Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 06:16 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive! I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved, explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would. Well, thank you for proving my point. It's not that reporters aren't trying, it's that the editors and publishers aren't allowing these stories in their publications. And even when a good story is written, it is not picked up by the wire services. It's exactly as the Spotlight reporter alleged. Jay. P.S. Nick is one of the best reporters covering this debate. None of my comments are directed at him personally. Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whatever that may be in this case? Is that your point, or have I over simplified it? I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this subject" etc. He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length. Nick ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 09:24 AM 8/5/99 , Nick Patience wrote: Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whatever that may be in this case? Is that your point, or have I over simplified it? Hi Nick, Rather than fumble for explanations, I'd rather just continue to describe the symptoms -- the media is *not* telling the World what's going on with ICANN. So far, we have had several "explanations". - Too confusing - Timing However, these seem more like excuses. You're in the business Nick, perhaps you can enlighten us? Why hasn't Mikki's testimony, part of the Congressional record, given under oath and penalty of perjury, not been covered in even *ONE* press report??? Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com P.S. I've changed the order of my cc:'s so that this posting will be part of the permanent record at ICANN. Frankly, it is embarrassing that the establishment of one of the most important organizations in our collective history is fraught with charges of corruption, and a blatant media black- out. It will be interesting to see how historians cover this turbulent period.
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 11:07 AM 8/5/99 -0400, you wrote: At 09:24 AM 8/5/99 , Nick Patience wrote: Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whatever that may be in this case? Is that your point, or have I over simplified it? Hi Nick, Rather than fumble for explanations, I'd rather just continue to describe the symptoms -- the media is *not* telling the World what's going on with ICANN. So far, we have had several "explanations". - Too confusing - Timing However, these seem more like excuses. You're in the business Nick, perhaps you can enlighten us? Not more than that. I certainly haven't been coerced one way or another. I just don't have much time to write anything at the moment, due to other business, regretfully. Why hasn't Mikki's testimony, part of the Congressional record, given under oath and penalty of perjury, not been covered in even *ONE* press report??? I mentioned it, albeit briefly, as I concentrated on the first panel: July 23, 1999 ICANN, NSI Others Put Their Case to Congress By Nick Patience [snip] On the later panels, which had less time than the main group, Mikki Barry of Domain Name Rights Coalition put the case for individuals to have representation within ICANN, which is not yet the case and surprisingly got some support for this position from Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. [snip] Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com P.S. I've changed the order of my cc:'s so that this posting will be part of the permanent record at ICANN. Frankly, it is embarrassing that the establishment of one of the most important organizations in our collective history is fraught with charges of corruption, and a blatant media black- out. It will be interesting to see how historians cover this turbulent period. ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whatever that may be in this case? Is that your point, or have I over simplified it? Well, lok at it this way, how many years has it taken to convince a very smalll handful of reporters that "things are not as they seem" (Maybe Gordon will recoup the first time I called him) yes we've been unable to educate any editors. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
yeah, I do remember when you called memust have been at least 2 years ago you sounded dreadfully reasonable It took other people at least 4 to 6 weeks to convince me that you were part crazy alternic/edns crowd and therefore not taken seriously This stuff is far to much off a multi-headed hydra to be grasped readily. which is why esther dyson can get away with singing praise to the net with one hand while cutting our collective throats with the other. by turning herself into the leading shill for the agents of corporate and government control, etsee is indeed refashioning her role in history Thank you - and none taken that way Jay, I assure you. I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. OK, editors etc are the conduits through which the ICANN story must flow, and cortrect me if I'm wrong, you're saying they're not letting the story get out because they're part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, whatever that may be in this case? Is that your point, or have I over simplified it? Well, lok at it this way, how many years has it taken to convince a very smalll handful of reporters that "things are not as they seem" (Maybe Gordon will recoup the first time I called him) yes we've been unable to educate any editors. This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing. Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN and How it Will Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Jay Fenello wrote: Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). I applaud your efforts, several years strong, to educate the journalists and interested parties. My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. Contributing to the confusion is the "divide and conquer" factor. It's hard to get a profile of the situation because so many issues are being debated simultaneously in a rush to the endgame. Into the middle of what we are told is a bottom-up consensus based decision making process, we have DOJ investigating NSI, Congress investigating ICANN, and the EU entering the melee. This is headspinning activity, even for the most devout followers of the process. It reminds me of the towns that, seeing opportunity for raising their property tax revenue base, develop their hillsides in a mad sweep of construction while the old timers lament the destruction of views and clogging of traffic arteries. Years later, when the building subsides and the policymakers take a breath, they may regret their haste but by then there's a new paridigm in place and a new generation of residents who don't remember what the town looked like when its now densely populated hillsides were open space. I lament that it took eight months of dischord and, finally, involvement of the DOC to get ICANN to hold open meetings; that this is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-based structure but that there is no representation in current decisionmaking of the non-commercial Internet users (a substantial body); that working groups are proceeding to final recommendations although they are not constituted in accord with the ICANN bylaws; that recommendations will be forwarded to an unelected, unaccountable, incomplete and interim body. So, Jay, we pick our battles. But claiming a biased press on these complicated issues simmply isn't one of those I wish to pursue. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Hi Ellen, I too applaud your efforts, several years strong. In actuality, none of us have a monopoly on truth, and it is only through an open exploration of these issues, that a collective truth may emerge. Please continue to fight your battles, just as I will continue to fight mine :-) Jay. At 05:42 PM 8/4/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Jay Fenello wrote: Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). I applaud your efforts, several years strong, to educate the journalists and interested parties. My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. Contributing to the confusion is the "divide and conquer" factor. It's hard to get a profile of the situation because so many issues are being debated simultaneously in a rush to the endgame. Into the middle of what we are told is a bottom-up consensus based decision making process, we have DOJ investigating NSI, Congress investigating ICANN, and the EU entering the melee. This is headspinning activity, even for the most devout followers of the process. It reminds me of the towns that, seeing opportunity for raising their property tax revenue base, develop their hillsides in a mad sweep of construction while the old timers lament the destruction of views and clogging of traffic arteries. Years later, when the building subsides and the policymakers take a breath, they may regret their haste but by then there's a new paridigm in place and a new generation of residents who don't remember what the town looked like when its now densely populated hillsides were open space. I lament that it took eight months of dischord and, finally, involvement of the DOC to get ICANN to hold open meetings; that this is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-based structure but that there is no representation in current decisionmaking of the non-commercial Internet users (a substantial body); that working groups are proceeding to final recommendations although they are not constituted in accord with the ICANN bylaws; that recommendations will be forwarded to an unelected, unaccountable, incomplete and interim body. So, Jay, we pick our battles. But claiming a biased press on these complicated issues simmply isn't one of those I wish to pursue. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. Anxiously awaiting your reply . . . Jay. Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 05:54 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: At 05:34 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: At 05:10 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Ellen Rony wrote: My theory about the coverage of the USG/ICANN story is: this shift of Internet administration to the private sector has so many twists and turns that it isn't easily given to soundbytes. Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP. That's something i can agree with. The issues are very complex and the press is not educated enought to deal with the issues. We recently ran tests on all military dns servers and identified a number of them with vulnerabilities in their bind. We contacted the server admins, and nothing happened. We contacted the senate and nothing happened. Finally we tried the press - they responded, but most of them had no idea what are admin was going on about. And these were serious vulnerabilities. No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive! I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved, explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would. I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this subject" etc. He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length. Nick Anxiously awaiting your reply . . . Jay. Exactly. I don't have to explain who ICANN is every time I utter the acronym. But 90% of reporters do, and people should bear this in mind. It makes for an acronym-filled, dull story and many of these hacks work to extremely tight deadlines that prevents them writing deep analytical pieces with quotes from 12 sources etc etc. Don't expect free daily tech news feeds to give you the deep understanding you require. It just ain't going to happen, it goes against their model. Meanwhile the general daily newspapers serve such a broad audience that doesn't care about this subject on a regular basis. This subject changes so fast, it is very difficult to keep up (I'm doign other things at present and find it difficult to pick it up accurately after just 2 or 3 days). Therefore the papers tend to have broader sweeping approach that often rounds up issues and often steers clear of deep probing, with one or two exceptions from time to time. What happens withithn the hallowed walls of these lists is generally not the most crushing issue facing the people of the world, I'm afraid to say. There are even more important things (in their eyes) happening in the rest of the computer and commuinications industry to occupy them. There are a lot more issues out there than the press can deal with in a way that will sell papers, ads or subscriptions. Nick Finally, we got in touch with someone, who knew someone who ordered the problem fixed, and ended up getting a thank you note from the pentagon. The press were not much help and most of it was due to a complete lack of understanding the issues. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome,
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 06:04 PM 8/4/99 , Nick Patience wrote: No!! Shocker! The press - even the tech trade press didn't understand about vulnerabilities in their bind! Come on, most of the trade press move around beats with reasonable regularity and cannot be expected to have the same level of understanding on EVERY issue as everyone on these lists. Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. We are not talking about rocket science here, although framing the debate as the exploration of the size of a UDP packet certainly supports your claim. Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I can't do that as I don't now of one, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive! I know what you're getting at Jay, but if a hack could get away with writing just what you did as a story, without getting all sides involved, explaining what DNS means, what ICANN is, what NSI does etc etc, and then get it passed an editor they would, or at least I hope they would. Well, thank you for proving my point. It's not that reporters aren't trying, it's that the editors and publishers aren't allowing these stories in their publications. And even when a good story is written, it is not picked up by the wire services. It's exactly as the Spotlight reporter alleged. Jay. P.S. Nick is one of the best reporters covering this debate. None of my comments are directed at him personally. I tried to get one of the most politically-astute UK nationals interested last autumn and I got an abrupt and frankly insulting note fired back shouting, "you're to close to the subject, I don't give a toss about this subject" etc. He wanted the entire story in 400 words by the next morning UK time, then shouted at me for abbreviating Network Solutions Incorporated to NSI. At that point I went back to writing long pieces to my own word length. Nick ___ Nick Patience Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463 http://www.computerwire.com Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Ellen Rony wrote: Nick Patience wrote: Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said: "Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of functions from NSF to NTIA, from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say IFWP." Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it. (...) Bottom line, the story about ICANN is very simple: It's about the establishment of a governance body over the Internet, one that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up consensus building process, one that *isn't*! Show me *one* story written from this perspective that has made its way out to the broad audience of the general daily newspapers, and I'll admit that I was mistaken. I agree with Ellen. I wrote an op ed for a trade paper. I explained ICANN, all the functions, etc. in 630 words as they said I had to do. They said they would use the story. Then they said rewrite it all over again in 500 words. They gave me 10 new questions to answer and told me I had 2 hours to do so. I even did that. And they told me they decided *not* to use it. The point is that the story is being *censored* and kept out of the U.S. press. There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the problem isn't that the story is complicated. The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the dark. Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:27 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote: There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the problem isn't that the story is complicated. Agreed. There are far more complicated storie in the paper every day. The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the dark. ...and so far, successfully. Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
At 10:28 PM 7/28/99 , Ellen Rony wrote: FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. Hi Ellen, FWIW, my theories about a biased press are just that -- theories. Frankly, I don't why this story has not been covered. All that I know for certain is that 1) it *hasn't* been covered, and 2) "confusion" is an explanation that simply doesn't work for me (especially when I have personally described, in no uncertain terms, my perspectives to many of the reporters writing these biased pieces). So what are my perspectives, the ones that the press is refusing to cover? First, that this debate is over control of the Internet -- who will be in control, and what rules and procedures will be used to make decisions. Second, that ICANN has been captured. It has not followed its own by-laws, and it has used every trick in the book to pursue its agenda. In other words, its decision making is not based on bottom-up consensus building, but rather is a continuation of the agenda inherent in the gTLD-MoU. Am I alone in these sentiments? Obviously not. I belong to a relatively large group of participants who are making these claims, claims that were made part of the Congressional record by Mikki Barry's testimony last week. Even Congressman Pickering has echoed these concerns. So where is this covered in the press? If you do a quick Yahoo search for *all* stories about ICANN since July 16th (the day I revealed that several news outlets admitted that they were coordinating information and positions), you get the list below. Notice, not a single story written from the perspective above. The closest we come is the article titled "ICANN Finds Friends at Congressional Hearing - ECommerce Times". And while this article covers just about every perspective presented at last Thursday's hearing, it completely ignores Mikki's testimony. It's as if Mikki never even existed!!! In closing, I repeat -- I don't know why this story is *NOT* getting out. But it's *NOT*, and two and a half years is long enough to wait. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com Yahoo search for News containing "ICANN": - Hearing Turns Into Debate on Obscene Internet Names - NY Times (registration req'd) (07/29/99) - Recriminations Fly in Second ICANN Hearings - AFP (07/28/99) - US Tells Network Solutions To Open Database - Reuters (07/27/99) - Commerce to NSI: Give It Up - Wired News (07/26/99) - NSI Preps Dot Com Directory - TechWeb (07/26/99) - A Planned Internet Yellow Pages Draws Federal Scrutiny - NY Times (registration req'd) (07/26/99) - Registrar NSI expands with search site - Yahoo! News/ZDNet (07/26/99) - Net Governance Will Take Time To Get Right - TechWeb (07/23/99) - ICANN Finds Friends at Congressional Hearing - ECommerce Times (07/23/99) - Commerce Dept. Threatens NSI - Inter@ctive Week (07/23/99) - Network Solutions Finds Itself on the Defensive at Hearing - Washington Post (07/23/99) - Internet Address Company Grilled in Congress - NY Times (registration req'd) (07/23/99) - Jousting Over Internet Addresses - AP (07/23/99) - Commerce department takes aim at NSI - Yahoo! News/ZDNet (07/23/99) - Lawmakers Seek To Speed Internet Name Competition - Reuters (07/23/99) - Network Solutions' 2nd-Quarter Profit Soars - Washington Post (07/23/99) - Domain name registrar slammed - MSNBC (07/22/99) - House subcommittee gives NSI a grilling - News.com (07/22/99) - Domain Players Face the Music - Wired News (07/22/99) - No Dinero, No Domain - Wired News (07/22/99) - Masters of Internet Domains Go to War - Washington Post (07/22/99) - .Web (TM)? - Wired News (07/21/99) - Buying Countries Online - Wired News (07/21/99) - ICANN Drops Registrar Fee - InternetNews (07/20/99) - ICANN opening meetings, deferring fees - Yahoo! News/ZDNet (07/19/99) - U.S. Internet Naming Group Drops Proposed $1 Fee - Reuters (07/19/99) - U.S Again Extends Internet Name Registration Test - Reuters (07/19/99) - Domain Deadline Extended for Second Time - InternetNews (07/19/99) - Advancing a backup plan for placement of Internet address dots - Chicago Tribune (07/18/99)
[IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6 are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally. I Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of typing them directly? Possibly the paste routines automatically inserted linefeeds after a certain number of characters? These possibilities are much less interesting, I know, but far more plausible. Pete ___ Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications Strategies Unlimited http://www.strategies-u.com Mountain View, CA +1 650 941-3438 (voice) +1 650 464-1243 (mobile voice mail) +1 650 941 5120 (fax) -Original Message- From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 3:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Coincidence? Curiously, only Ellen Rony's and my own comments are formatted to make them almost impossible to read! Jay. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html Talkback Trademark conflict is the real ... - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. Amen Coop!! It is truly amazin... - Brad Oestreicher As one who has been closely mon... - Ellen Rony We must give Ester Dyson et al ... - Herb Reed How can we give Esther Dyson a ... - raul salas Don't tout Esther Dyson and som... - Steven Forbis I have a strong feeling there w... - Greg Groth Break ICANN NSI's behaviour ha... - Rolf Sorensen Give Esther Dyson a retirment p... - L. Posner Hello Charles, I take great ... - Jay Fenello Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
Re: [IFWP] RE: Coincidence?
Pete Farmer wrote: For the record, of the 10 feedback comments to Mr. Cooper's op/ed piece, 6 are "on Jay's side," 2 are pro-Dyson, and 2 offer no opinion. Of the 6 "on Jay's side," 4 are formatted normally. Reality check, Jay. Possibly you and Ellen pasted your replies, instead of typing them directly? Possibly the paste routines automatically inserted linefeeds after a certain number of characters? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2298770,00.html I don't ascribe any conspiracy theory here with the formatting of Jay's and my reply. I tried three times to type in my response to the ZDNet piece using the online form for doing so. Each attempt failed, so in frustration I finally sent my comments directly to Cooper and asked him to get them posted. I was, frankly, disappointed that my comments are so hard to read. I rarely contribute feedback comments because there's simply not enough time to do so while reading articles and emails, listening to Congressional hearings, monitoring ICANN's activities, maintaining my website, making a living and being a mom--but Cooper's article was so completely off track that I just had to respond. FWIW, I don't concur with Jay's theories about a biased press. We have not bias but confusion. This evolution of the DNS is complicated, convoluted, and contentious, so it isn't easy to report on the activities of ICANN and the Department of Commerce in terms that the general readership can understand. IMHO, only about a dozen reporters have a good grasp on the issues because they track this process full time and have been on the beat for several years. The business community has been very quiet through all this sturm und drang, and frankly, I question whether most people care. I've seen little evidence that the preponderance of the Internet community is interested in how such decisions are made or who makes them so long as their individual needs for specific domain names are met. So when ICANN speaks of global consensus, it is to laugh. Most people from whom such highly touted consensus is supposedly derived don't even know the issues, the conundrums, the players and antagonists, the organizations, the structure, or the nuances in the meaning of the word "consensus". Among those of us who care, perhaps 2,500 people by my rough estimate, there certainly has been no consensus but rather divisiveness at every turn. I wish I could believe this process is now in a stage of course correction, but IMHO, it's not just Cooper's article but also ICANN that is completely off track. People have asked why I am not participating on a working group. I ask how can such work proceed when the membership structure is not yet in place. Without building a solid foundation, the walls won't stand. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com == ^..^ )6 = ISBN 0879305150(oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
