Re: [IFWP] That register.com commercial
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 02:06:33PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > At 10:33 AM 6/19/00 -0700, you wrote: > >The Registrar Accreditation Agreement implies a prohibition against > >warehousing of domain names: > > > >http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-12may99.htm > > > > > >9. Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or > >restricting warehousing of or\ speculation in domain names by registrars. > > > That's a stretch. These are domains used for advertising. > I smell loophole. Specifically, I could just take out a full-page ad and list all the domain names I want to warehouse. As long as I phrase the ad along the lines of, "If you give me your business, you could register such great domains as: !" ...and that'd be okay? So where's the line? At what point does it stop being protected by virtue of being used in advertisement and become simple abuse? 3 domains? 5? 20? 100? The domains I listed from that register.com commercial are only a few of the ones they're using in multiple unique commercials. I'd estimate they've abused at least 10 domains in this manner. But that's okay, they're from the SRS. They're here to help us. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA
[IFWP] That register.com commercial
I'm curious about something. Many of you have probably seen the register.com commericals, where they have people touting the domains they've registered (e.g., sisterearth.com, hydrowatts.com, thefabers.com). Checking the whois database, of course, reveals all these domains are actually owned by register.com. Particularly in the case of thefabers.com, what recourse would a family with the last name of Faber have against this blatant squatting? These domains that register.com are using are not tied to or representative of any 'product or service', except that they are domain names, and register.com sells domain names. Would someone have a case to take these domains away from register.com under the UDRP? What are the implications should the arbiters decide that register.com deserves to keep these names? -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: [bwg+] Were you consulted?
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:05:57AM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote: > For that matter, neither was I. > > James Love wrote: > > > > I was not consulted. Jamie Neither was I, and I don't believe anyone else was either. When people around ICANN talk about "outreach" or "broad diversity" or "consensus", what they mean is, "I talked to trademark and IP lawyers from TWO OTHER COMPANIES, and they _both_ agreed with me!" C'mon, folks. I'm all for process, but it's high time we stop going through the motions, pointing at the car-wreck that's ICANN, and saying, "Wow, that's horribly wrong," and DO something about it, before power is transferred from a California non-profit corporation to an international treaty organization. How many more incidents like the At-Large situation, like the UDRP creation, like the Sunrise proposal, like the denial of conensus on 6-10 initial gTLDs, do we have to suffer through before enough people realize that something's gone very, very wrong here, and does something to end it? Many of you are lawyers, some of you are media, and some of you have governmental ties. All of you have substantially more power and pull than those of us who are simply private citizens who, for whatever reasons, threw ourselves into the crossfire. The longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be to undo the damage. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: Echelon keywords
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 02:36:22PM -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > At 02:17 PM 3/15/2000, Michael Sondow wrote: > >The following is a list of keywords reputedly in use by the U.S. > > Amusing conjecture. How many of them are domain names? :-) ...and old. Or the old "NSA Line-Eater" has evolved over the past 20 or so years. And that list is at least somewhat dated, since DefCon V was in 1997. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA
Re: Another Media Blackout (was Re: [IFWP] Police use pepper spr
On 1 December 1999, Mark Jeftovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 01-Dec-99 Jay Fenello wrote: >> Well, it's 3:30 a.m. EST, and I have seen very >> little coverage of the riots. It's seems that >> the Pete Rose story is a much higher priority >> topic tonight! >> >> In other words, I'd say were in the midsts of >> another media blackout. For those who missed >> the last one, there is a good summary at: >> http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00677.html >> > >I dunno Jay, I don't watch much TV but I flipped on CNN last night and >they had quite extensive coverage of it. Also the radio station I listen >to in the morning (CFRB in Toronto) talked about it at length as well. Supposedly, KOMO 4 in Seattle openly admitted to an imposed media blackout, and stated that the only coverage that'd be broadcast would be the police-approved content. Source: Seattle Independent Media Center (http://www.indymedia.org), whose offices are at ground zero, and were filled with CS gas last night while the police detained about 100 reporters in their office. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
[IFWP] Police use pepper spray, rubber bullets on WTO protesters
Seems that downtown Seattle has become a bit of a military zone... police fired pepper spray and (reportedly) rubber bullets into crowds of WTO protesters today. The individual continues to be trampled upon, the business types continue to just not get it, and the media continues to chase sensation rather than news. The parallels between the actions of the WTO and ICANN are many, as are the reactions on all sides. it's the lead story on http://www.cnn.com at the moment. Will it take this level of activism to draw attention to the injustices being committed by ICANN? At the very least, those opposing the WTO provide an activist pool from which to draw support against ICANN's attempts to do on the net what the WTO wants to do in other commerical sectors. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson's reply
On 30 November 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) wrote: >In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of >people worldwide, yes, but only of interested parties who know what they are >voting about. Until ICANN constructs, enforces, and abides by a coherent, self-consistent set of policies and procedures for its operation, it will be impossible to find anyone meeting those criteria. Besides, if you're going to limit it to "informed voters" then you're in essence cancelling the vote. Par for the ICANN course is not only one hand's lack of knowledge about the other hand's actions, but about its very existence as well. Are you planning on implementing literacy tests and poll taxes to ensure only those who are interested and informed vote? The USA has been through this particular aspect of democracy before, Esther. Jim Crow laws were declared unconstitutional years ago. Or perhaps you'd like to predate suffrage and ensure that only landowners have a vote. ...oh, wait. Except for the literacy tests, you've already implemented all of this within ICANN. Tsk. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Fwd: Aloha iJam '99
On 16 November 1999, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Anyone concerned about any aspects of the internet videocasts >of ICANN meetings and the like might wish to check out the site >below as a possible alternative, and especially their upcoming >Saturday broadcast. Pixelworld.net's broadcasts require Windows Media Player. This would not be a suitable method for presenting streaming video to the widest possible audience. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Vixie stepping away from BIND
On 16 November 1999, Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ... but is there a good solid techincal reason why multiple roots >> wouldn't work? > >The issues concern records that contain textual names -- most importantly >NS and CNAME records. > >The putative problem arises when the zone file creator puts a name into an >NS or CNAME record that uses a TLD that is a different version of that TLD >used by the person who consumes that record. > >In other words, if I say in an NS record that one of my servers is >foo.blap.web, and I use IOD's version of .web, then if somebody who >uses CORE's version of .web comes along and uses my NS record then they >will end up with a mis-resolution. But, since one of my criteria was that these competing roots would be mutually exclusive, this couldn't happen, as the proprietorship of .web would have been decided before the contract was signed. > >By-the-way, the limit of 13 servers comes from an ancient limit of 512 >bytes on the UDP data size used by DNS packets. (With modern IP stacks >with working IP reassembly engines, one ought to be able to get up to 64K >bytes in a single UDP frame - unfortunately not all stacks have been >adequately tested, so a number in the 16K byte range is more common. And >MTU's less than 1500 are fairly rare in the net these days except on some >PPP links where the MTU has been cranked way down.) Yep. And I believe that Windows is still shipping with MTUs optimised for phone-based connections. Thanks, Karl. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Vixie stepping away from BIND
On 15 November 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>As a footnote, to answer Richard's "Huh?" question, I meant that, >>instead of having the current roots delegating .com, .net., and .org, >>what technical issues exist that prevent three mutually exclusive, >>meta-roots (or whatever you want to call them) each delegating >>.com, .net, and .org? > >I still don't understand the question. The root servers point to >the TLD servers. So, the legacy root serevrs - and the ORSC >root servers - point to NSI's COM/NET/ORG servers. > >What exactly did you want to change? Sorry, today's not my day for being clear. But I'll give it a shot. If I'm still not being clear, maybe someone who gets what I'm at will chime in. This head cold's killing me. Anyway, yea, right now we've got the legacy roots pointing to NSI's TLD servers. What I'm proposing (and what I assume most people mean when they speak of 'multiple competing roots') is something along the lines of this: Instead of all of the roots delegating com/net/org to NSI, let's say one delegates com. One delegates net. One delegates org. None of the roots know about or pass on information about the others. This setup would allow for other such situations, where a competing root that delegated foo could be introduced. Now, before people go ballistic, here's what I mean when I propose seperate, competing roots: 1) They MUST be limited in number, and still under central control. I don't want to see any yahoo who thinks they can set up DNS becoming a root, and I'm fairly sure this is what most people fear when they discuss this sort of thing. Entry could be barred by pre-requisite infrastructure, investment, fees, contractual obligations, what-have-you. 2) They MUST be mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that we should have multiple roots delegating the same domains in a non-shared manner. This must be enforced by strict and harsh penalties for infringing upon other delegations, etc. But when I say under central control, I mean something akin to what we have now, but loosened up a bit. Allow the possibility of seperate regulated roots delegating mutually-exclusive TLDs. At some point in the future, the legacy roots are going to become a bottleneck, particularly if TLD-space is expanded. Really, the issue is: Is a centralized root system scalable into the forseeable future, or would it be wise to start considering an alternative in which, perhaps, resolver is tweaked a bit to discover roots, instead of having them fed to it via named or whatever DNS you choose? Here's a thought: Maybe a strictly controlled TLD, akin to the in-addr.arpa delegation scheme, for roots. An AXFR from this domain would yield the list of valid roots. In this way, you could potentially have a managed set of multiple competing roots. If I'm rehashing old arguments, please let me know, but point out a reference to them so I can go over them. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Vixie stepping away from BIND
On 15 November 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >What mechanism do you propose to 1) keep it a small number, and 2) >ensure that they are mutually-exclusive? Well, as I understand it, the current implementation effectively limits the number of roots to 13. Regardless of the number of participants who'd like to have a root, there's always going to be an effective limit on the number of roots. eDNS extends this somewhat, if I recall correctly. So, there is a "natural" limit, both now and in the future. There's another "natural" limit inherent in the market model for competing roots; if you open up the field to multiple roots, the use of the roots will be based on demand for and desire for the TLDs they have delegation responsibility for. So there's a marketplace culling that would occur as well. Ensuring they're mutually exclusive is the hard part. This is a policy, and not a technical, issue the way I see it, and would have to be hammered out in contracts, with stiff penalties for anyone caught infringing on another's delegation. But the reason I phrased the question in that manner is because those two issues (size, exclusivity) are the only real barriers other than acceptance that I see to multiple roots. As a footnote, to answer Richard's "Huh?" question, I meant that, instead of having the current roots delegating .com, .net., and .org, what technical issues exist that prevent three mutually exclusive, meta-roots (or whatever you want to call them) each delegating .com, .net, and .org? ...actually, I think I just came up with one myself: the in-addr.arpa delegations. Or would that propose a problem? footnote #2: I'm not bringing this up to start an argument, I really am unaware of legitimate technical issues preventing the existence of multiple, competing roots. If there are genuine technical reasons why it can't be done, I would like to know. If it's an issue with resolver, it might be interesting to see if it can be recoded to deal with it. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
[IFWP] Vixie stepping away from BIND
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.) Let's avoid
politics entirely, and let me ask the question this way: Is there
a good technical reason why com, net, and org couldn't be broken up
into three seperate roots?
--
Mark C. Langston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: well folks - more work for bind2000
On 11 November 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>That's a curious statement. Vixie being the originator of a software daemon >>that upwards of 90% of internet hosts use to resolve domain names (including > >Vixie didn't originate it. He's just the current maintainer. ...and, according to a speech he gave at LISA this week, will be stepping down once v9 is out the door. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: 63-character SLDs
On 8 November 1999, Mark Henderson-Thynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Notwithstanding the commercial applications for the new extended 63 > > character domain name, spare a thought for the welsh village that > > previously could not register their own village domain name. However, there > > is good news, they now claim possibly the longest .com name in history! > > > > llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.com > >The person who wrote this obviously didn't do their homework. The Welsh >village has been registered as: > >http://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk/ > >since July 1997 (which coincidentally is two characters longer than the .com >version ;-) > >Mark.. The 63-character limit is inherent in the DNS packet structure, and is a limit per label. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: Call for Meeting Sponsors
>>During the week of November 1, 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned >>Names and Numbers (ICANN) will be holding its first annual meeting in Los >>Angeles, USA. Over the course of four days, hundreds of individuals from >>around the globe will gather to participate in the bottom-up policymaking >>processes that constitute ICANN. ...is there another group running around, calling itself ICANN that's meeting at the same time in the same place? I could swear the only "bottom-up" aspect of this group's process is a physical accomodation by the masses for the BoD. Or maybe it's just a mass ankle inspection whose announcement I missed. -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
Re: [IFWP] Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion -----> trust
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...oh, wait, that's pretty much every participant in the DNSO, isn't it? Of course, ICANN's been handed the opportunity several times to change that, and has inexplicably turned it down every time. 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. 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. (and don't bring up the non-commercial constituency. Non-commercial does not imply non-profit. Believe it or not, there are people out there. Individuals. Unique, countable human beings, who want nothing more than to have a say in future policy decisions, because those decisions directly impact their lives. And the people in power remain blind to that fact, preferring to remain ignorant than to move ICANN to a position where it would be a truly open entity.) -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA
[IFWP] H.R. 3028 and ICANN UDRP
--- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: H.R. 3028 and ICANN UDRP Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:19:19 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A few items that are gnawing at me: What will be the result if the current H.R. 3028 (Rogan's anti-cybersquatting bill, similar to Abraham's S. 1255 bill) is passed, and conflicts with ICANN's UDRP? Which one will give? ...and what does the existence of these bills in the US Congress say about either the US Government's need to control DNS, ICANN's foray into policy matters that are not directly technical, or both? Finally, what does it say about the current state of affairs that both Abraham and Rogan have been targets of for-profit cybersqatting in recent months, prior to the drafing of their respective bills, I believe? Again, we're seeing the line between law and ICANN blurred, and it's making me very nervous. There was supposed to be a clear demarcation between policy matters pertaining to existing law (e.g., TM protection) and technical matters pertaining to the daily functioning of the net (ICANN's bailiwick). It's about time someone in a position of authority from Congress, Commerce, and/or ICANN came forth and reasserted that line, because it's getting harder to find. - -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA --- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
[IFWP] Rick White's nomination -- Newsbytes report
--- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Rick White's nomination -- Newsbytes report Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:41:53 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsbytes is reporting that at least 5 of the people supporting Rick White's nomination as a candidate for the ICANN BoD are NOT members of the DNSO. Mike Roberts attempts to weasel out of this violation. Prediction: Rick White's seat on the BoD is fait accompli. Article is at: http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/99/137686.html - -- Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Admin San Jose, CA --- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
[IFWP] PICS and domain names
Since Esther's at the global meeting for establishing mandatory net content ratings, and seems to be chafing a bit over it, I'd like to point something out: Domain names would probably have to be rated as well. Since Esther *is* at this conference, and is the de facto face of ICANN, shouldn't someone speak as an official representative of ICANN on these issues? I certainly don't want the enforcement of ratings on any content on the net, and I am certain I don't want it enforced based on domain names. Let's face it: The only reason anyone would want a global mandatory rating system is to enact filtering based on those ratings. If ICANN allows this to occur (and they might -- quite a bit of the money behind ICANN is also propping up this ratings effort), they will be in a position to become the arbiters of content on the Net. Since WG-C is concerned with the introduction of new gTLDs, we should be very wary of this effort. One could easily imagine a push to classify content based on gTLD. If you think .com's diluted and confusing now, you just wait until companies are told they must use a particular gTLD for a particular type of content. Everywhere you turn, there will be confusing, misleading, and/or meaningless .com entries, all in an effort to avoid the gTLDs created specifically to be filtered out. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] Outcome or details of today's ICANN BoD teleconference?
Anyone have any information relating to what occurred today? (from the ICANN calendar page:) "September 9, 1999 - Special Meeting via Telephone The ICANN Initial Board of Directors will hold a special meeting by telephone on Thursday, September 9, 1999, at 09:00am US Eastern time. The agenda for the call will be to update the Board on discussions with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Network Solutions, Inc., and to consider possible related actions." -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
Re: Re[4]: [IFWP] Re: INEGroup membership issues.....
On 25 August 1999, Planet Communications Computing Facility <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Look William. A skinner reaction is normal. Alot of people have them, >conditioning starts at birth. It's either that or your a fag like my >ol'uncle walt. He says it's a fag's business to be a busy body - and i've >givin up arguing with him on that score. He's like you, he's gotta get in >there and nibble at every bone he see's. We love uncle Walt anyway. I've >never seen a heterosexual exibit these degrees of afliction. Not only are you persistent in speaking up for Jeff Williams, but now you feel the need to discriminate and/or bias on the basis of sexual orientation, and use a derogatory term while doing it. Come back when you grow up.
Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Ben - I may need to take you up on that offer of the dial-in. I'm trying to listen to the archive of the ccTLD meeting from yesterday, and getting the same firewall issues I usually have (not available via http). Of course, I'll only need the dial-in for certain if the other webcasts are going to be the same as the stuff currently on www.reuna.cl/icann/ram/*.ram. If you're going to be using a completely different setup, it's still an open question. Thanks, Mark
Re: [IFWP] Government takeover of Internet (fwd)
I will also demand that you refrain from posting private e-mail without the prior written consent of the author. However, since you chose to ignore that particular convention as well, I'll go ahead and point out that where I said MTA I of course meant to say MUA. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Government takeover of Internet (fwd)
Again, I ask you publically to stop posting in MIME-encapsulated HTML. Thank you. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org On 23 August 1999, Planet Communications Computing Facility <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, > while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. > Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. > >--7F7D803DC88D65756D1D8056 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii >Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >We have just finished a distribution of pr on behalf of ICANN. As a >member of ICANN we felt the membership base is unrepresentative of the >internet community. > >We have identified the following groups of interested parties: > > Small Business > Anarchists > Pornographers > Christian / Religious > Spanish / French > >We've reached out to them and anticipate they will join us via remote in >Santiago. > >We have also complained (unofficially) to Mr. Twomey's government. > >Santiago 1999 - oley! > >Regards >Jeff Mason > >keeping the internet free of government - because we care ;-) > >-- Forwarded message -- >Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:48:38 -0400 >From: Planet Communications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Government takeover of Internet > >Hello: > >We are providing notice we object to comments made by Australian >representative Paul Twomey with respect to government takeover of the >internet. We will be entering a fomal objection and with to inform you >of our shock. > >http://www.pccf.net/references/icann/GAC-video.html > >--7F7D803DC88D65756D1D8056 >Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=us-ascii; NAME="GAC-video.html" >Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Description: > > >Government takeover of Internet > > > > > > >Do you trust this man and his government buddies to run and control the > internet for you? > > >Dr. Paul Twomey works for the Government of Australia as the Chief Executiv >e Officer of the >National Office for the Information Economy. Dr. Twomey was appointed by the >Australian and United >States governments to impose government regulation on the internet. Dr. Twome >y is the chairman of the >Government Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names a >nd Numbers (ICANN). >They want to tax domain names and your internet connection. >ICANN was establsihed by the United States government to represent the interne >t community - >THAT'S YOU. Help save ICANN from a government >takeover - participate - join - vote. ICANN is your organization > http://www.pccf.net/references/icann/help-icann.html"> >CLICK HERE FOR WAYS YOU CAN HELP !. > > > > > > > >Real video presentation: Government official warns of government takeover of i >nternet >SRC="loony-19990525.rpm" >WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=100 >CONSOLE=one >CONTROLS=ImageWindow >BACKGROUNDCOLOR=white >CENTER=true >AUTOSTART=true >> > > > > >If this video does not display in an embedded JAVA window - CLICK >HERE to >display in a separate window - you need the real video plugin to view this cli >p. > > > > > > > > >--7F7D803DC88D65756D1D8056-- >
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
persuade the members of the group running the discussion, who do not have the luxury of large screens in front of them from which to read. Indeed, I believe you've mentioned previously that providing this for them (at least in Esther's case) was more of a burden than a hindrance. Since they cannot and/or will not read the unadulterated remote submissions, it becomes even more crucial that the remote participants have their voice heard as they intended, and not as interpreted by someone who is not the ultimate target of the message. Interpretation is half the communication process. > >Finally, I guess I just don't quite understand what you would all suggest >instead of excerpting and, in a major time crunch, summarizing. We're going >to have a lot of remote comments, I expect. Too many to read all of in >their entirety -- not enough hours in the meeting, and we certainly wouldn't >want to start speed-reading outloud (mumbling, slurring syllables, etc.) >which would surely hurt non-native speakers not to mention the simultaneous >translators. Is there data on this? At the June 26th NC meeting, there were only a handful of comments, and plenty of time in which to deal with them. The concerns of the stakeholders should not be ignored, put off, folded, spindled, or mutilated because of time constraints. If there's not enough time to adress the major concerns, then I suggest that the schedule needs to be altered. If there's not enough time to reasonably address the concerns even with altering the schedule, then I argue that this further demonstrates that physical meetings are costly, wasteful, and ineffective. Without the ability to address substantive concerns of the stakeholders, these meetings are just publicity ploys. Unless they were never intended to be 'working meetings', and instead are just social events. >Ultimately, I'm not at all convinced that it would be "better" >(according to my own values, admittedly) to recognize forty remote comments >in the course of the day for a minute each than a hundred for 20 seconds >each, especially if we can properly capture the central point of each of the >hundred comments. In short, facing limited time, I prefer giving everyone a >little turn of remote participation, not of giving the first few in the >virtual line an exceptionally big turn. Will the number of people making the same point be read into the record? If one person makes a point, that's one thing. If a hundred (as you predict) all raise the same issue, the weight of numbers should be firmly and clearly communicated to the body running the meeting. This would be akin to the entire room rising up and demanding an answer to a question. Yet, somehow, summarizing all of these into a few sentences and having the summary read by a disinterested party loses this impact. And this is a perfect example of the disparity between physical and remote participation. We're social animals, and we're designed to react to contextual cues in expression, posture, tone of voice, volume, cadence, speed, idiom, etc. All of this is taken away from the remote participants, and then further distilled by the summarization process. It may sound trivial, but it's not. There are valid, reporoducable psychological differences between written and oral communication. These physical meetings that, by your own admission, cannot possibly hope to address the issues brought forth in them serve to provide a subtle but important advantage to those who can afford to attend, while handicapping those who cannot. > >All that said, I too don't like the idea of filtering comments. If we got a >reasonable number of short, clear, non-overlapping comments, I'd certainly >not be at all inclined to filter or excerpt in any way. To the extent that >each of you can help on this front -- keeping messages as short as possible, >rereading and editing messages to make them more clearly worded, not using >the realtime comment submission system as a realtime chat (rather using the >realtime chat for that purpose!) -- I encourage you to do so. > This is not the first time the issue of summarization within a forum has come up, and it won't be the last. However, except for cases where there is a very, very, very distinct line to be found between signal and noise, it has usually been thought wisest to avoid opening this particular Pandora's box. And I think it can be safely argued that this instance is not one where signal and noise are so clearly delineated by the whole, let alone by one person. > >The timer, incidentally, is flexible in its duration -- I take my >instruction from the chair and set the clock to whatever length is >requested. It's been my experience in the past that most chairs are pretty >lenient towards those who don
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
On 22 August 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO, we should lighten up a bit. Rabid bean counting somewhat >defeats the pu rpose of having meetings in different regions of the >world. One of the primary values is to give folks outside the US a >little more bandwidth; to let someone else have th e kind of >face/voice time that Americans have had for quite a while now. >Making ever yone play by the same Word Meter seems to me to be >counterproductive to that effort , especially for those who've made >the effort to travel to Santiago. But Diane, this isn't what the physical meetings do. All they do is ensure that those with the money (i.e., those with corporate backing) get to have meetings without all the annoyance of those who participate online, and there will be a smallish contingent of people from whichever host country is chosen. That's it. There may be a few people who can afford to pay out of their own pocket to show up, or those who can manage to get their Constituencies to chip in and put them there, but the single overriding factor will be: Who's got the deepest pockets, who's got the corporate backing? And that particular group is always going to be the same people, no matter where the meetings are held. It becomes, in essence, a nice trip for the core corporate players in these proceedings, and a convenient way to get away from everyone online. ...and those people aren't all Anglo American Males. But it's always the same contingent of people from around the world. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt doubling for legitimate outreach on the part of ICANN, coupled with an exclusionary tactic. > There are a couple other factors to consider. The Net debate is >conducted usin g English, a language that is native to you and me, >but is not always so easy fo r the rest of the planet to use >succinctly. Also, Net access is very, very cheap in most parts of >the US; however, as you know, this is not the case in the rest of the >world. My point is that we do no service to Peruvians, Chileans or >Brazilians by enfo rcing these conditions harshly. Why not let the >Meeting Chair use some discretion b ased on how easy it seems for the >speaker to get his/her point across? Unless the various groups there will be conducting their meetings in a language other than English (not translated, but actually holding the meetings in something other than English) this becomes a moot point. ...and what makes you think that the average person in these non-US countries, who wants so badly to participate, will more easily be able to travel to whatever location ICANN has chosen, than to afford some form of e-mail access? If you think that sitting in silence (no network), waiting for ICANN to deign to bring their travelling roadshow to their host country is sufficient as a method of inclusion, you're very, very wrong. -- Mark C. LangstonLATEST: ICANN refuses Let your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to consider application for http://www.idno.org Systems AdminConstituency status from organized http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA individual domain name owners http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] MCI and Cisco bail out ICANN
On 20 August 1999, "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >http://www.dnspolicy.com/news/99/08/20/1439239.shtml > >$650,000 in loans, as part of a $2M target sum ICANN is seeking to >enable it to start paying the bills. > >Perhaps as Interim President, Mike Roberts should waive his salary for >one year, that alone would give ICANN over half of what it is seeking. I heard it was IBM and MCI/WorldCom, not Cisco. Either way, MCI should be more worried about keeping its ATM clouds functional than keeping Esther Dyson in the public eye. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] IDNO letter
On 20 August 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) wrote: > >Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be >*represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens. >Although the process is certainly messy, the concerns of individuals and >individuals' rights are now being heard within the DNSO working groups - >although perhaps not as effectively as they should be. Making sure that >that process works is where I think we should be focusing our attention >right now. Esther - As long as there is no voting representation for individuals on the Names Council, participation within the Working Groups is meaningless. Give us a seat at the table. Sincerely, -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
On 5 August 1999, "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate >remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, <http://www.icann.org>), which will >take place in Santiago, Chile on August 24-26, 1999. > >Options for online participation will include a RealVideo webcast in >English, Spanish, and Portuguese; a system for the submission of real-time >comments directly to the meeting room itself; real-time scribe's notes; and >real-time chat among online meeting participants. Ben - It's been mentioned several times now that there would be some form of real-time chat available. However, there's no information on any such setup on the Berkman Center's pages. Should we just assume that comments will be dealt with in the same manner that they were in San Jose? I certainly hope not, because that pretty much eliminated the weight of comments from anyone not in the room. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] Cover of 'Metro' - Story on Cybersquatting
For those of you who don't live in Silicon Valley, there's a weekly paper called "Metro" that comes out on Thursdays. This week's (Aug. 19-25, 1999 Vol. 15, No. 25, San Jose) cover story is "Squat Busters" -- an article that looks at the issue of cybersquatting from both angles. There's a related story, "Bush Fire", regarding Exley's www.gwbush.com site, and George W.'s reaction to it. >From the front cover: "Internet domain names have become the real estate of the future. They've become political soapboxes and lucrative business assets. As small operators hit paydirt with dot.com registrations and Web sites begin to influence elections, big business and the political right have struck back. Their latest assault on free speech and net culture is an attempt to criminalize trademark dilution. A bill just passed the Senate almost unnoticed. Should the state use police powers to regulate Internet domain use?" Interesting reading. Sadly, the new stories aren't yet up at http://www.metroactive.com/metro , but I'd imagine they should be soon. Among the points the story makes is that "just about every word in the dictionary is trademarked at least once, and often several times over with one or more of the 48 different types of trademarks. [...] 'idea' appears in 195 registered trademakrs. The word 'idea' itself is registered 22 times." -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] Agenda for Aug 12 ICANN meeting
For those who may not have seen it, here's the agenda for ICANN's meeting today: August 12, 1999 - Special Meeting via Telephone The Initial Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers will conduct a special meeting via telephone on August 12, 1999, at 9:00 am U.S. East Coast time for the following purposes: - Update on status of registrar accreditation and SRS testbed programs; - Update on status of discussions with U.S. Department of Commerce and Network Solutions, Inc.; - Update on status of Task Force on Finance; and - Review of public comments and action on proposed amendments to the Bylaws relating to DNSO Names Council representation. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] ICANN meeting scheduled for August 12
On 9 August 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) wrote: >THe board meeting in Santiago, where substantive issues will be discussed, >will be open. Hope to see you there! Or please attend via the Webcast! > >Esther Esther, what is the agenda for the August 12 ICANN board meeting? Thank you. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] Vixie to RBL NSI?
Apparently Paul Vixie sent mail to a mailing list of RBL subscribers and
interested 3rd parties, is seriously considering blackholing NSI for
spamming its customer base.
I don't want to get into whether the RBL is a good or bad thing. I've
used and recommended it in the past, and I understand Paul's position
on UCE.
However, given how NSI manages its registry, and given the number of
systems subscribed to the RBL, this would have an...interesting impact
on NSI's ability to continue to do business.
(I apologize for the formatting. The copy I saw was all one huge
run-on line.)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:02:14 -0700
From: Paul A Vixie
Subject: possible RBL event coming up involving NSI
---
Blind-Carbon-Copy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: possible RBL event coming up involving NSI
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:02:14 -0700
From: Paul A Vixie
You are receiving this because you are either an interested outsider,
or a staff member or volunteer, or a customer of M.A.P.S., LLC. Note
our new domain name, mail-abuse.org. (The old maps.vix.com domain name
gave some the false impression that MAPS was not a separate company.)
Today we received the letter below from NSI in response to our
repeated attempts to get them to stop sending unsolicited bulk
commercial e-mail to all domain holders. In this letter, NSI implies
that they will sue us for damages and incite entities like Amazon.com
to do likewise if we decide to blackhole them, and then go on to say
that they have no intention of stopping the current business practice
of these which caused our complaints. They are pretty much daring us
to blackhole them. The board of MAPS, LLC will make its final
determination in the next few days, and if we do decide to blackhole
NSI it's going to get ugly. As an interested party, we want you all to
know what's happening.
= July 30, 1999
VIA FIRST CLASS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Nick Nicholas, Executive Director
Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC
950 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: Nomination of NSI for Black List
Dear Mr. Nicholas:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your email to me dated
July 16, 1999, regarding the Realtime Blackhole List ("Black List")
managed by the Mail Abuse Prevention System LLC. Enclosed is a copy of
a letter I sent today to Mr. James Wagner, President of Hypertouch,
Inc., the complainant who apparently prompted your July 16 email to
me. Network Solutions has removed Mr. Wagner's name from its mailing
list. As noted in the letter, Mr. Wagner could have avoided receiving
the subject email in the first place had he simply followed the
mailing list removal procedure specified in an email transmitted to
him on March 30, 1999. There can be no doubt that Network Solutions
has an existing business relationship with the administrative,
technical and billing contacts for a given domain name registered with
Network Solutions. These people are the principal points of contact
through which Network Solutions transacts business with its
customers. They have been so designated by our customers in their
domain name registration agreements with Network Solutions. These are
precisely the types of relationships that the California legislature
wanted to shield from the restrictions contained in its unsolicited
email statutes. Indeed, the statute's protection of communications
between persons involved in existing business relationships reflects
the state's determination that such communications are not "spam," but
rather vital catalysts to free and open commerce. We are aware of no
law that prohibits companies from communicating with their own
customers. We respectfully suggest that MAPS and any other person
involved in the compilation and dissemination of the Black List adopt
a definition of spam that is consistent with the principles recognized
by California. Any more expansive definition is overly broad and may
unreasonably restrain trade. Indeed, it is apparent that Mr. Wagner's
principal concern about Network Solutions' emails is the competitive
threat they represent to his company's ISP business. Those emails
reference Internet companies that are competitors of Mr. Wagner's
company, Hypertouch, Inc. It appears Hypertouch, Inc. hopes to shelter
itself from such competition by combining with those who control the
Black List and its technology to restrain such competition. If
inclusion on the Black List will effectively block Network Solutions
from contacting 40% of the Internet, as you claimed in your email of
July 29, 1999, MAPS's actions would have severe and irreparable
consequences on the company's relationship with its customers.
Network Solutions has over 5,000,000 customers. Consequently, if you
place Network Solutions on the Black List, 2,000,000 (40%) of its own
customers presumably would be unable to receive important information
from Network Solutions, including invoices and deactivation notices,
possibly leading to the
Re: Re[4]: [IFWP] Suggestions Requested: Real-Time Chat Software or Sites
On 30 July 1999, "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Friday, July 30, 1999, 1:10:44 PM, Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro >te: > >> At 12:47 PM 7/30/99 -0700, you wrote: >>>Friday, July 30, 1999, 12:37:33 PM, Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >>> >>>> Look at http://www.activeworlds.com >>> >>>> No matter what you write or find, you won't find >>>> anything more suited to what you want than this. >>> >>>Activeworlds is quite nice, however it has draw backs. >>>It is quite CPU intensive, it is not multiplatform, requires >>>registration for the best experience (which is a cost of $20/user I >>>believe, it's been a while) and then you are depending on a server >>>that another company is running. > >> It doesn't run well in under 32M. Apart from that, it works fine. > >> There are emulators on the mac and unix that can run it on other >> platforms. > >I've used wine under linux, and graphic intense apps don't run very >well at all. Even simple graphic viewers in email clients have a hard >time. Its far from ready for primetime. It's also quite possible that people stuck with various unices (Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.) don't have the option, as a user, to install anything like this. IRC, however, actually stands a chance of already being installed. And if it's not, telnet is. And you can set up the IRC server to automatically connect a telnet to it to the appropriate client and channel. If the user's stuck on unix, can't install anything, doesn't have IRC, and can't telnet out, then chances are nothing that would be proposed would work. Of course, someone could volunteer to call them and read the conversation to them. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: Re[4]: [IFWP] Suggestions Requested: Real-Time Chat Software or Sites
On 30 July 1999, "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Friday, July 30, 1999, 1:06:05 PM, Richard J. Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro >te: > > >> There's a handful of these products - Esther is invested in >> one, but for my money the best one is activeworlds.com. > >But we need a solution that works now, and for the most people, >without cost, and none of those solutions provide for this except for >an IRC like solution. > Seconded. IRC offers the most flexibility for the most people at the least cost, and has been "fireproofed" in the field for years. If the solution *requires* (not offers as an alternative) Java, Javascript, ActiveX, a particular OS, a particular interface/client, or a particular point/method of access, you've just eliminated a certain number of people. For all it's faults (which are mainly faults found in the people using the software, not the software itself), IRC minimizes all of those. As for avatar-based software: yes, it re-introduces some of the physical cues that are lost in text-only interaction. However, it's computationally intensive, platform-specific, requires a certain minimum of CPU/OS/browser, etc. IRC can be used on an 8086 with a DOS-based client and a modem. Can avatar-based software say that? Will those people in isolated or developing nations have access to 400MHz PIIs with 128MB RAM and the latest copies of Java(script), ActiveX, the browser, etc.? Using IRC? Simple. Install the program. Find out the name of the server. Type "irc yourname servername" Find out the name of the channel the discussion is being held in. Type "/join #channelname" and from there on in, you read the output, and you just type whatever it is you want to say. And with a simple command (which I forget offhand) you can tell the progam to save in a simple text file every bit of the conversation. It's not that complicated. And like William mentions, there are several web-based interfaces that Berkman Center could install for those who don't already have, or don't understand, or can't use the text-based or all the myriad GUI clients. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Suggestions Requested: Real-Time Chat Software or Sites
On 30 July 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>IRC is probably your best bet, and then use a Java client on the >>website to access it. > >It you want to stage WW III, IRC is probably the place to do it. > So you're in agreement then, Richard? :) -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Re: vix
On 29 July 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > >> you have scared him off with your idiot postings. You two have >> destroyed the credibility of the IFWP. > >Is there a pattern here? Two people destroy the credibility of IDNO >and thus of indiv representation in a more or less formal means of >administering the net; two people destroy the credibility of a (very >informal) channel for the net's administering itself... If its the net >that is producing these crack teams, what's the next target? The >phone company? Hell no! We're busy using the power of our minds to induce minute but fatal flaws in the transoceanic fiber! Didn't you get the memo? -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Distributed DNS (was Re: [IFWP] Double ditto)
On 25 July 1999, Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > >At this point, what the Net needs is a more distributed DNS, one that has >no single control point. What we have instead is ICANN, which is >attempting to control not just the domain name system but the entire >Internet. There is no need to speculate as to motives; as I said in >my earlier posting, the one great lesson of the twentieth century is >that concentrating power in one point is a recipe for disaster. > >What we need is diversity and variety, the opposite of what ICANN has on >offer. For an example, consider routing. Routing across the Internet is >handled by a large variety of organizations: ISPs of all sizes, schools, >Internet exchanges of all types (the MAEs are owned by Worldcom, the >LINX in London is a co-op of sorts, I believe that the exchange at CERN >is funded by a consortium of governments, etc), trans-national corporations, >and so forth and so on. There are now more than 12,000 autonomous systems, >each at least potentially representing a different routing policy. The >fearsome power of the Internet comes in large part from the ease with >which anyone can plug into the Internet backbone and pour money and time >into their own notion of how things ought to be done. > >This approach works. The approach taken in designing the DNS doesn't. The more I think about this, the more I agree with this. Is there anyone who could post a list detailing the locations of current proposals for setting up and administering such a system? >From a purely technical perspective, this sounds like it would evolve into something resembling Usenet distribution. This may not be a bad thing. Perhaps we could explore this avenue a bit? -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
On 23 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. ...and ICANN will be enforcing a charge of what, per IP block? -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Congressional Hearings - Soundbyte
On 22 July 1999, Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My nomination for the best soundbyte of today's Congressional Hearing on >"Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?" > >"Consensus is a lot like pornography. You know it when you see it." > > (Sorry, I don't have attribution). > >Is there consensus on this view? That's ridiculous. Consensus is measurable. As such, it *should* be measured. To do otherwise is to invite those with the loudest voices to decide what issues have consensus. Furthermore, without measured consensus, you lose accountability. What may be 'obvious consensus' to some is split opinion to others. Unless there's some way to tally who agrees with what, today's consensus becomes history's hand-waving. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On 19 July 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>What level would be fair? I don't know. But as domains currently >>cost an individual $35 a year, one would hope the cost would be lower >>than this. > >$5 - $10. There was some consenss on this in Geneva. Sounds great to me, but I'll bet that ICANN claims this wouldn't be enough to support them. If this happens, ICANN itself would be arguing in favor of commercial interests who could afford to pay. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On 19 July 1999, Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > >ICANN is tasked to administer names and addresses. Its stakeholders are >those who have names and addresses or provide infrastructure and services >related to same. In order to have an IP address or register a domain name, >one must have access to computer hardware and connectivity. Those who can >afford such access most likely can afford a nominal membership fee. Those >who cannot, probably likewise do not care about these complex, convoluted >technical issues. > >Membership dues, however minimal, provide a form of accountability for >voting purposes. That's a reasonable quid pro quo for participating in the >vote. > >I understand that one problem with collecting a membership fee is that it >will cost more to administer this than will be collected if the fee is low. >OTOH, no membership fee means higher costs of authentication for voting. >By collecting a membership fee, some authentication is built into the >processing of the registration. > >I suggest that MAC reconvene, go back to the virtual drawing boards, focus >on who are the stakeholders of this corporation, not on some great >humanitarian outreach for all mankind, and develop a proposal that ties >voter authentication through membership fees, even if they are nominal or >on a sliding scale. Otherwise, the current membership recommendations are >as pie-in-the-sky as ICANN's $5.9 million budget. I would almost be willing to go along with this, except for one VERY large and quite real fear: That the "nominal membership fee" would be set at a level that would preclude the participation of non-organizational, non-commerical, individual domain name owners. What level would be fair? I don't know. But as domains currently cost an individual $35 a year, one would hope the cost would be lower than this. Any amount over $100 would be outrageous. It would also effectively eliminate any form of self-representation for those individuals. While there are those that would desire that outcome, there are others who would very loudly protest any such attempt as an effort to exclude the individual in favor of commercial interests. Unfortunately, I can't think of any method to implement a slding scale that would work. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On 19 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 07:16:28PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: [...] >> 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? > Sure thing, Kent. >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. Congrats, Kent. you've discovered skript-kiddies. Now, would you care to tell us, of all those scripted attacks perpetrated by people who mostly have no clue what they're doing, what percentage would be willfully manipulating the voting system in a meaningful manner for ICANN? > >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. > Ditto. >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. > And anyone who runs a system that is vulnerable to such easily-obtained scripted attacks has probably been vulnerable for some time, and will continue to be. you and I both know it, Kent, so don't make it out as something more than irresponsible sysadminning. The hackers weren't talented. The sysadmins were lazy. And it's irrelevant, unless the voting system is being run on such a host. > >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. > I've been in similar situations. My personal system sees around 5-10 attempts a day. They don't bother me. For exactly the reasons I outline above, and because I know I maintain the system well enough to thwart 99% of all attacks. The 1% (or less than 1%) who might actually pose a threat would have no interest in my system. And if they did, there's enough system-level security in place to ensure they are caught. It's not rocket science, Kent. Run a secure system, you can stop worrying about whether all the software is protected from the trojanning you've got to great lengths to play up in this conversation. >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. > So you're saying that the ICANN voting system would come under the same cracker interest as systems that potentially hold US nuclear secrets? Somehow, I don't think so. (NOTE: by 'potentially', I mean that a cracker may think the system holds such information. It has no bearing on whether the system does indeed hold such information, or is even in a position to help the cracker acquire access to such information.) [...] >> 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. > I'll ask them if they'd be willing to provide it. >> 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. Gosh, Kent. So do I. Guess we both speak with authority on this, then. > >> 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? I don't know, Kent, because I don&
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On 19 July 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >The problem is that we were talking of the vote at IDNO as an example for >the electronic vote for the elections of the ICANN Board. > >Maybe I should not, but I personally tend to care less about how an election >in a working group is held, and more on how "the" ICANN election is held. Fair enough. However, Kent is not only a member of the working group, he's a candidate for the co-chair position, which will be chosen via this election process (whatever it may be). Since he's talking about what is and is not a good method for conducting such an election, I find this interesting. > >Kent is stating that he would not consider Joop as a "trusted third party" >for the ICANN Board election. If I interpret correctly your posting, I think >that you don't consider Javier fit for the purpose either ;>). > It wasn't meant as an attack against Javier. I was merely pointing out that Kent is a willing participant in a system that is the antithesis of the one he proposes above. Also, I thought that Kent's reference to Joop was specifically limited to Joop's responsibility for the polling software currently in use to elect committee members for the IDNO, and that Kent was exhibiting his disapproval of Joop's hand in those elections. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. >Personal considerations aside, I think that we need to find a way that >satisfies everybody, and that everybody can trust. I agree wholeheartedly. I am very much in favor of using an outside arbiter, such as the AAA, or any other nonpartisan, professional third party. At this point, it's the best solution I've heard. Anything less will only lead to dissatisfaction and recriminations from one side or another. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On 19 July 1999, Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > >2. Use of multiple vote counting sites. And while you're answering questions Kent, would you explain why you hold the IDNO to a higher standard than the working groups and the pDNC? Both have held votes administered by partisans. WG-C will be electing its chair by a vote administered by a partisan. WG-C does not even have an accurate roll, or even a current list of the candidates. For that matter, I'm unclear as to the date, time, duration, and methodology to be employed in this vote. And yet, Mr. Sola's nomination period closes this evening. And if you're going to trot out the issue regarding differences between voting software and open roll-call votes, I'll point out that many of us sat and watched a fiasco of "open roll-call voting" during the 6/25 San Jose meeting. No actual roll was called, and Michael miscounted the vote no fewer than 3 times, as I recall. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Voter authentication
On 18 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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.] 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. 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. 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. 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. However, unless you want to move this conversation over to Bugtraq, I don't recommend you push this FUD further. 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. At some point, you must draw the line and place some initial faith in the person running the system, and the system itself. Period. Otherwise, every system out there has already been compromised, and is just running an incredibly convincing trojanned version of the shell, OS, scheduler, etc. Now, if you'd like to debate security matters in a more realistic world, I'm more than willing. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On 17 July 1999, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 01:33 PM 7/17/99 , Mark C. Langston wrote: >>Would this be your day job with a company that was rife with Chinese >>spies? >> >>I wouldn't exactly trot that out as support for your abilities, Kent. > > >Nor, Mark, should you lay claim to any skills at logic. > >You live in San Jose, in California. There is a long list of offenses >committed in San Jose, in California, and in the United States. Clearly >the fact of your being a part of these environs makes you guilty of not >preventing those offenses. Very true, Mr. Crocker. But then, I don't run around claiming to be a cop here, either. Doesn't Kent have other perceived threats you should be helping him suppress somewhere?
Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose?
On 17 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...snip going on about how process and accountability are paramount in the effort to ensure the roots are Y2K-compliant...] Gosh, Kent. If only you desired that sort of rigor in all aspects of Net management. Or, perhaps you just don't deem all of this work as important as the root servers. Or, more accurately, perhaps you only resort to this kind of rigor when you think it will best serve your needs.
Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose
On 17 July 1999, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 06:07:02AM +1200, Andy Gardner wrote: >> >> Stick to your day job. > >Security is my day job. Would this be your day job with a company that was rife with Chinese spies? I wouldn't exactly trot that out as support for your abilities, Kent. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership & supermajorities
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Mark C. Langston wrote: > >> Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on >> by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN >> owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thing. > >Did I misunderstand Richard's question? Sorry, no. I think I did, mistaking the $1/use idea below for the $1/domain name fee being imposed by ICANN. > >> voted unanimously to make anybody with a nameserver >> pay $1 everytime sombody used it for a lookup and >> if you didn't pay this you couldn't run a nameserver -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership & supermajorities
On 15 July 1999, Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Further, ICANN isn't a government with guns to enforce such a policy. If such >a decision was intolerable to the greater number of the constituents having to >pay it, would it really fly at all? Oh, we will get a choice? I was under the impression it would be passed on by the registrars, and therefore be made part of the contract between DN owner and registrar. Thus, it's not an optional thing. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
[IFWP] Javier, what are you doing?
Javier, I'm confused. First, you complain about people crossposting to wg-c as well as wg-c-1. Then, you personally post one of these crossposts to wg-c-1, even though you've claimed that everyone there would have already received it not once, but twice. ( http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c-1/Archives/msg00050.html ). For the past day at least, conversations have been taking place regarding the mechanism for determining consensus, without a decision on the mechanism. Last night, you make a call for consensus on one of the questions before wg-c-1 ( http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c-1/Archives/msg00058.html ). Before, I note, a co-chair for the WG exists, when the model currently under consideration for determining consensus involves the chairs and a Reporter (a position which also has not yet been filled). Yesterday afternoon, I request to be added to wg-c-1, and a few hours later, I request that I be added to wg-c-2. Last night, you add me only to wg-c-2, with no explanation. I'm bothered enough that the pDNC has appointed you, a signatory of the gTLD-MoU, a member of the BoT of ISOC, a member of the PAB and POC, as the chair of the group that will decide questions regarding the existence and management of gTLDs. It troubles me further that you also control the subscription processes surrounding this WG, which you've broken into 4 seperate lists. What, exactly, is going on here? -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast
On 12 July 1999, "Ben Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark C. Langston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this >> teleconference, I'm unaware of it. > >I believe there was no remote participation today because there NC was not >meeting in a single room, so the traditional means of remote >participation -- displaying text comments on an LCD projector -- was >unavailable. That said, it's not hard to imagine other ways to allow remote >participation. For example, text messages might be sent to a trusted >moderator who reviews them and reads at least certain messages to the >teleconference. I'll suggest as much to the names council and attempt to >make it happen *IF* they're interested. That would be great. >> Assuming, >> of course, that you are not stuck behind a firewall and unable to >> access such feeds via any method other than an HTTP stream. > >For the one person who was behind a firewall last time (and wrote to me >during the teleconference last time explaining as much), Berkman provided >listen-only access via a telephone link. To date, no one else has contacted >me expressing trouble accessing the feed from behind a firewall. That was me, actually. Please don't take any of this as a complaint, but rather as constructive criticism. I appreciate the effort and time required to set something like this up. While I may be the only one complaining at this point, I find it hard to imagine that this will always be the case, and I would think that making things as easy to access as possible would be the ultimate goal. Having said that, I'll say this: If you can fill me in with OS and Real product version info, I'll see if I can figure out how to change things so that the broadcast is available via HTTP as well. I think I made this offer last time as well, but I may not have been clear. [...snip] > >> Shouldn't the responsibility for making these >> meetings open and accessible for both passive listening and active >> participation be the responsibility of the pDNC and *not* the Berkman >> Center? > >I'm not sure I understand what you mean -- I just don't see the problem with >the NC-Berkman relationship as it currently stands. To clarify, the NC >asked Berkman to webcast the meetings for them, and since we have the >necessary skills and equipment, we agreed to do so. I for one think it's >important to make the process as open as possible, but I realize every >organization doesn't have the ability to webcast. So, to the extent that >it's possible, I'm happy to help make available important content like the >DNSO teleconferences and ICANN's 4/21 press conference. What's wrong with >that? Nothing, as such. Perhaps I'm unclear on the relationship. Is the NC paying Berkman for these services, or is it voluntary? My point here is that the NC has a responsibility to make these processes open, and I'm questioning their diligence in this aspect, while trying not to sound like I'm criticising Berkman, as I am not. > >Were it not for us, it's conceivable that the teleconference might not have >been webcast at all, though of course it's also possible that the NC would >have made other arrangements, perhaps through broadcast.com or the >RealBroadcast Network, though it's not clear whether using a commercial >broadcast provider rather than Berkman would address your concern. My only concern here is that the process is open and available to as many people as possible. The provider is not really an issue, as long as the openness is present. > >> Because as things now stand, if there's a question about the openness >> (or lack thereof) of these meetings, the pDNC can just point to >> Harvard and say, "Talk to them. If there are problems, it's not >> something we're handling". That doesn't feel very kosher to me. > >If you've got a problem with the way the NC is handling these meetings, your >problem could be with either the NC or with Berkman. If your complaint is >of the form "the webcast didn't work," that's probably a complaint best >addressed to me, simply because I'm the one most likely to be able to fix >the problem for you. But if your complaint is of the form "the current pNC >has been illegitimate from the start" or "the NC is illegitimate because it >doesn't allow sufficient remote participation," I think you need to talk to >the organizers of the NC (perhaps keeping me in the loop if you're so >inclined). > It's a bit of all of it, really. :) >You may succeed in convinci
Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast
On 12 July 1999, Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council >> teleconf. > >Are they really being so stupid as to hold yet another closed meeting? If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this teleconference, I'm unaware of it. Yes, we can all listen passively to a simulcast via RealAudio, thanks to the Berkman Center. Assuming, of course, that you are not stuck behind a firewall and unable to access such feeds via any method other than an HTTP stream. Which brings to mind a question I had while sitting at home listening to the portion of the feed I could before having to get into the office this morning: Shouldn't the responsibility for making these meetings open and accessible for both passive listening and active participation be the responsibility of the pDNC and *not* the Berkman Center? Because as things now stand, if there's a question about the openness (or lack thereof) of these meetings, the pDNC can just point to Harvard and say, "Talk to them. If there are problems, it's not something we're handling". That doesn't feel very kosher to me. > >Of course that would be a violation of the ICANN bylaws that require open >meetings "to the maximum extent". Well, apparently "open" in this context means those with a certain level of technology and access are free to listen helplessly while the pDNC makes decisions, erroneous statements, and claims of having "consensus" while we are powerless to interject and/or correct in any manner, be it rationally and calmly or otherwise. > >There is *NOTHING* that they can be talking about that requires a closed >session. The names council has no personel matters to discuss, no >contracts being negotiated. Well, there's the matter of who's going to chair all of the WGs. By the time I had to leave for work, they had decided that the pDNC would appoint a chair, but would deign to allow the WG to perhaps elect a co-chair. What power this co-chair would have w.r.t. the pDNC-elected chair is unclear. However, there were several in favor of not allowing the WGs any say in their chairs. > >> If they expect any feeling of legitimacy whatsoever from the GA > >How about from anybody? > >Closed meetings are an insult to all of us, a violation of the organic >documents, and fly in the face of NTIA's letter to Congressman Bliley. You know what's missing here? A well-organized, clear, and very very public paper trail. Oh sure, the documents exist. But they are not all in one place, where things like this become readily apparent. We're not only condemned to repeating our history, we're doing it at net speed. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast
Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council teleconf., I'll state this here, since it's currently being debated: If they expect any feeling of legitimacy whatsoever from the GA regarding the WGs, it would be in the pDNC's best interest if you let the WGs choose their OWN chairs. To impose your own choice of chairs on the WGs via a decision made during a closed teleconference would be a travesty. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
Re: [IFWP] More detail on DNSO WG-A
On 7 July 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-a/Archives/msg6.html > >My God. That's the scariest thing I've ever seen. Is that mailing list for the sole purpose of disseminating information to the WG, without discussion? If you look at: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-a/Archives/ There are 7 messages. All but two of them are from Amadeu. I also note that substituting [b,c,d,e] for a above yields nothing, so I must assume that these other WG mailing lists don't yet exist. If any of the other WGs have organized, met, talked, etc., would someone *please* make a very clear and concise announcement to everyone about it? It's now 7/7/1999, the exact midpoint between the pDNC 6/25/1999 meeting in San Jose, and the self-imposed 3-week deadline for all WGs to report. Has the pDNC changed this deadline such that it only applies to WG-A? Thanks. -- Mark C. LangstonLet your voice be heard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
