Over WTO Issues
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 04:52:24PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote: This just in: :0 * ^From:.*(Gordon Cook|iciiu|pccf|baptista|Fenello) $MAILDIR/kooks -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: your mail
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 07:39:34PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: At 03:02 PM 11/20/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote: Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE INTERNET is no longer at risk. The fact your domain dosn't work is a small price to pay. How is this any different from when NSI ran things exclusively? It's not. That's my point. Poeple compained one company gave them shitty service. Now a whole bunch of companies give shitty service. What can we conclude from this, class ? Premise: Having many companies doesn't help service. Conclusion 1: Competition doesn't work. Conclusion 2: Multiple competing registries won't help service. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Vixie stepping away from BIND
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 02:58:11PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
I think I mentioned this on domain-policy, and I note that sendmail.net's
got a story about it:
http://www.sendmail.net/?CssUID=CssServer=SessionName=feed=interview000lisa01
However, there's a slight error here. The sendmail.net story says,
"Vixie described this last feature as "the split-horizon DNS people have
wanted for a long time," noting dryly (and to considerable applause)
that as for "people like AlterNIC who want us to believe it's possible
to have more than one set of root name servers, this will not
facilitate their political agenda at all."
I was there. In a room of 3-400 people, about 10 clapped, tentatively.
I also find it somewhat interesting that someone who's gone out of his
way to stay out of politics ("I'm not in this for your revolution"),
makes a snide political comment that, in effect, exposes his bias.
I can understand his desire to maintain stability; hell, I'm for it.
But other than hand-waving and fortune-telling, I haven't heard a good
technical reason against multiple roots. I don't want to start a holy
war, but is there a good solid techincal reason why multiple roots
wouldn't work? (Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean
a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.)
What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2)
ensure that they are mutually-exclusive?
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] How to get your own root server, easy steps !
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 06:55:35PM -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote: (Keep in mind, when I say "multiple roots", I mean a small number [5 or so] of mutually-exclusive roots.) What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2) ensure that they are mutually-exclusive? Why ? I want to be free to create ".free" root (4 letters root) ... and 1,257 more roots... the only neccesary thing is to have a central point in the best "first come first served" style... you want to put your own DNS server managing the ".myownhome" root ??? Come and register it ! Go right ahead. I have created my own root servers, and I actually run a production root server on a large private network. The trick is to get anyone else to use them. (Sorry WIPO guys ! Big company lawyers will be happy with a ton of hours to bill to their clients ! But is this a free world or not If you have a BIG company, and a BIG NAME to take care of... then YOU have the money to call the law, hire lawyers and sue the teenager that came first and register the ".mydonalds" root server ! Been there... done that! Yes, indeed. Been there...done that. There have been at least 5 serious attempts to create alternate root servers. They all have failed. Why do you suppose that is? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] How to get your own root server, easy steps !
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 09:24:46PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Yes, indeed. Been there...done that. There have been at least 5 serious attempts to create alternate root servers. They all have failed. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, sure, in the past tense you refer to them as "serious" :-) Sorry, I slipped up. But to answer your question, a) because of the personalities of the people spearheding them and b) the death-knell was Kashpureffs redirection of internic. You don't think it had anything to do with factors like: 1) very few people are interested in being in a domain that nobody can see; 2) a very large percentage of users of the internet would rather things be stable 3) the serious Internet technical community overwhelmingly rejects the idea 4) ... When I moved up to Bannockburn, the local ISP used eDNS; I'd never heard of them and they'd quietly switched. When Eug went nuts and did his thing they switched back. It's a trust thing. I think it is a little more than that. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Freedom of speech (was:Re: Re: [IFWP] List security and vind
On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:43:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm *trying* to filter the culprits out of my life and I'm still getting a mailbox full of utter crap. See what I mean. Now - if we had no censorship - the result is our kill files would work again. No, they wouldn't. Killfiles are no proof against spoofed addresses. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] At large membership
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 02:32:10PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote: [...] Every other constituency was recognized, warts and all, with the "understanding ;-)" that they would grow into a more robust and legitimate organization over time. Why the double standard for the IDNO? There is no double standard. The existing constituencies are described in the bylaws, the IDNO is not. Two different processes are involved -- on the one hand, completion of already defined and accepted constituencies; on the other hand, recognization of a constituency in the first place. The existing defined constituencies were the result of a long arduous public process. Part of that process included SEVERAL proposals for an individual constituency, and those proposals did not gain acceptance. I made some of those proposals, so I am intimately familiar with the issues and the objections that were made. Those issues and objections have not gone away, and recognization of an individual's constituency in any form is highly problematic, at best. Kent -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 12:47:14PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: At 11:19 AM 10/29/99 , Esther Dyson wrote: It seems to me that if you read eachword very carefully, he's saying: no *monopoly* TLDs, not "no competitive TLDs." Esther Dyson Hello Esther, Twisting words and meanings is no way to build trust. It is you who are twisting words and meanings. I daresay that most people can see the distinction between "monopoly" and "competition". There are no socialists on the ICANN Board -- in fact, in other venues the Board is heavily criticized for favoring business interests. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 08:44:25PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: At 06:43 PM 10/28/99 , Mike Roberts wrote: Just for the record, the assertions contained in the following email with regard to statements I am alleged to have made are completely without factual substance and do not represent my views or the views of any ICANN person to the best of my knowledge. - Mike Roberts Here's is what started it all: Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:48:58 -0400 To: [a reporter] From: Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's where Mike Roberts informs everyone that he's decided that prior claims to TLDs are not valid, are not going to be considered, even though this is in direct contradiction to the White Paper's approach of a bottom-up consensus process to answer this question. Mike Roberts quote below does not say what you say above, and your claim that it does takes the prize for the most creative deliberate misreading I have seen in a long time. [...] (Mr. Mike Roberts): ... "whatever we do about new top-level domains, one of the clear antecedent requirements of that is that we don't make what appears to be a monopoly profit grant. Now there are a lot of mechanisms for dealing with that and we are going to hear a lot of input on that, but I just wanted to sort of get that message out there because we are no longer if we ever were, we are no longer in an Oklahoma land rush approach to the creation of new TLDs. " Let's see. You have stated that Iperdome suspended operations because of Mr Robert's above statement. That is, the statement "one of the clear antecedent requirements ... is that we don't make what appears to be a monopoly profit grant" was sufficient to, for practical purposes, cause you to close down Iperdome. That is, you agree that delegating the .PER TLD to Iperdome as you would like would be a "a monopoly profit grant". Thank you for clarifying that. This is the point that many of us have been making for a couple of years now. We can further deduce that you believe that your business could not survive without a "monopoly profit grant." That is, that your business is not competitive. Thanks for finally admitting that, as well. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion ----- trust
Jay Fenello in the news: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major financial stake in the issues? Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they have a natural inclination to say. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion ----- trust
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 10:07:25AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: On 14 October 1999, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay Fenello in the news: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major financial stake in the issues? Richard Sexton and Tony Rutkowski have also acknowledged being paid consultants of NSI. All three claim that this has nothing to do with what they say -- that is, that NSI supports them because of what they have a natural inclination to say. Yeah, Kent. Heaven forbid, someone with a major financial stake in the issues should participate in forming DNS issues. As you well know, the issue is deception. ..oh, wait, that's pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it? Absolutely not. From my personal knowledge: I don't have any financial stake. Dave Crocker doesn't. David Maher doesn't. Javier Sola doesn't. Roberto Gaetano doesn't. Karl Auerbach, I believe, has no financial stake. None of the ICANN Board, to my knowledge, has any financial stake in DNS issues. My impression is that *you* don't have a financial stake Kent, ICANN is nothing *but* monied interests. There's only a handful of people with any actual say in the proceedings that don't have a financial interest in the outcome. None of the board has a financial interest in the outcome. Those of us who do not stand to gain financially and do not currently have any kind of direct say in what goes on keep trying to change that, and keep getting batted down by the large-money folks. What do you mean by "direct say"? Tell me how it is, for example, that MCI has a "direct say". Could you point out to me where MCI gets to make direct vote on any ICANN policy matter? Or maybe a big TM interest, like Disney. Could you point out to me where we see Disney's direct vote on any ICANN policy matter? It looks to me like *every* entity goes through some number of levels of representation, and what you are concerned about is number of levels. Is that true? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion ----- trust
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 03:04:48PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: At 12:53 PM 10/14/99 , Kent Crispin wrote: Jay Fenello in the news: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major financial stake in the issues? Hi Kent, Thanks for the publicity :-) BTW, I'm not sure I understand your point. I mean, doesn't Marilyn Cade get paid to represent ATT, or John Patrick, to represent IBM? How about Jonathan Cohen, to represent trademark interests for his firm? Substantial difference: they are indeed paid to represent their employers. You, on the other hand, were paid to operate as an apparently independent agent. Or how about all of those trade associations? You know, like CIX, who seems to change positions on a whim? Or like Jerry Berman's group, who recently affiliated with the GIP, and nominated Rick White? And what about people like Tamar Frankle, now a Berkman Fellow? And what about the Berkman center, and their financial relationship with ICANN? Eh? As I mentioned in the article, everyone earns a living somehow, and there will always be a way to claim that it influences their position. This applies even to you! Here's one from the archives: Now that's an irrelevant treasure! -- a deconstruction of one of my old papers by one of those individuals who has resided in my email filters for a very long time. Steve Page, as it turns out, is an optometrist who sells eyeware in a Costco store down the road from where I work. I gave up reading his messages a long time ago, because what he writes is always very large -- he submitted multiple massive comments to the White Paper: in total volume I believe more than any other single entity. I sent an early draft of that paper to an email list something over a year ago, and it is now quite out of date. A partially updated version can be found at http://songbird.com/kent/papers/regulation.txt, if anyone is interested in reading it in a less mangled form. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Who distributes root list?
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 09:42:57PM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: [...] Ellen Rony points out corrected that ICANN's supporters are well organized and financially endowed. Some of them are financially endowed, but, speaking from insider knowledge, it is patently absurd to say that they are well-organized. I know from heavy personal experience that ICANN supporters hardly communicate, let alone organize. A perusal of the recently released archives of Joop Teernstra's "Cyberspace Association" reveals that ICANN opponents were very well organized, before they disintegrated into bickering. http://wxw.dso.net/ca-steering/old shows the well-oiled machine using social engineering techniques to get at ICANN; discussing what to do about Crocker and Crispin; discussion about how to handle the Santiago meeting; how to deal with the press, and a bunch of other stuff. http://wxw.dso.net/ca-steering, on the other hand, documents a major rift. I believe this is a key point. History tells us that organized movements, such as the 1930's radio broadcast networks desire to commercialize the radio airwaves, were able to succeed. They were able to demonstrate to Congress that they could serve the public interest. The opponents of the commercial broadcasters failed because they were too divided and unable to organize themselves sufficiently to sway Congress. That may simply be a polite way of saying that they an ineffective small minority. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 02:37:53PM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Craig -- Please deal with substantive issues, the here and now, not ancient history. Linguistic nit picks do not serve the larger Internet community. Okay? Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt world Internet traffic. --gregbo You guys are wasting your breath. Mr Freed has no interest in accuracy or honest reporting or integrity of expression -- it's entirely too boring for his messiah complex world government fantasies. He believes that he is the chosen son of Tom Paine, the sole voice of reason in this benighted age, and thus by axiom, anything you say is merely a "linguistic nit". The contrast with Jon Postel, a person with real personal integrity and ability who *earned* his reputation, could not be more profound. Jon has a genuine place in in the history of the Internet and all the social promise it brings. Mr Freed is a microbe who won't even be a footnote. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Press Scrutiny
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 12:22:08PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: Why am *I* a topic of discussion between nationally-distributed publications? Seems very curious to me! Me too. They should simply ignore you. FWIW, it has long been observed and rumored that some coordination of positions is in effect at some of the larger news outlets. Thanks for confirming these suspicions. Frankly, your comments are just the smoking gun. The only smoking gun one you keep shooting your foot with. The carcass in the driveway is News.com's (and the rest of the media's) refusal to print the "untold" story about ICANN. In closing . . . I find it ironic that the more noise I make about the blackout, the more you try and justify your silence! Frankly, I think this is evidence that NSI should fire you. This whole "media conspiracy" campaign is a failure -- one of those cases where a propaganda effort is seen for what it is, and backfires on the originator. Of course, NSI can't really fire you, because they can't risk having you turn on them. So I guess they are stuck with this hare-brained propaganda scheme for the forseeable future. :-) -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 10:08:48PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way. The issues that matter strike me as completely political and not a bylaws issue. Would ICANN have the spine to stand up to a strong demand by governments that, e.g., a ccTLD be reassigned? My understanding is that IANA has already set a precedent in that case -- ccTLDs have been reassigned under such circumstances. [I don't recall the details -- I think it was Jamaica or Haiti that was reassigned under pressure from the associated government. It was painful for those who were registered with the old registry...] In any case, many people believe that a government has fairly strong rights vis a vis choice of which registry runs the associated ccTLD, so this example is perhaps not a good one. Government policies concerning encryption might be more interesting. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Conspiracy theories.
The various interesting personalities on the lists have made me suspicious over the years, and the apparent interplay from the two Jeff's (I filter them both, so I only see this indirectly) got me wondering, and about two weeks ago I did a little investigating. On Aug 15 I sent a message to several friends, under the subject: "fun with conspiracy theories", describing what I found. This has been a game for some time, as you will see. "Jeff Mason" had referred to various items at http://www.pccf.net. But at the top level, http://www.pccf.net, the only thing that showed at the time (two weeks ago) was a single, non-html text line that said: WIP = PCCF.NET = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very strange. I expected to be fixed quickly, so I sent email to about 50 people so they could verify it before it disappeared. Sure enough, the single text line has now been replaced with a "test pattern". Whois on pccf.net shows Planet Communications Computing Facility (PCCF3-DOM) 498 Gladstone Ave.#1 Ottawa, ON K1R5N8 CANADA ... Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Hostmaster (HO3226-ORG) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0-000-000- Fax- 0-000-000- Billing Contact: Fanego, Francis (FF1156) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 613-230-1466 (FAX) 613-230-5352 Domain servers in listed order: NS1.VRX.NET 199.166.24.1 204.138.71.254 NS1.DIEBOLD.NET 205.189.73.10 vrx.net -- Richard Sexton (who needs no introduction) diebold.net -- diebold.com -- Gene Marsh (the head of the prospective "prospective gTLDs constituency", the one that NSI designated Richard Sexton to represent in the NC meetings.) Whois on Francis Fanego shows: $ whois FF1156 Fanego, Francis (FF1156)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Rose FX 498 Gladstone Ave.#1 Ottawa, On K1R5N8 CA Exactly the same address as "Planet Communications Computing Facility" "Jeff Mason's" email provider is earth-net.net. earth-net.net, however, appears to be yet another enterprise linked to richard sexton. Note that altavista.net is a free email hosting service, and note the phone numbers. The DNS servers, of course, are Richard Sexton's: $ whois earth-net.net [rs.internic.net] Registrant: Earth-Nexus Internet Services (EARTH-NET5-DOM) 550 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 US Domain Name: EARTH-NET.NET Administrative Contact: Network Information Officer (NI76-ORG) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0-000-000- Fax- 0-000-000- Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Hunt, John (HJ818-ORG) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0-000-000- Fax- 0-000-000- Billing Contact: Hunt, John (JH23622) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0-000-000- (FAX) 0-000-000- Record last updated on 21-Apr-99. Record created on 25-Apr-98. Database last updated on 14-Aug-99 04:04:43 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.VRX.NET 199.166.24.1 204.138.71.254 NS3.VRX.NET 199.166.24.3 It's quite odd that a company that makes the claims it does on their web site (www.earth-net.net) does not manage their own DNS. Interestingly enough, "John Hunt" sent a query to the poc-submit list about a year ago, asking some rather strange questions and providing verifiably bogus identification information. Here's a message from Bob Shaw replying to "John Hunt": From: Robert Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:33:35 +0200 To: John Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IAHC TLD's John Hunt wrote: Hello: We are conducting research into existing and claimed TLD's for the IFWP/IANA-2. Neither the IFWP nor IANA-2 are doing such research or requested such research. Robert This exchange continued, with "Hunt" claiming to be working for the IFWP, and the POC/PABers getting more and more suspicious, down to the point where "Hunt" said "I type, therefore I am", and stopped responding. Here's whois on "Hunt": $ whois JH23622 [rs.internic.net] Hunt, John (JH23622)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Earth Network Information Center 273 Charlotte Street Peterborough, ON K9J 2V2 CA 0-000-000- (FAX) 0-000-000- Record last updated on 21-Apr-99. Database last updated on 14-Aug-99 04:04:43 EDT. Interestingly enough, iciiu.org was also using nameservers from vrx at one point, though that has changed, and the only reference I have is one of Bob Shaws notes, again: From: Robert Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:10:29 +0200 To: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: POC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: More subterfuge... Kent, Do a whois on iciiu.org - remember this character, Michael Sondow? Sexton again... One has to wonder who pays for all this? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Conspiracy theories.
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999 at 10:52:44PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Guilty as charged, Kent. I do DNS for a lot of people. Your point is ? ...just the facts. It isn't the DNS, of course -- doing DNS for people is certainly an honorable profession. It is the evidence of pervasive deception: fake businesses, fake organizations, fake email addresses, fake names, fake people. It's also the association of that deception with intentional disruptive behavior. It's an interesting pattern, and it's interesting how that pattern fits in with other events. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Re: Re[2]: TLD List.
On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 08:15:40AM -0400, Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 But you ARE claiming to be the registry/registrar for "umbrellas" in this model. No, he is not. As far as I can tell, Robin has simply added "red.umbrellas" to a root zone, with no "umbrellas" zone in between. There isn't any hierarchy. If someone comes along with a real "umbrellas" TLD (one in some real root system), then "red.umbrellas" will resolve directly if you go to Robins servers first), and otherwise the normal dns process will operate. I could, for example, put "networksolutions.com" in my own DNS, and that name would simply resolve independently. I'm not sure what effect this will have on caches and so on, however. It's interesting to note that anyone else could do the exact same thing as Robin, simultaneously -- it *is* an interesting development, indeed. Quite possibly it will crash and burn, but maybe not. I don't think it will have any significant effect on ICANN, though, one way or another -- just like I don't think RealNames will have an effect on ICANN. It may serve to make the ICANN root even more the root of business and government. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 06:09:20PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote: Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random. What procedure would you suggest for random selection? Dice? Why wouldn't people complain just as much about loaded dice? Without going to an awful lot of trouble, the fact is that you have to trust the person making the random choice just as much as you have to trust the person making the selective choice. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] The ICANN Ruckus
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:13:36PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: [...] Hi Arnold, Throughout this debate over Internet Governance, there has consistently been two very different and distinct perspectives. One looked at the transition of authority from IANA to ICANN as a purely technical matter, one that should remain under the control of a technocracy. - So what if civil liberties were not protected? - So what if due process was ignored? - So what if ICANN was captured? As long as the technocracy got to decide policy issues on behalf of everyone else, this side was happy, even if they had to break some rules along the way. The other side looked at this transition as the establishment of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based on representative and democratic structures. Here, process was more important than decisions, representative structures were more important than political appointments. A gross mischaracterization... By all appearances, these two sides have been equally matched, with approximately the same number of people supporting each of these positions. Yet, over time, the technocracy has come to dominate ICANN. ICANN has justified this by claims of wide-spread community "consensus". But if the public support has been approximately equal, exactly how has this consensus been arrived at? As Ayn Rand was so fond of saying: "Examine your assumptions." The public support has not been "approximately equal". In fact, the faction you describe as "establishing world-wide self-governance" is closer to a lunatic fringe than a faction. [...] Nor am I. I only point out that media bias exists. A "media bias" exists against reports of flying saucers, as well. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Is the gTLD Workgroup outcome already decided by the CORE faction? And a criticism of the media.
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 01:13:04AM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote: Esther, I am curious why you and the rest of the ICANN board are not at all disturbed by such pronouncements as the one cited below. Rather than dismissing the legitimate concerns expressed here by listmembers, shouldn't you and ICANN be insisting that the misinformation posted on Connelly's website be removed. Just exactly how would ICANN proceed in "insisting" that some stuff on *anybodies* web site be removed? What would they do if it wasn't removed, go to court? Two seconds of thought, should you care to expend the effort, would reveal that ICANN can't do anything about what people put on their web sites. Two more seconds of thought would reveal that ICANN simply doesn't have the resources to even look at the web sites. Two more seconds of thought would reveal that... Uh oh -- six seconds of thought. Just blew our quota. What are your priorities in this situation--to quell commotion and treat listmembers like juveniles Visited www.dnso.com lately? Hosted, created, and maintained by Richard Sexton, paid consultant of NSI, who also hosts this list. Funny thing, that, eh? Perhaps he should put up a "send message from Ellen Rony" form, so that anyone could send a message that looks like it came from you. or to investigate a valid complaint against someone who deceptively promotes the gTLD agenda of a self-interested faction that dominates these "self-organizing" activities? It's not a "valid complaint". Bob Connelly can put whatever he pleases on his web site, and there isn't a thing ICANN can do about it. Furthermore, he has every right to put up whatever he pleases. Yet more, he also has every right to promote whatever agenda he favors. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Call for comments on DNSO Names Council amendments (Deadline: August 10)
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 12:11:04PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
Thanks, Karl.
We are indeed soliciting comments as you suggest at the end.
What is truly unfortunate is that despite repeated requests you have not
addressed the substance of Karl's statements.
ICANN willingly and knowingly violated its' own bylaws with the
ICANN Interim CEO and counsel present in taking actions to have certain
individuals forcibly ejected from a teleconference. Why?
Because ICANN is supposed to respond to public input, and
overwhelming public input was received that ICANN should revisit its
earlier position regarding NSI.
Is this an issue that will ever be answered when it is asked by the
plebs, or will we be forced to have any meaningful question
asked by a Congressperson in order to receive an answer?
You already know the answer; it has been given several times. You
just don't like the answer. Furthermore, you ask it in a way that
can have no meaningful answer ("Why?"). Finally, these are just
ankle-biting, repetitive, questions for the purposes of being
antagonistic, and after a while people stop paying attention.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments would take over the function. There is absolutely no doubt that if ICANN fails, governments will take over at least some of the functions. If you look closely, the USG, in the form of NTIA, actually has current control over the root zone... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 02:49:04PM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: Hello Kent: Some time ago you made the comment: "ANYONE can set up a private TLD, and that has no more significance concerning the IANA root servers than the claims of the various militia groups concerning US territory." Kent Crispin, Chairman, gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body, August 21st, 1998 What was your intent in making this comment. I think I follow it, except for the militia bits which seem out of place. It's real hard to know what the intent of that comment was, given that it is a year old, and pulled from some context I don't remember. The "militia bits" may have been a reference to some hot news story of the time, and I agree that it is a little hard to follow now. I think what I meant was that it is perfectly legal to set up your own TLDs and root servers, and to sell registrations in them. But doing so gives you no claim whatsoever to be put in someone else's root servers. This is in contradiction to claims made by some that since they have what they call a functioning registry they can legally force their way into the IANA root. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] European Commission to investigate NSI
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 12:39:17PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: At 12:29 PM 7/29/99 , dibu wrote: Well, I think is not the same. NSI domain names are international, but country code based domain names not. From anticompetitive and functional standpoints, it is exactly the same. Apparently DG IV does not agree with you. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] how do you get to $500,000 since last October?
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:27:25PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote: That's strange. When I raised anti-trust questions to Joe Sims a while ago (in the context of whether ICANN's suggestions that the registries should voluntarily club together and have identical dispute policies) he assured me the issues were clear-cut and there were no problems. (Alas, for some reason, I was unable to follow his somewhat abbreviated explanation as to why this was.) [That's irony, folks.] 1) The fact that particular issues might be clear-cut vis a vis anti-trust certainly does not imply that *all* issues are clear-cut vis a vis anti-trust. 2) The fact that you, a lawyer, would raise such a question does seem to indicate that it is worthy of research. 3) The cases may have been clear-cut because the research was done. 4) Finally, given that all lawyers do not have the same expertise, the particular issues in question may indeed be clear-cut to Joe Sims, but fall in a void in your understanding. This would be consistent with your inability to follow his telegraphed explanation. I do notice, incidentally, that Mr Sims approach to the law seems very practically oriented, and yours seems very theoretical. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the irony. Perhaps you were a bit too subtle? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
nst a ruthless and clever monopoly with a huge wad of monopoly cash and an army of lawyers and lobbyists. That's what we really have, when you blow away the smoke. Oh. I almost forgot -- we also have a bunch of high minded babble about Internet Governance to entertain us while the only *real* prospect of honest, responsible Internet Governance is crushed before our eyes. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] how do get to $500,000 since last October?
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:23:46PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: 500 thou divided by $350 is 1428 billable hours, divided by 8 (normal billing day) is approx 178. There have been only about 200 working days since ICANN was formed in October. Should've hired in-house if you need all day every day legal assistance. The assistance of Jones-Day goes back considerably before the start of ICANN -- they were involved in the drafting of the original draft bylaws that were out for discussion during the entire IFWP process. Also, there have been at least two Jones-Day lawyers involved. I can't speak to the advisability of hiring in-house, though. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 11:39:49AM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: For all your hand waving, it still holds true, for the price of a single share of common stock in NSI, one obtains more real voice in the affairs of NSI than one has in all of the land of ICANN. Tell you what, Karl. You use your standing as an NSI shareholder, and bring a derivative action to demand that NSI's Board meetings be open to all shareholders. Actually, given their current responsibility managing a public resource, why don't you demand that they make their board meetings open to the public? Let us know how it turns out, OK? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] how do you get to $500,000 since last October?
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 04:29:28PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills? I really don't know, Marty -- I was just pointing out what might be some complicating factors. I am pretty sure that at least part of the IANA work was pro bono. Someone did mention to me in private email, though, that having a certain amount of money on hand is required before one can hire in-house counsel :-) I also believe, and I have some evidence from personal conversations and the like, that ICANN's legal situation is a great deal more complicated than appears on the surface (and the surface is complicated enough). I have mentioned several times in the past, for example, that ICANN really must be very aware of where it sits vis a vis anti trust, not only in the US, but worldwide. Research into such topics doesn't come cheap. Also, it is probably the case that the amount of legal work varies with the situation. For example, I imagine that preparing for Congressional hearings is fairly labor intensive from a legal perspective. Not only do you have to prepare presentations, but you have to prepare supporting documentation, and you have to prepare for a wide spectrum of possible questions, most of which will never be asked. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote: you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but fail to do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to get copies of the photos. You have no right to reproduce them or distribute them publicly. The copyright ownership in the photos belongs to the photographer because that is the person who "created" the work. If they *didn't* own it and it belonged to the Internet community - the only other viable candidate, then the USG can step out right now. :-) That's exactly what I'm saying. Fine -- the contact database belongs to the Internet community. Presuming you can define "Internet community", how do you propose that the Internet community regain control of it? The only entity in a position to do anything for us is...the USG. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 03:24:42PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote: [...] If there's an "it", then at most, who would "it" belong to? It would only belong to the Internet community at large if it were in the public domain. That's pretty hard to accomplish these days, believe it or not. You practically have to beat your copyrights with a club to extinguish them. It might belong to the registrants on the list, rather than the Internet community at large. Either way, not all the registrants/community are US citizens ergo, the USG is not necessarily the appropriate rep. You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it. The USG is it, not because they are the best representative of the Internet community, but because there is absolutely no other entity in any position to do anything for us. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 03:32:57PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: You missed my point, I think. There is no one else with standing vis a vis NSI to do anything at all about it. What about the shareholders? And remember, even individuals and non-commercial entities can become NSI shareholders. It only takes about $75 plus brokerage fees to become a full voting member of NSI with rights to attend meetings and bring legal actions should the officers or directors behave improperly. --karl-- Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing the directors to return it. You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 06:27:08PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing the directors to return it. You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope? What is the joke is that NSI, a private for-profit company, is far more open and responsive than is ICANN. Karl, you are speaking utter nonsense. One can complain that ICANN is not as responsive as a government should be. But it is sheer lunacy to say that NSI's operations come anywhere near the standards that have been set for ICANN. One can only cry at the fact that ICANN has run up such a dept to Jones Day and Mike Robert's family company that future boards will be doing nothing but raising funds to pay off the debts incurred by the current opaque board. And what did it take to find out that ICANN is legally insolvent - a Congressional hearing! Actually, it was reported in the media substantially before the hearing took place. What is true is that the hearing derailed the funding plan that was to address the budgetary problems. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Hilights from today's hearing
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 10:54:40PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing the directors to return it. You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope? What is the joke is that NSI, a private for-profit company, is far more open and responsive than is ICANN. Karl, you are speaking utter nonsense. One can complain that ICANN is not as responsive as a government should be. But it is sheer lunacy to say that NSI's operations come anywhere near the standards that have been set for ICANN. Utter nonesense? Not at all. The word is "truth". No, it's nonsense. Anybody can be a shareholder in NSI. Presently only corporations and organizations have any meaningful role in ICANN or its subsidiary structures. Earth to Karl: You get as many votes in NSI as MONEY CAN BUY. *Every* vote in NSI is a BOUGHT vote. There is no required representative structure whatsoever. Furthermore, the only entities that have meaningful power in NSI are entities that control large blocks of shares. That is, you have *precisely* as much power as you have money. I'm glad you have finally revealed to us that this is your understanding of democracy. It explains a lot. NSI's shareholders have the legal right to bring actions against the officers and directors of NSI for violation of their duties. ICANN's general membership might have such a power, but ICANN is dragging its feet in creating such a membership. Earth to Karl: Everybody who thinks seriously about this realizes that the representative structure is a very tricky problem. Everybody who thinks seriously about this also realizes that ICANN has very limited resources, and those resources are almost totally tied up with dealing with the requirements imposed by the MoU with the USG. Everybody who thinks seriously about this realizes that satisfying the MoU is the prime directive for the ICANN Board. If NTIA says "deal with NSI", ICANN deals with NSI. If NTIA says "do representation", ICANN will do representation. Without the MoU, ICANN is absolutely nothing. NSI is obligated to publish many financial reports and other disclosures. So what? It's financial reports are only a tiny part of the information that would be interesting. How about it's policy making? How about its dispute procedures? How about a little technical heads up when they jerk around the whois data? How about a little public discussion before they jerk around the Internic site? ICANN has not published any financial information. It put its donations on the web; it is working on financial reports, and those will be public. Please bear in mind, once again, that ICANN has a staff of around half a dozen, and ICANN's priorities are driven totally by the MoU. The truth of the matter is that NSI, as a private corporation, is far more open than ICANN, both in law and in reality. In certain carefully defined areas NSI must publish information about itself, because it is a public company. But we have little or no information about how it generates its policies or strategies or how its directors reach decisions or who it pays off or meets with or anything else about how it conducts its business. It's a PRIVATE company. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote: For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing? (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is it? And its capacity is 2 to the what? 128 bits vs 32 bits for IPv4. That's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 vs 4294967296 addresses, if I did the arithmetic correctly... Or 56713727820156410577229101238 addresses for every human on earth, give or take a few. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Kent Crispin applies for IDNO membership
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:58:58PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: Monday, July 19, 1999, 10:31:38 PM, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep, I sure did. OK, then it will get forwarded to the membership committee. I assure you, as I stated before, the committee will consider it on an equal basis to every other application. Including the section about voting members who belong to other constituencies. I believe you are listed as being a member of another constituency, are you not? Nope. I'm a member of the GA. The IDNO welcomes ALL domain name owners who meet the membership requirements, in an open and transparent fashion. Unlike the ICANN and the DNSO, we don't consider the position they are likely to take with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions. Hahahahahahahahaha Are you sure you want to become a member, Kent-- having to agree to that offensive "loyalty oath" that reads: " I support the principles and mission statement of the IDNO constituency." ?? No, I don't agree to that offensive loyalty oath. I simply ignored it. So you do not support the principles of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO? You *just* said, above ...we don't consider the position they are likely to take with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions. And here you are considering it, aren't you? Your questions about what I support and don't support are irrelevant and offensive. Then you must of made a mistake in asking for membership in a group you don't think should exist. It is reasonable (and indeed approved by our membership) that members should support the concept of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO. Nope. It's not. No other constituency has such a requirement for membership. As anybody can see, this is the first move in a PAB takeover of the IDNO. ;-) No, I don't see it that way at all. If you had not made the one statement above about not supporting the concepts of an IDNO within the DNSO, and provided you are not a voting member, or control a voting member of another constituency (per our rules) then I'd say there was no question about your membership. These are the EXACT same rules all members are required to meet. The same way the NCDNHC is making rules about who can and cannot be a member, and the same way the ISP constituency set standards defining the qualifications of an ISP to join. None of them have loyalty oaths. This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over constituency self organization. I don't think so. I didn't expect any better of you... Expect what? That we make an exception to our standing rules, applied in a consistent and fair, and open, manner just because you have some "celebrity" effect in that your request for membership is being made so public? I would think that our applying the same standards no matter what shows that the IDNO has the consistency and strength. Sort of like the KKK. The "weak" thing to do would be to approve your membership simply because denying it might create controversy. Go for it. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 09:40:04PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote: [...] Kent, expertise in Network security does not translate in expertise in political manipulations with real human beings, ballot stuffing, vote buying and other forms of electoral cheating that generally comes from the top down. Agreed. Incidentally, I signed up to be a member of IDNO a couple of days ago. How come I haven't been allowed in? I have told you once on the IDNO list why I am motivated to do all this. In my eyes your objections that the IDNO polling system is not secure are a smokescreen. The voting system allows us to take democratic decisions, on line, without expensive f2f meetings. This has enormous value. The integrity of the system is far less important than the integrity of the people. Double agreed. Precisely the problem in the IDNO case, I'm afraid, from my point of view -- your heavy-handed, "top down" manipulations destroyed any confidence in the integrity of the process that I might have had. And indeed, your manipulations were exactly the "political manipulations with real human beings, ballot stuffing, vote buying and other forms of electoral cheating" that you warn against, except on a slightly more subtle level. The fact that you don't see that is the most troubling thing of all. I also think that in case the entity running the election is not trusted by its voters, there *is* an easy way to verify election results, and it has nothing to do with system security or detecting Trojan software. Assuming that there is no question about the authenticity of the voters, the voting website could be duplicated , or even triplicated at several trusted third-party locations. That's a good idea. Right now the IDNO voting software is *not* being run by a trusted third party at all -- it is being run by a partisan to the debates. The voters will be asked to vote at both sites. If there is no difference in voting results, you can assume that no tampering has taken place. In case there would be a significant difference (people may change their vote or make mistakes, but this should not be significant) then you declare the election void and let them vote again at yet another site. Sure, all sites could be tampered with at the same time. Unlikely, of course, unless the software was defective to begin with. When elections would be repeated every three months, you would wonder if a tampering effort would not be mainly directed at sabotage, rather than gaining office. You deal in "security" and I tell you that *all* security is an illusion. Is that an argument against using the Net for cheap and often repeatable voting? Of course not. As I said, PAB *has* a voting system, *and* it is secure. But given your heavy-handed attempts to manipulate things, I don't trust *you* to run the polling booth, unless I can see every ballot. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] How to use new domains
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:51:40AM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote: [...] Stuff it. There are those in this group who contribute with good will and seek to "contribute"; there are those who posture and pose. Bill Lovell We all do a combination of both, Bill, you included. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Weisberg wrote: Kent Crispin wrote: Assuming that there is no question about the authenticity of the voters, the voting website could be duplicated , or even triplicated at several trusted third-party locations. That's a good idea. Right now the IDNO voting software is *not* being run by a trusted third party at all -- it is being run by a partisan to the debates. Please expand upon these two issues (including proposed implementation): 1. Use of "trusted third parties;" and I would rather not depend on TTPs at all. Froomkin suggests a large law or accounting firm, the American Arbitration Association has been suggested by others. Suggestions like these completely miss the point, in my view, which is that in fact, there are *no* trusted third parties. I will put up with a large law firm or the AAA if it is forced on me. That doesn't mean I trust them; it means it was forced on me. The suggestions made are clearly come from a "first-world", large business mindset. That is, Froomkin is very familiar with those large names, but in fact I'm not -- big law firms are not my daily fare, and, while I am more familiar with large accounting firms, I also know that they occasionally get sued for screwing up. And frankly, I never heard of the AAA until someone mentioned them on these lists. Someone otherwise like me, but from Latin America, is even less likely to know those names. Thus, we are requiring the person from LA to trust *us* to make that choice. But from the perspective of the person in LA, WE ARE PARTISANS, and we are simply forcing our choice on them. They have absolutely no reason to believe that a large law firm headquartered in the US is above, say, resisting pressure from the USG. To put it more simply, what makes a TTP is that people *trust* them, not that we are assured by an authority that they are trustworthy. And, in our present circumstance, there is no TTP available. 2. Use of multiple vote counting sites. This is actually completely different than the TTP approach. Using multiple sites involves a "distributed trust" model -- none of the individual sites is trusted, but as long as the probability of trustworthy behavior is independent, and greater than 50%, this scheme can achieve high trustworthiness. As described, it is subject to denial of service abuses, but those could be rectified. By far the best voting protocol is open roll-call voting -- it is simple, even trivial, to implement, and it requires no TTP. A suggestion was made back on the MAC list for a simple modification that could give privacy to those who wanted it. I would like to explore that further: The essential character of a open roll-call vote (I have been using that term, there may be a better one) is that the ballots are published. Every vote is on the public record; every voter sees every other voter's votes. There is no possibility of a fraudulent count. The suggestion made on the MAC was that the election authority provide a private alias to each voter, and that the published tally would list the aliases, not the actual name of the voter. This is not a secret ballot, and it doesn't deal with some of the abuses that secret ballots address (you can still sell your vote and verify that you kept your side of the bargain). But it may be adequate for our purposes, or there may be a way to strengthen it. [Note that you can always sell your vote and prove you kept your bargain by having the buyer watch you vote. The issue is convenience, not possibility.] -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 07:16:28PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: [...] So forget it. The election operator can run any code whatsoever, and you have no way of preventing it unless you watch him all the time, and even there you can't *really* prevent it. Crypto is basically irrelevant to this problem. [Caveat: it would certainly be possible to develop a crypto based voting protocol that required deployment of a key infrastructure and appropriate client utilities. This is, however, is a completely different matter than certifying a program, and has serious implications in terms of practicality and usability.] This is a little far-fetched Kent. First of all, it does NOT happen "ALL THE TIME, IN THE REAL WORLD." And if you'd like to debate this particular point, feel free. I'll start by referring you to things like the USENIX Security Conference proceedings, and work from there. Let's work from practical experience and practical reality, OK? Songbird gets from 5-10 clearly security significant probes a week. By that I mean a full scan of my network to a particular port known to be associated with a vulnerability, or something of similar obviousness. This morning shortly after midnight, for example, I got a scan directed to the IMAP port, coming from an unregistered IP address, which, by the traceroute, came from Korea. When time permits, and when it is practical, I track down the contacts for the source of such probes, and send them email. I won't do this with the Korean probe, because, from prior experience, finding a contact in Korea has not been easy. I have, however, communicated with sys admins all over the world under similar circumstances. Around 30-50% of the time I get a reply, thanking me for letting them know that their system had been hacked. In other words, they DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD BEEN COMPROMISED UNTIL SOMEONE ON THE OUTSIDE LET THEM KNOW. [Sometimes I find a real hacker, instead of a hapless victim -- for a couple of interesting days I played tag with a hacker in Germany -- he left his ftp open, and I scarfed up a whole suite of hacker tools :-), which annoyed him. I got ankle-biting email from random hacked sources for a few days.] All this is at Songbird, an absolutely insignificant atoll in the network sea. My day job exposes me to an entirely different level of attacks. The detection tools are much more sophisticated, it is true, but the target is much larger and more interesting. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that we are under continuous attack, from multiple sources. We don't send friendly emails to the contacts, though, because there simply isn't time. I might not be employed currently in a computer-security capacity, but I can assure I know enough to call shenanigans on that particular claim. I'm reassured. If you want to push this point further, I can put you in touch with, say, folks at NAI, folks working tiger teams on the east coast, etc. for real-world data. I would be interested in any real data you could provide. Hell, I could probably dig up some of the better-known purveyors of these attacks and get them to give you a feel for how often this happens. I have a pretty good feel for how often this happens, from first hand direct experience. However, unless you want to move this conversation over to Bugtraq, I don't recommend you push this FUD further. Marcus Ranum's firewall-wizards list would be a better place. Doubtless you could comment on the long recent "OK, I've been hacked, now what?" thread? Secondly, most of your scenario above assumes zero trust of the person running the elections. I will state right now that, unless there is a trusted third-party that can run the elections (If you'll recall, I've already asked that this happen, to no avail), SOMEONE is going to come up with this argument. It's a straw man. No matter what you do, the above will always be a valid argument from someone's point of view, because there will always be an "evil sorcerer" sitting behind the curtain, pulling the strings, manipulating reality. For further reference, see Descartes. I'd love to -- could you give me a specific reference, please? At some point, you must draw the line and place some initial faith in the person running the system, and the system itself. As I have pointed out in other email, there are voting systems that do not require TTPs. [...] Now, if you'd like to debate security matters in a more realistic world, I'm more than willing. I'm sure you are. But I don't want to waste *your* time. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 12:28:17PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: I'm sure you are. But I don't want to waste *your* time. C'mon, Kent. Waste some of my time. That was my polite way of saying that I don't want to waste *my* time. Clearly, I have already wasted too much. :-) -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: Kent Crispin suggests that (1) he doesn't know/trust the groups I am likely to know/trust; (2) many fourth and fifth parties have trust metrics that have no overlap with either of us, and implies (3) that only a group with total or at least enormously wide pre-existing trust can be a TTP in this context. [...] There are transnational professional associations, internationally known universities (I bet Oslo would be trusted by many), foundations, and more. Another type of candidate is -- brace yourself -- international law firms. Of course. I think Jones Day would be an excellent choice, don't you? :-) This is not all that hard problem to solve if and when it becomes essential. Ah -- the "argument from authority", and a mystic wave of the hands. One of the signature problems in the DNS wars has been the monumental level of distrust. I don't think the problem is easily solved. Certainly, a solution can be mandated, and probably people will come to live with it. But I vastly prefer solutions that doen't depend on trusted third parties to begin with. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:02:01PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote: It is interesting, is it not, that the messages I forwarded to the list never appeared there. It rejects cross-postings. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:42:15PM -0500, Weisberg wrote: K. Crispen wrote: ...I vastly prefer solutions that don't depend on trusted third parties to begin with. How do you think we should do it? We should use open roll-call voting, as I have described several times. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 11:37:22PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: At 07:05 PM 7/19/99 -0700, you wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:02:01PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote: It is interesting, is it not, that the messages I forwarded to the list never appeared there. It rejects cross-postings. Since when ? Sorry, I should have been more precise. From the signup page: Please note that the comments received at [EMAIL PROTECTED] will only include those directly addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and not those copied to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 11:48:45PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: At 11:35 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote: Richard, All of the TLDA postings, all of the Tom Bliley messages, all of the Esther Dyson messages, all the messages to James Love, all the messages to Rep. Tom Sawyer (my representative), and more. None of them are there. Somboy noticed recently that unless the icann address is in the to line, it black holes the mail. Yes, just precisely as it says on http://www.icann.org/feedback.html -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Kent Crispin applies for IDNO membership
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 04:00:30PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote: Kent Crispin wrote: Agreed. Incidentally, I signed up to be a member of IDNO a couple of days ago. How come I haven't been allowed in? This is news to me. Headline news actually. Are you sure? Did you apply through the website? Yep, I sure did. That gets passed on to the elected membership committee and I think I would have heard about it. Oh, I'm sure of it. Are you sure you want to become a member, Kent-- having to agree to that offensive "loyalty oath" that reads: " I support the principles and mission statement of the IDNO constituency." ?? No, I don't agree to that offensive loyalty oath. I simply ignored it. What does this mean for the whole stakeholder constituency idea, if the PAB chair, an active member of an registry organization that has been seeking representation in most other constituencies of the DNSO , can also demand entry in an organization that is organized around principles that are almost the antithesis of what he stands for? As anybody can see, this is the first move in a PAB takeover of the IDNO. ;-) Is this serious? Are you aware that the IDNO membership rules (now approved by the whole membership) would ask you to choose for which constituency you will sit on the NC or control somebody else's vote there? Are you just doing this to embroil the IDNO in further controversy prior to the ICANN decision in Santiago, or is this a signal of peace and will we see that you will actually support our application as a constituency of the DNSO? I think the membership committee has the right to defer such a membership application, I didn't expect any better of you... in view of its extraordinary character, pending answers to the above fundamental questions about your intent, the PAB's intent and CORE's intent before referring the ultimate decision to the entire membership. (in the most democratic fashion) Actually, my intent is absolutely none of your business. I am a completely legitimate individual domain name holder. That's all you need to know. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: Kent Crispin suggests that (1) he doesn't know/trust the groups I am likely to know/trust; (2) many fourth and fifth parties have trust metrics that have no overlap with either of us, and implies (3) that only a group with total or at least enormously wide pre-existing trust can be a TTP in this context. [...] There are transnational professional associations, internationally known universities (I bet Oslo would be trusted by many), foundations, and more. Another type of candidate is -- brace yourself -- international law firms. Of course. I think Jones Day would be an excellent choice, don't you? :-) This is not all that hard problem to solve if and when it becomes essential. Ah -- the "argument from authority", and a mystic wave of the hands. One of the signature problems in the DNS wars has been the monumental level of distrust. I don't think the problem is easily solved. Certainly, a solution can be mandated, and probably people will come to live with it. But I vastly prefer solutions that doen't depend on trusted third parties to begin with. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] ICANN's Internet Community - Fact and Fancy
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:02:01PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote: It is interesting, is it not, that the messages I forwarded to the list never appeared there. It rejects cross-postings. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:23:50PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: Now, crypto happens to be something I know a little about ( http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/#crypto ) Very impressive. However, crypto and network security are two very different, though related subjects, and expertise in one does not translate into expertise in another. Security makes use of crypto, but it is a very practically orientd use, not an academic one. In any case, thank you for the opportunity to be gracious. I will try not to blow it :-) On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Kent Crispin wrote: Peer review of the code doesn't do the job at all, unfortunately. How do you know that the reviewed code is in fact the code being I agree that in a perfect world the system should be reistant to this. As an interim issue, it seems fairly low on the list of priorities. Are you seriously suggesting that there is a real risk of this fraud? Yes. The problem is that it is *very* easy to do, and it can be done at any time, and in many circumstances, as I describe below, it can be done little fear of detection or punishment. In any case, proving that the code offered to the referee is the same as the running code is trivially easy: you compile it, and hash the two programs, and bit-compare them, or compare hashes. (Of course you have to use the exact same compiler and OS). Ditigally sign every step for long-run ease of comparison. I must not have been clear -- apparently you completely misunderstand the problem. There is no necessary relationship between a particular executable file on disk, and a program running in a computers memory, period. More concretely: The auditors come, examine the code, certify it, and leave. A *different* program starts up the minute they walk out the door, a program derived from the certified one, and that as far as the external network connection to the rest of the world behaves identically. But it actually does a whole lot of other stuff, in addition. When the auditors come back, they find the same certified code sitting on Joops disk, unmodified. But unless they are logged on locally, and monitoring in real time, they can't verify that the program that is running, and providing service to the outside world, is the one they certified. Furthermore, the trojaned version will externally act identically to the certified one, so no one, an auditor or a normal voter, could ever tell the difference externally. In fact, even if you *are* sitting there, monitoring in real time, you can't really be sure. It would be perfectly possible to have a trojaned shell that ran "election_code_subverted" whenever you specified "election_code_verified" on the command line, for example. This may seem far fetched to the inexperienced, but this kind of thing REALLY DOES HAPPEN, ALL THE TIME, IN THE REAL WORLD. There are nicely packaged hacker toolkits, commonly available, that replace the system utilities that would normally reveal their presense, and it takes no particular intelligence or expertise to run them. So forget it. The election operator can run any code whatsoever, and you have no way of preventing it unless you watch him all the time, and even there you can't *really* prevent it. Crypto is basically irrelevant to this problem. [Caveat: it would certainly be possible to develop a crypto based voting protocol that required deployment of a key infrastructure and appropriate client utilities. This is, however, is a completely different matter than certifying a program, and has serious implications in terms of practicality and usability.] used? How do you know that Joop doesn't go in and manually change the logs and the results? Or an employee of his? This is also trivally easy to prevent: escrow copy of the ballots as they come in (hold for a period of time, then destroy). Uhm. Sorry. How does an external party know that the ballots have not been changed *before* they have been escrowed? If we deploy a cryptographic infrastructure so that the ballots themselves were signed by the individual voter, you might have a point, but that is not contemplated, and it would be a rather complex undertaking. A review of the system could build *some* confidence that a hacker couldn't break in and change things. That is actually pretty far down on my list of concerns, though. The basic problem is this: barring complex and totally unrealistic cryptographic protocols, there is no way to do a secret ballot election without a Trusted Third Party. How do you find a TTP for the highly contentious international arena we are playing in? Easy. Real easy. Ethan Katsh, or Phil Agre, or some large law or accounting firm that holds it pro bono. So long as all they do is hold the data, pending challenges, it won't cost them much. As pointed out above, it is the agency doing the election that must be
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 08:14:55PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote: Roberto and all, The IDNO constituency will prove to you and to ICANN that Tony is right. Voting is now underway for a 21 member steering committee for the IDNO. OTOH, you railroaded David Crocker, Kevin Connolly, and I out of the group, and there is a clear systematic anti-ICANN bias in the IDNO. This has been a volunteer effort of programming, website building and listserv discussion. Voters' fraud from different e-mail addresses is precluded by the software. (every voter gets a unique password) OK. Good. I will be kent1@hotmail -- kent9@hotmail, all generated by software, all having different passwords, all voting my way. Password protection is amazingly naive. On top of that it is very easy to analyze web logs for any possible irregularity. For a few thousand votes you do not need more than this. For a few thousand votes when large amounts of money may be at stake, you do need more than this. We have Diane Cabell and Simson Garfinkel as observers. Even ICANN could decide to use this voting site. Of course agonizing about cost, voters' fraud etc.has its own attractions. And glossing over the issues has its attractions, as well. I am offering use of the site for the equivalent of the cost of my attending the Singapore, Berlin and Santiago meetings. Sounds fair? I'll offer the same thing for lower cost, on my servers, and I will throw in some security expertise as well. Sound fair? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 06:07:02AM +1200, Andy Gardner wrote: OTOH, you railroaded David Crocker, Kevin Connolly, and I out of the group, and there is a clear systematic anti-ICANN bias in the IDNO. ICANN - that's the supposed "open" organisation that is blocking the recognition of IDNO? I know it is hard for you to realize this, but the world doesn't revolve around IDNO. ICANN actually has a lot of other stuff to worry about, and very limited resources with which to deal with them. [...] OK. Good. I will be kent1@hotmail -- kent9@hotmail, all generated by software, all having different passwords, all voting my way. Password protection is amazingly naive. You haven't done your homework. Memebers are assigned a password by the system, not the other way around. You can set up as many e-mail address as you want, but you'd only have one that was issued a password. Andy, thanks for making my point... [...] I'll offer the same thing for lower cost, on my servers, and I will throw in some security expertise as well. Sound fair? Go for it. You didn't understand how the password system works on the IDNO voting site Gosh, I thought I did. I went to the site, and I didn't see anything novel there. I understand how password systems in general work, and I know their intrinsic limitations. Perhaps you could explain to me how this one is different? so I don't hold up hope that you have the ability to put together anything better, or have the prerequisite expertise to do it. Stick to your day job. Security is my day job. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 03:55:44PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote: At 09:24 AM 7/17/99 -0400, you wrote: My point is only that the elections were to be at the highest level of priority, There are clearly other, higher, priorities. The White Paper, the Green Paper, the MoU with NTIA all quite clearly state that the stability of the Internet is the highest priority of all, etc. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 12:07:29PM -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: [...] OK. Good. I will be kent1@hotmail -- kent9@hotmail, all generated by software, all having different passwords, all voting my way. Password protection is amazingly naive. You haven't done your homework. Memebers are assigned a password by the system, not the other way around. You can set up as many e-mail address as you want, but you'd only have one that was issued a password. Andy, thanks for making my point... On a second reading, I realize this is simply too cryptic. Joop's statement about passwords was naive, because a fraudulent voter *with* a password is no better than a fraudulent voter *without* a password. The primary problem remains, as Diane pointed out, authenticating the voters in the first place. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 04:18:34PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: [...] Kent has always believed that a voting system was against his interests and works to discredit them at every turn and opportunity. There is no way you can convince him not to, because it really IS against his best interest for them to exist and become effective. Remember, his affiliation has made great grounds by claiming rough consensus when there isn't any. A working voting system would undercut their claims. Actually, we had a working voting system long ago. See http://songbird.com/pab/voting.html for a description of the PAB voting procedure. Probably predates Joop's site, actually. I should point out that the authentication of email addresses for PAB was done through the collection of signatures by the ITU. This was not a foolproof method, of course, but not bad. One of the reasons I am in the IDNO is BECAUSE of the voting system. It is the only organization that has such a system, outside of the ISOC (and the ISOC system is only used once a year). Actually, I saw several voting systems on the web when I researched this a while ago. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Multiple roots...
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 09:13:36AM -0400, Rob Raisch wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the problems with "realnames" is that is not a replacement for DNS, but only an "enhancement" to search engines. Realnames does not route mail, or enable other tcp/ip connections other than web (http). (for the sake of relevance to this thread, I will not discuss the myriad of other problems with realnames). Of course RealNames is not a replacement for DNS and I did not mean to imply that it was. However, Centraal, by virtue of their bottom-up, consumer-value approach has created the closest thing we have yet seen to a replacement and this is a very important lesson we should all heed. I'm not sure that it is relevant to the DNS, though. DNS has a different, more technically oriented function. The lack of a directory service, and the problems with people trying to force DNS into the role of a directory service, have been debated for years in the IETF. People tend to forget the technical orientation of DNS, but by far the greatest number of dns names in use are internal, ISP oriented names like d120.dlls.tx.onramp.net. It is also widely understood in IETF circles that IPv6, with its very very large numeric addresses, will make such technically oriented use of DNS necessary -- nowadays it's relatively easy to remember an IP address, and indeed many domain names are longer than their corresponding IP address. But in an IPv6 world it will become extremely difficult to use IP addresses. Another consideration in the move to IPv6, incidentally, is that there will be billions of billions of billions more addresses than in IPv4. When you add low-power wireless chips like Bluetooth to the mix, you have an environment where it is practical to control stoplights via the internet -- every lampost in a city could have its own IP address, and a corresponding domain name. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Re: Rule of law vs. consensus
Dthreennis wrote, on: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:44:03 -0700 (PDT): Hi Kent Re your comment to Jon Zittrain: ICANN is a corporation, it is not a government. It has, or will have, contractual relationships with other corporations and organizations. Corporations are bound by the law, like all other persons, real or fictitious. There are other international corporations that exert significant control over other entities through contracts; we don't speak of their bylaws as a "constitution". ICANN may be a corporation, but it was created by government, endowed with taxpayer resources, and charged to carry out a governmental function. Correction: it was charged to carry out a private function. That's the whole point. At best, ICANN is merely -- and temporarily -- a government = contractor assigned the task of privatising governmental resources and functions. At worst, it is a = thinly disguised government agency that has reinvented itself as a "business." Nevertheless, its = long-term goal is to someday become a private entity carrying out a private function. It *is* a private entity. For so long as it is a government contractor, it functions as the govern= ment whenever it engages in any action mandated by government which affects = the constitutional rights of citizens. Even its non-mandated actions may ass= ume the proportions of state action if it exerts monopolistic control over some = aspect of life in the manner of a government. As long as it is still a government creation, still carrying out a functi= on that has not been privatised, its actions are subject to constitutional scruti= ny and total governmental oversight. So the task of amending its by-laws is, at prese= nt, a public, not a private, matter. According to that same reasoning, therefore, amendment of NSI's bylaws by NSI is a public, not a private, matter. Boeing is a gigantic amends its bylaws, it's a public matter -- Boeing is a gigantic corporation, with big big defense contracts with the USG, and it's inconceivable that its contracts don't have *some* potential effect on the constitutional rights of citizens. In fact, carried to its absurd conclusion, every defense contractor would be required to subject bylaw changes to public scrutiny -- there is no way of knowing what change might or might not impact "constitutional rights"... That is, you are simply incorrect. *No* contractor is required to make its bylaw changes a public matter, just because it has a contract with the government. It is conceivable that a contractor might sign a contract with the USG that required its bylaws to be public processes, but I have never heard of that being done, and ICANN has not done this. Instead, the MoU speaks of a "joint DNS project" where the USG and ICANN will jointly develop policy-making procedures. Either party could drop out of that MoU without penalty -- such a breakdown would mean the end of the project, which in fact neither party wants. It is too bad the Board keeps falling into thinking that it is a private = company already, and therefore free to do whatever it wishes. In fact, ICANN *is* at this very moment a private corp, and it can indeed do what it wishes -- as a private corporation it can do anything it damn well pleases, within the constraints of the law, the contracts it has actually signed, and what it can talk people into. The directors could throw away the bylaws and start again from scratch. They could drop the MoU with the USG and go into the real estate business. But in fact what they will do is continue the joint DNS project with the USG to come up with a sound policy-making process for DNS. There is nothing written in the MoU, though, that says that the current bylaws are gospel or a "constitution", or anything. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Re: Rule of law vs. consensus
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 09:10:13AM +, William X. Walsh wrote: [...] But in fact what they will do is continue the joint DNS project with the USG to come up with a sound policy-making process for DNS. There is nothing written in the MoU, though, that says that the current bylaws are gospel or a "constitution", or anything. Kent, This is not exactly true. These agreements are being entered into on the basis of these bylaws. The semantic fuzz of natural language guarantees as a matter of principle that nothing is "exactly" true. I'm not even sure what you mean by "exactly true". However, what I said is *very close* to exactly true. It was only when the bylaws were acceptable did the USG enter into the MoU. Its bylaws MUST continue to be acceptable and represent a broad consensus or it is operating outside those agreements AND its charter. There is a small flaw in your statement. Let me rewrite it so it is accurate: It was only when the bylaws were acceptable to the USG did the USG enter into the MoU. Its bylaws must continue to be acceptable to the USG for the MoU to remain in force. That is, it is the USG, in the office of the NTIA, that decides what "acceptable" means. In any case, I was responding to Dthreennis' weird statement that ICANN was not yet a private corporation., and before that to Jon Zittrain's comment that the bylaws were a "constitution". I am very concerned that metaphors like that are quite conterproductive, and server to fan flames that should go out. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Rule of law vs. consensus
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 05:34:59PM -0400, Gene Marsh wrote: At 02:05 PM 7/10/99 -0700, you wrote: there are circa 240 top level domains. and inlcuding many not in the current rootservers. If they are not in the current root servers, they are not top level domains. They are private domains. Not true. A top level domain is a functional level of the DNS. Fine. If that is the case then the number of top level domains numbers in the thousands or the hundreds of thousands, and the term as Gordon used it is mostly meaningless. Most private networks have top level domains. ICANN has ar ticially and narrowly defined this one such that NSI is the only qualified constituent. Nonsense. There is an entire ccTLD constituency. Yes, but the ccTLD Constituency is NOT included in the gTLD Registry constituency. Yes, you are right. I misread it. The proper response would have been "Eh". -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 12:26:19AM +, William X. Walsh wrote: [...] A registry is no more a monopoly than a car manufacturer is Kent. There is no lock-in involved with cars -- if I don't like my toyata, I can get a honda or a ford, for just the cost of a new car. Changing cars doesn't involve significant switching cost. Changing domains involves huge switching costs -- amazon.com is embedded in hundreds of thousands of urls, it is loaded in search engines, etc etc. If amazon.com did not resolve for even a few days the damage to amazon would be catastrophic, perhaps fatal. "amazon.com" is worth millions to amazon, but almost nothing to the registry. Even in the case of songbird, the world's smallest web business, the value of the domain name far exceeds the cost of maintaining it. That's not like a car manufacturer. It's a monopoly. Provided there are no artificial limits placed on the number of registries and the models underwhich they operate. The lock-in effect is not materially eased by having a wide choice of TLDs available to switch to. There could be a thousand alternatives to .com -- if anything, that would only make amazon's problem worse -- if .biz were the only alternative, at least people could guess the new URL. In other words, for a $35 commodity you get a lock-in effect similar in magnitude to real estate, which is orders of magnitude more costly. The fact is, a TLD is a monopoly, regardless of how many TLDs there are. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Rule of law vs. consensus
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 10:12:51PM -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: Can you clarify what you meant by saying there are "international corporations"? Shorthand for "corporations that do business internationally". They may or may not be multinational corporations. An american corporation can have a contract with a British corporation without being a multinational. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:29:28AM -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote: Sounds fine to me. The only wrinkle is that T0. amazon.com already *has* amazon.com. brand interests are already vested. Can you imagine if 1-800-FLOWERS were told, "Gee, sorry, you have to pay us "800 registry" people $50,000 renewal this year"? It would be small solace that they could move to 1-877-FLOWERS instead, where the 877 registry people do twenty year deals. I still wonder why the names should be in perpetuity, anyway--buy instead of lease, perhaps only subject to actual continuing use. There is a more fundamental problem with the "20 year deals", or any similar scheme: a creative monopolist can always find ways to get around them. "Oh we are so sorry that our old server is only capable of handling 20 hits a minute. You need to upgrade to our new, premium plan..." A 20 year contract is a bandaid to cover a particular abuse, but we can't possibly think of all possible ways a monopolist could exploit their position. You need to deal with the root cause, the monopoly. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:13:49AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: There is a more fundamental problem with the "20 year deals", or any similar scheme: a creative monopolist can always find ways to get around them. "Oh we are so sorry that our old server is only capable of handling 20 hits a minute. You need to upgrade to our new, premium plan..." A 20 year contract is a bandaid to cover a particular abuse, but we can't possibly think of all possible ways a monopolist could exploit their position. You need to deal with the root cause, the monopoly. Even a non-profit can do this. I'm glad you realize the problem. But of course, with a non-profit the incentive is much, *much* less, especially if it is a community controlled non-profit such as ICANN. With a for-profit the incentive for creative thinking is orders of magnitude greater. And we have all seen just how creative NSI can be... If it's how you do business, fine. It's not how I do business. In fact, every indication is that you are only in this for the possibility of monopoly profits. And even if both you and I were absolutely pure at heart, I would rather that neither of us had the opportunity to become corrupted. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] a post-ICANN world
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:07:26PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: These would seem to include: 1) funding someone part time at ISI or CNRI to maintain the protocol registry files. 2) some coordination mechanism among the regional IP registries that involves the ISPs. 3) some independent corporation to run a set of DNS servers and maintain a root zone file that also allows new TLDs to be entered. These are pretty separate functions that just about anybody could do. Indeed. ICANN can do them. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:54:49PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: "Shared registries" were not promoted by the entrepreneurs that I knew, it was a business model promoted by the IAHC! Shared registries is also the business model promoted by the White Paper; and that was the result of the fact that a large majority of the comments favored it... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] a post-ICANN world
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:25:08PM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote: 1) funding someone part time at ISI or CNRI to maintain the protocol registry files. 2) some coordination mechanism among the regional IP registries that involves the ISPs. 3) some independent corporation to run a set of DNS servers and maintain a root zone file that also allows new TLDs to be entered. These are pretty separate functions that just about anybody could do. Indeed. ICANN can do them. Then why are they NOT doing it, Kent? They are in fact doing each of these things. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 02:49:13AM +, William X. Walsh wrote: On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:47:06 -0700, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:54:49PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: "Shared registries" were not promoted by the entrepreneurs that I knew, it was a business model promoted by the IAHC! Shared registries is also the business model promoted by the White Paper; and that was the result of the fact that a large majority of the comments favored it... I don't agree about the "large majority" part, Kent. There was a definite case of ballot stuffing going on with CORE. The White Paper wasn't an election. It's always so entertaining when you contradict your self like this -- Indeed, it wasn't an election. Therefore, the idea that ballot stuffing was going on is ludicrous. In fact it wasn't just the *number* of comments that caused the retreat from the Green Paper -- it was their substance. Not only did the quantity of comments matter, so did their quality, and who they were from, and who was represented by them... The fact remains, the shared registry model is in the White Paper. That's why NSI is going through these contortions -- perhaps you've noticed? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] a post-ICANN world
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 11:16:37PM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote: Hi Kent Crispin, you wrote on 7/8/99 9:48:23 PM: On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:25:08PM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote: 1) funding someone part time at ISI or CNRI to maintain the protocol registry files. This activity is continuing. ICANN and the IANA staff already work very closely. ICANN will pick up the funding as its funding stream builds. I'm not sure who is covering the funding in the meantime, but this is not a major item. 2) some coordination mechanism among the regional IP registries that involves the ISPs. MoU in process. 3) some independent corporation to run a set of DNS servers and maintain a root zone file that also allows new TLDs to be entered. That's precisely what the CRADA is about. These are pretty separate functions that just about anybody could do. Indeed. ICANN can do them. Then why are they NOT doing it, Kent? They are in fact doing each of these things. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain Would you care to share with the rest of us how you feel they are actually doing this? See above. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:10:32PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. That way there be dragons. I'm no fan of domain speculation but if somebody offered me a million dollars for vrx.net I'd find a new domain pretty damn quick. Once you saying what domain can and cannor be used for it's a slippery slope. The "slippery slope" fallacy: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana." -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 09:03:13AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TLDs in the IANA root, not for years to come. Wrong. Christopher Dream on, Chris. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Thoughts on ICANN
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:44:51AM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: If the names council was 80% ORSC people I'd scream saying it was unbalanced and nobody would take it seriously. The bylaws, as implemented, fail to prevent capture by a single organzation. The bylaws, no matter what they say, or how they are implemented, can't ever prevent capture. First of all, as a practical matter you can't really ever write a description of an organization like ORSC that would be both legally defensible, and describe all the "members". I'm a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science... Second of all, and more important -- the board can modify the bylaws. The board could dissolve the corporation and transfer its assets to another corporation. The bylaws are easily mutable, and they are *not* a constitution, no matter what the "internet governance" hecklers keep saying. Even if the bylaws could be considered a constitution, they would remain in large part irrelevant. The real issue is the powers of the corporation as a whole, not the powers of the directors or the membership or the SOs. That's why all the furor over the structure of the corporation is largely a fools game (*). Of course, the structure has *some* importance. But it is secondary. The real controls over ICANN come from governments, laws (in particular anti-trust laws) and the nature of the agreements ICANN can convince other entities to sign. (*) except for NSI, of course -- any delay is to its benefit. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote: This comment exhibits the mind set of assuming that all domain name registrations involve businesses, or at least providers of goods or services of some kind, as would be the case with trademarks. I do not have such a mindset. That is precisely the root of the whole conflict: the very existence of the academic community, game clubs, mushers, group authoring, other individuals, etc., is ignored. Bill Lovell That is not what I intended to convey. The basic idea is that domain names are there to be *used*, not *sold*. If someone does a non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their nose at Heinz with no fear of legal hassle. (That's why I don't support the proposed bill under discussion -- too much potential for legal harassment.) But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't be able to pay the speculator). -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote: But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't be able to pay the speculator). So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define what is a legitimate use and what is not? Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know, and I don't think it really matters too much precisely what the definition is. We drive on the right side of the road. They drive on the left side in other places. In any case, haven't there been cases already decided that made this kind of distinction? Isn't there a famous case in England that shot down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to sell? While there are complex issues of judgement and law here, that is why we have courts and juries, isn't it? Why not one-domain-per-customer? -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 11:32:31PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote: [...] So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define what is a legitimate use and what is not? Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know, and I don't think it really matters too much precisely what the definition is. We drive on the right side of the road. They drive on the left side in other places. If you don't define "use" any more than putting up a web page, then most cybersquatters will simply put up a blank page to fulfil the requirement of "use". This doesn't seem to solve the problem of cybersquatting. As I said, it doesn't matter that much to me -- the "nearly blank web page" criterion was your strawman -- you can shoot it down or support it, either way. [It would catch, for example, the group that is apparently trying to grab every three letter combination.] The problem is trying to catch an intent. My impression is that it is fairly difficult to use "intent" in the law, but that it isn't impossible. Certainly shouldn't be any more difficult than trying to define "perjury". In any case, haven't there been cases already decided that made this kind of distinction? Isn't there a famous case in England that shot down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to sell? While there are complex issues of judgement and law here, that is why we have courts and juries, isn't it? There are plenty of cases evicting cybersquatters from domain registrations that are identical to (and lately also misspelled versions of) well-known trademarks or other protected names. I haven't heard of any cybersquatter who has been evicted from registering non-protected names. Why not one-domain-per-customer? Works for me. That was a misidentified quote from your preceeding message. I don't think it would work for me, to tell you the truth, but it might depend on how you define "customer"... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 08:55:18PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote: [...] but that a straight sale is not possible. Bill Lovell, who claims to be an IP attorney of distinction, Why is it that some people cannot carry on a purportedly intelligent discourse without sticking in disparaging remarks? Damn but you have such tender, delicate skin. Should have stuck in a smiley. "distinction" in the same sentence, to my knowledge, I'm unaware of where Mr. Kent Crispin would have got that horse pucky. It was in fact a reflection of my own belief that you were an IP attorney of distinction. Ah, the answer: Mr. Kent Crispin has been caught out blathering legal nonsense, and is looking either to find a scapegoat or change the subject. The legal stuff I was referring to came from Mr Craig McTaggart, on July 3: [...] And here's another one: you don't own your trademark either. You hold certain rights, recognized by courts with respect to common law trademarks, or granted by the state under statute with respect to registered trademarks. If you stop using your trademark, or if you don't renew the registration for it, or if the registration is expunged, you may cease to hold those rights. It is not a matter of 'owning' a trademark. It is a matter of holding certain rights in relation to a certain string of characters or distinctive design which are recognized or granted by public authorities. Yes, trademarks appear to be capable of being 'bought' and 'sold', but what really happens in such a transaction is that the 'seller' promises to ask the registration authority to change the name of the registered holder to that of the 'buyer.' Nothing is actually bought or sold, but rather value is given in exchange for an apparent 'transfer' of the relevant rights. No property is transferred. _Rights_ are _assigned_. Very different. [...] Craig McTaggart claims to be a Graduate Student/Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. That's another joke, Bill. As for the above quote, "The claim was that this is not the case. The claim was, as I recall, that the USPTO can be somehow cajoled to transfer the registration, but that a straight sale is not possible," I've been following these threads for quite some time, and I can't recall anyone ever being dumb enought to advance that theory. You see the quote above, where it was advanced. Let me repeat it yet once more for your tired old eyes: "Nothing is actually 'bought' or 'sold' but what really happens in such a transaction is that the 'seller' promises to ask the registration authority to change the name of the registered holder to that of the 'buyer.'" I didn't look up the exact quote for my message, and it was just a 1 sentence summary of what Mr McTaggart wrote. Perhaps I did not do it justice, but it isn't that far off. Furthermore, it *is* true that at one time in the past you went into a rather forceful diatribe about how trademarks were definitely *not* property -- I can dig up the quotes to remind you of that, if you like. The USPTO can't be "cajoled" into doing anything; if entities such as ICANN ever come to be as well and professionally managed, we shall all have cause to be grateful. Whatever. I take "cajoled" as a poetic license rough synonym for "seller promises to ask the registration authority"...it is sad, but apparently not only are you humorless, but you have no poetry in your soul, either. Maybe being a distinguished IP attorney makes you give up on these human weaknesses... :-) In any case, as I said in another message -- I don't really care if Mr McTaggarts theory applies to TMs or not -- that's something you lawyers can argue about. I was interested in the general reasoning applied to domain names. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection A ct
On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 12:43:44AM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote: There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion. The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there should be. dc OK, here you have a point. For example, see www.extreme.com. Still, I wonder whether we are indignant from the unfairness of it or out of jealousy. Neither. I'm just trying to work out a scheme that deals with the problem as I see it. Some people have rights, of various sorts, to names. When domain names came along a new and very public name space came into existence. The question is how pre-existing rights to names are accomodated. While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name "Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among us, so first come first serve is a reasonable allocation strategy. But someone who goes out and registers 10,000 common surnames for the sole purpose of reselling them has less of a right to the name than I do. If there were some business that used "Crispin" as a trademark, I would say that they fall into the same FCFS pool that I and all my (metaphorical) relatives belong to -- we all have a legitimate claim to use the name. The speculator does not. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:22:56PM -0400, Craig McTaggart wrote: Isn't this kind of like saying that users are free to use any PC operating system they like? Or manufacturers are free to market any kind of 'video cassette recorder' they like? Is it accurate to say that the IANA root has reached the same level of de facto standard-ness as Windows and VHS? Not really. .com/.net/.org were a monopoly to start with, so the de facto standard-ness is much greater. Isn't the US DoJ going after Microsoft partly because its operating system is in the nature of essential infrastructure in the PC world? Indeed. And this is precisely why DoJ, DG-IV, and so on sould go after ICANN if ICANN does anything bad. It sucks, but the com/net/org domains have become what the public thinks of as the Internet. It's stupid, and there is absolutely no technical, legal or logical reason for it, but it's a fact. I personally think there should be tons of TLDs to get rid of the artificial scarcity of com/net/org names that NSI has exploited so shamelessly (or brilliantly, depending on your perspective), but it's going to be tough to break .com's hold. Yes, especially since NSI is doing everything it can to torpedo ICANN. Without ICANN there is no realistic way to get new TLDs in the IANA root, not for years to come. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
.gov, .edu etc -- those names will continue to resolve, no matter what, because ICANN can't disrupt service for those end users. So ICANN has very constrained powers over the content of the root zone. There are only two areas where ICANN has any potential for exertion of authority 1) with small ccTLDs, and then only where the sovereign entity in charge wants a change made; and 2) the possible addition of new gTLDs. In all other cases ICANN's hands are tied. I recognize that reasonable people have reasonable concerns about ICANN. My impression of Mr. Cook's contributions, however, is that they simply play to people's paranoia of back-room conspiracy. (In another time, we could substitute "Trilateral Commission" or "Elders of Zion" for "ICANN.") It's a seductive way of maintaining the status quo -- and NSI's monopoly. I look at the NSI like Bell Atlantic or other poorly regulated monopolies --- something to worry about, perhaps an opportunity for more accountability or some competition, but mostly about money, for that firm. I look at the ICANN process a little differently. It isn't really a substitute for NSI as much as it would be a substitute for the government. For some strange definition of "government", perhaps -- a definition that excludes any real possibility of enforcement. The analogy is too weak to be helpful, and worse, is very misleading. The fact is that, with the sole exception of registrars in .com/.net/.org, ICANN's contractual arrangements with the entities it supposedly "controls" are in the form of MoUs, which have essentially no coercive force behind them. In the case of the registrar accreditation agreements, you can be certain that the NTIA was completely aware of them, and that they have, therefore, the precise oversight designated by the USG. That is, you can view them as the USG's plan for how to divest .com/.net/.org. That is, it is the government that provides the power, not ICANN. I can imagine good or bad things coming from this new cyber goverance organization. Suppose, for example, that ICANN actually gave ordinary people the abilty to elect the board of directors, and it could not be controlled by big corporate interests. Suppose further that privacy advocates ran a successful campaign to elect board members who promised to require every .com domain to post its privacy policy. I actually asked ICANN if this could happen, and I believe the answer is yes (not that such an effort would succeed, but simply that the board could elect to do such things, if it wanted to. It sure could. It could claim control of the moon, too. The real issue is what ICANN *actually* can do. And the cold fact is that ICANN can't do very much, it won't be able to do much for years, and only then if it has the confidence of those it tries to get to sign contracts with it. So much will depend upon who will control this organization, and how much "lock-in" occurs around the main root. It's unfortunate that misunderstandings in this area are so pervasive. Regardless of what people (or the Board, for that matter) may think, ICANN is almost totally powerless. The only hint of "power" comes from the registrar accreditation agreements, and those are essentially the instrument of the USG, not ICANN. Even after NTIA "cuts the cord", the DoJ will be watching ICANN very closely -- ICANN will effectively be under US supervision for a long time into the future. Ralph Nader and I are meeting with Esther on Wed, and we'll be talking about these things further. I hope you will pay attention to the realities of what ICANN actually can do, rather than on imaginary concerns about what it might do if it actually had power... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:51:31AM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote: Kent Crispin wrote: [...] Many people are under the delusion that ICANN's bylaws and articles of incorporation provide control. They do not. People also think that membership and representative structures provide control. They don't, either. No, huh? Gee, ya coulda fooled me. I thought that's what dat stuff was there for. I mean, what's the point of havin these bylaws and this here membership jazz if they don't mean nothin? It makes the deluded people who insisted on them happy, I guess. I certainly didn't argue for them. Postel didn't argue for them. The people who argued for them were people who think this Sounds like a scam, baby, Nope. It's wishful thinking on the part of people who want to see this as "government". I certainly have said over and over again that the emphasis on the details of the bylaws was a waste of time. Certainly Jon Postel or Joe Sims made no representation that the bylaws gave any kind of oversight. Why, I see I said as much already: The elaborate bylaws and representative structures were implemented because people insisted on it, not because they are actually effective. They are not effective, and, intrinsically, they cannot be effective, for the following simple reason: From the point of view of the "governed" (the Internet at large) an out of control ICANN board is absolutely indistinguishable from an out of control ICANN membership. And given the almost inevitable small size of the ICANN membership (even a few thousand would be incredible) the membership is unavoidably susceptible to capture by special interests, demagogues, and mob thinking. Even more, even if a very large membership were created, there is simply no guarantee that a large membership would be competent. Huh? What's that, Kent? Man, you lost me there. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Let me try again: ICANN has absolutely no power and no significance, except through the contracts it may sign with various entities -- in particular, the gTLD registrars and registry, the address registries, the root server operators, and the protocol organizations. With the exception of the registrar accreditation agreements for the .com/.net/.org registrars, all the contracts are in the form of MoUs, or joing operating agreements, or CRADAs. The interesting thing about these kinds of agreements is that they have almost no penalty for dropping out. ICANN has no power to make any of these entities do anything at all. In the case of the .com/.net/.org registrars, ICANN did produce a contract with some teeth. But those teeth come from the fact that the USG signed an agreement with ICANN designating it as "NewCo". That is, ICANN has precisely the power that the USG delegated to it, and no more. ICANN and the USG are obviously working very closely together in this matter, ICANN can't do anything that the USG doesn't approve of. This may seem to be a terrible state of affairs, but in fact it is largely irrelevant. You kin say that again, Kent, baby. Irrelevant is bein too kind. The real controls over ICANN will remain governmental in nature, primarily in the form of anti-trust laws. The US DoJ, the EU's DG-IV, and anti-trust authorities around the world will be watching ICANN very closely. ICANN is a California non-profit, so in practice, US anti-trust law is the most prominent, but in fact ICANN simply cannot afford to do anything that will irritate any of these anti-trust authorities. Well, just one minute here. Let's see, you mean if somebody cud make out that this ICANN was doin stuff to stop competishin, like lettin secret clubs like yer CORE buddies fix prices or be the sole suppliers of domain names, then maybe the DOJ would come down on yous? Yep. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: www.networksolutions.com hijacked
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 09:49:54AM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote: The following root servers are offering answers for "www.networksolutions.com" (which they shouldn't be): b.root-servers.net This varies with where you make the query from. Host A: www.networksolutions.com Server: b.root-servers.net Address: 128.9.0.107 Non-authoritative answer: Name:www.networksolutions.com Address: 128.9.160.28 Host B: www.networksolutions.com Server: b.root-servers.net Address: 128.9.0.107 *** b.root-servers.net can't find www.networksolutions.com: No response from server d.root-servers.net e.root-servers.net g.root-servers.net h.root-servers.net i.root-servers.net k.gtld-servers.net The following are returing the correct information: a.root-servers.net c.root-servers.net f.root-servers.net j.gtld-servers.net Currently I can't reach "f.gtld-servers.net" to get an answer. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick GreenwellTelocity http://www.telocity.com (408) 863-6617 v(tinc) (408) 777-1451 f "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
