Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Mr. Simon and Everyone, It is not surprising I am sure to anyone here, that you would take this position. However you assertion here is incorrect as is well known and also well documented as well Craig Simon wrote: > Ken, > > I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words. > > disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst > > 1: a to break apart, rupture; b to throw into disorder > 2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of > > My reading of events was that Postel's directive *reoriented* part of > the system, yes (and out of displeasure with the Green Paper, maybe, but > that's just one conjecture among many), but he did so without breaking > the Internet. > > Is it possible to demonstrate that anyone's "traffic" was interrupted by > the reorientation? > > I'd also like you to comment, if you would Ken, on your new attitude > toward Esther Dyson. I recall you were once a huge fan of hers, and in > early '98 or so you tried to get her to serve as an arbiter of the DNS > controversy. What ever happened with that? > > There's more at > > http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html (search for the word "hello") > and > http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html > > > Craig Simon > > Ken Freed wrote: > > > > Werner -- > > > > What sort of comment would you like? > > He was in a position to impact things, > > He could. He did. What else can I say? > > > > For the historic record on it, > > check out Tony Rutkowki's > > website or Ellen Rony's site. > > Links are posted at -- > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm > > > > Thanks for your interes. > > -- ken > > > > >Ken, > > > > > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from > > >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > > > Internet traffic." > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Werner > > > > > >-- > > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland Respectfully, -- Brian C. Hollingsworth Sr. Legal Advisor, International House of Justice Internet Communications Affairs and Policy Advisory council for Public Affairs and Internet Policy, European Union
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
At 11:54 AM 9/13/99 +0200, you wrote: >Ken, > >It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any >traffic. "did not" is true. "could not" is false. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
incorrect. there was a delay in the updates to the zone files across the network On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Werner Staub wrote: > Ken, > > It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any > traffic. > > Regards, > > Werner > > > Ken Freed wrote: > > > > Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? > > > > "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at > > IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for > > copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially > > disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root > > server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The > > combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed > > the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > > > Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and > > whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? > > -- ken > > > > >Ken, > > > > > >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > >> > > >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of > > >> international protests and Postel's action effectively > > >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > > > > >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not > > >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. > > >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between > > >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path > > >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Werner > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland > > -- > Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland >
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, It is still not correct. Jon Postel's action could not disrupt any traffic. Regards, Werner Ken Freed wrote: > > Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? > > "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at > IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for > copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially > disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root > server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The > combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed > the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and > whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? > -- ken > > >Ken, > > > >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from > >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > >> > >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of > >> international protests and Postel's action effectively > >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > > >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not > >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. > >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between > >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path > >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Franky! ROFLMAO! Unfortunatly no. I don't smoke that rope! Frank Rizzo wrote: > Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that > night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. > > -riz > > At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: > >They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what > >they say. > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Greg and all, > > > > > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > > > > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > > > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > > > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > > > > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > > > to make such a switch at the time. > > > > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > > > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > > > suspicion. > > > > > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > > > show your leadership. > > > > > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > > > error. > > > > > > > > --gregbo > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > > > > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
I didn't inhale. Honest. I was just being polite. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote: > Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that > night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. > > -riz > > > At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: > >They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what > >they say. > > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Greg and all, > > > > > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > > > > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > > > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > > > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > > > > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > > > to make such a switch at the time. > > > > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > > > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > > > suspicion. > > > > > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > > > show your leadership. > > > > > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > > > error. > > > > > > > > --gregbo > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -- > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jeff, you were there, weren't you? Did you smoke with Mr. Postal that night? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. -riz At 2:03 PM -0400 9/10/99, Jeff Mason wrote: >They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what >they say. > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Greg and all, > > > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > > to make such a switch at the time. > > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > > suspicion. > > > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > > show your leadership. > > > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > > error. > > > > > > --gregbo > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > > > >
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
They say that night Jon was smoking some good herb, at least that's what they say. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Greg and all, > > In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" > > DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only > agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description > of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. > > It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority > to make such a switch at the time. > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > > > *sigh* > > > > It's still wrong. > > > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > > statement could not be ignored. > > > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > > dis.rupt.er n > > > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > > suspicion. > > > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > > show your leadership. > > > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > > error. > > > > --gregbo > > Regards, > > -- > Jeffrey A. Williams > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > >
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Greg and all, In accordance with the event at the time "Switching Master Root servers" DID disrupt traffic and DN resolution for a time. Hence I can only agree with the term "Disrupt" as a completely accurate description of the result of Jon Postel's "Switching" Master Root servers. It also should be noted, the Jon Postel had no direct authority to make such a switch at the time. Greg Skinner wrote: > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > *sigh* > > It's still wrong. > > "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. > Jon Postel did *not* do that. > > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > statement could not be ignored. > > As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new > master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a > connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. > > dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, > fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : > RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - > dis.rupt.er n > > About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could > be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a > research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of > a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that > concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse > suspicion. > > Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > > > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? > > Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, > ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are > informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > > > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > > show your leadership. > > In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic > error. > > --gregbo Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. *sigh* It's still wrong. "Redirecting routing" has a specific meaning in Internet literature. Jon Postel did *not* do that. > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > statement could not be ignored. As I said before, it is one thing to temporarily establish a new master root server, and another to disrupt traffic. "disrupt" has a connotation that goes beyond Postel's actions. dis.rupt \dis-'r*pt\ \-'r*p-sh*n\ vt [L disruptus, pp. of disrumpere, fr. dis- + rumpere to]break - more at RUPTURE 1a: to break apart : RUPTURE 1b: to throw into disorder 2: to cause to break down - dis.rupt.er n About the only thing I would agree with is that Postel's actions could be considered politically unwise. In my opinion, in the context of a research Internet, Postel's actions are acceptable. In the context of a multipurpose Internet, in the midst of a serious controversy that concerns root servers, I can understand why his actions would arouse suspicion. Why don't you just say exactly what he did, in plain English? > Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether > ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right > to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Perhaps now that there has been mainstream exposure of what NSI, ICANN, NTIA, etc. have been doing, there are enough people who are informed that a vote will have meaningful results. > Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the > lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please > show your leadership. In my opinion, it is not a personal attack to correct a journalistic error. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Another country heard from. The point in Postel's redirection wasn't the potential disruption of traffic but his assertion of [temporary] power over the root zone. Interestingly, his redirection never brought federal agents to his door. And the Green Paper (proposed rule) wasn't killed. It was replaced by the White Paper (statement of policymaking) as a natural step in the government's rainbow hierarchy. Ken Freed wrote: >Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? > >"Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at >IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for >copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially >disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root >server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The >combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed >the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > >Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and >whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? >-- ken > Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook Co-author ^..^ )6 http://www.domainhandbook.com +1 (415) 435-5010 (oo) -^-- ISBN 0879305150 Tiburon, CAW W [EMAIL PROTECTED] DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Werner and all, I am afraid you are incorrect Werner. The calls into NSI and the NTIA from DN owners were frantic as many DN's were not resolving or doing so very slowly at the time. So much so, that the NTIA had to DIRECT Jon to switch back. He complied reluctantly. Werner Staub wrote: > Ken, > > > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > > statement could not be ignored. The combination of > > international protests and Postel's action effectively > > killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not > disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. > Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between > most of the root server operators and only concerned the path > in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > > Regards, > > Werner > > -- > Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Sorry, the previous post was in relation to the earlier draft. It wasn't that it was disruptive to operations. It was POLITCALLY scary... On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Ken Freed wrote: > Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? > > "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at > IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for > copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially > disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root > server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The > combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed > the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and > whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? > -- ken > > > > > > > >Ken, > > > >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from > >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > >> > >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of > >> international protests and Postel's action effectively > >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > > > >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not > >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. > >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between > >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path > >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland > > > > > -- A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --> It's hot and humid here. <--
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Perseverence furthers. How's this for historic accuracy? "Evidently exhibiting his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" the path used for copying the root zone file to the various root servers, potentially disrupting global Internet traffic. Performed in conjunctionwith root server operators, this act of civil disobedience could not be ignored. The combination of international protest and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Now, can we get on with discussing the real issue of ICANN legitimacy and whether we allow privatization to go forward without a public vote? -- ken >Ken, > >> Below is the rewritten paragraph from >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm >> >> "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, >> Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that >> "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. >> By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his >> statement could not be ignored. The combination of >> international protests and Postel's action effectively >> killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." > >You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not >disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. >Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between >most of the root server operators and only concerned the path >in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. > >Regards, > >Werner > > >-- >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, > Below is the rewritten paragraph from > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, > Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that > "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. > By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his > statement could not be ignored. The combination of > international protests and Postel's action effectively > killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." You still don't have the facts correct. Jon Postel's action did not disrupt any Internet traffic at all. It did not and it could not. Nor was it an action by Jon Postel alone. It was an action between most of the root server operators and only concerned the path in which the root zone file is copied to the various root servers. Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
RE: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jay, You wrote: > > This is right out of the Dave Crocker > play book. Try and discredit a 20,000 > word summary, by focusing on a single > statement. > I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request. If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask for clarification (or modification). If it is a detail, and not a substantial affirmation, it will be easily corrected without losing the sense of the other 19.990 words. > Come on guys, you can do better than this! > > Ken, in the interest of moving on, I suggest > that you change one word in your summary: > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > > redirecting the root servers, *potentially* destablizing world > > > Internet traffic." > OTOH, if you persist in affirming that the action has (or potentially could have) destabilized the world Internet traffic, you are making of this detail a substantial element of the report, therefore discrediting it because a substantial affirmation is false. In fact, if the change of the reference root would (potentially or actually) destabilize Internet traffic worldwide, there would be a serious problem with the architecture of the Internet. It does not do any good to your cause to try to paint Jon Postel as a "potential destabilizer" of the Internet (and to complain afterwards that the world's press is biased because it refuses to follow you down this path). Regards Roberto
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Craig and all -- Below is the rewritten paragraph from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation, Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that "reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers. By temporarily disrupting portions of Internet traffic, his statement could not be ignored. The combination of international protests and Postel's action effectively killed the Green Paper. Back to the drawing board." Thanks for helping my historic accuracy. Still, it could have been done as private email, and appreciated. Why not use the list for more substantial comment, like whether ICANN is illegitimate, like whether the U.S. Government has a right to privatize our global Internet without any kind of a public vote? Don't you agree there's been way too many personal attacks on the lists and not enough real dialogue on the issues that count? Please show your leadership. As for my attitude toward Esther Dyson, since you make an issue of it: >I'd also like you to comment, if you would Ken, on your new attitude >toward Esther Dyson. I recall you were once a huge fan of hers, and in >early '98 or so you tried to get her to serve as an arbiter of the DNS >controversy. What ever happened with that? Craig, for the record, I'm still a huge fan. I still believe she has a good heart, and I'd love to see her emerge from this quagmire clean, if that's going to be possible for any of the ICANN principals, given the findings from my analysis. (http://www.media-visions.com/icann-findings.htm) As for your recollection of me trying to get her to solve the DNS problems for us. First. I don't believe in saviors. That's unhealthy oldthink, what the pop-psych guys like to label "codependency." I prefer democracy. Second, Craig, here's my chance to return your history lesson. When Esther Dyson was in Denver on a book tour promoting Release 2.0 in late autumn 1997, I went to the Tattered Cover Bookstore. After her presentation. I introduced myself at the tail end of her book signing. She recognized my name from having done an interview with her several months previously. (http://www.media-visions.com/dyson,html) I mentioned that I'd become active in the lists debating the gTLD plan, asking her views on network governance. Esther said that she had not been following events, focusing attention on Eastern Europe instead. I volunteered to help her get up to speed by sending along some comments from the mailing lists. Thinking more about this after I got home, rather than putting myself into the position of trying to cull from thousands of emails, then having egos bruised after I chose the "wrong" posting, instead, I posted a notice inviting representatives of all the factions to send a short statement of their position to be bundled and forwarded to Esther. I specified short out of consideration for the time of one without hours to spend reading. Those few who pressured me to forward long dissertations were put off by my stance, but that's life. Esther received the report in late 1997, and I posted it on my website in early 1998 (with changes requested by the contributors). The result is still online: http://www.media-visions.com/newdom1.html It's worthy of a re-read in comparison to what many of these same players are saying today. I do not know what happened after Esther read my report, or if she read it, or if it even remotely had anything to do with her being recruited for ICANN. If my report is responsible, in any way, for her now being in this mess, I do apologize. I will add that she's been aware, since the start, of my commitment to network democracy, and my concerns about the gTLD crew taking over. That's the whole story. (Esther, please correct me if I'm mistaken here.) At no time have I tried to "get" Esther Dyson to become "arbiter of the DNS controversy." At no time have I ever acted as her agent or representative. The only thing I've ever asked of her was a good interview, a friendly reply to my occasional email, and for her to stay true to her soul and EFF's ideals. I'll be glad if a friendship can survive ICANN. As for resigning from ICANN, it's her choice. De Nile River. I do not envy her karma here. God knows I've lost my way at times, too. Now the record is set straight, and that's than enough from me. I got work to do. -- ken -- ken >Craig -- >Please deal with substantive issues, >the here and now, not ancient history. >Linguistic nit picks do not serve the >larger Internet community. Okay? >Thanks. >-- ken > >>Ken, >> >>I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words. >> >>disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst >> >> 1: a to break apart, rupture; b to throw into disorder >> 2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of >> >>My reading of events was that Postel's directive *reoriented* part of >>the system, yes (and out of displeasure with the Green Paper, maybe, but >>
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote: >>Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare >>one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt >>world Internet traffic. >This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book. Try and discredit a >20,000 word summary, by focusing on a single statement. I'm sorry that you disagree with my statement. However, I continue to stand by it. If a news reporter asks me, I will give my opinion. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 02:37:53PM -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: > Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Craig -- > > Please deal with substantive issues, > > the here and now, not ancient history. > > Linguistic nit picks do not serve the > > larger Internet community. Okay? > > Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare > one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt > world Internet traffic. > > --gregbo You guys are wasting your breath. Mr Freed has no interest in accuracy or honest reporting or integrity of expression -- it's entirely too boring for his messiah complex world government fantasies. He believes that he is the chosen son of Tom Paine, the sole voice of reason in this benighted age, and thus by axiom, anything you say is merely a "linguistic nit". The contrast with Jon Postel, a person with real personal integrity and ability who *earned* his reputation, could not be more profound. Jon has a genuine place in in the history of the Internet and all the social promise it brings. Mr Freed is a microbe who won't even be a footnote. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote: >Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Craig -- >> Please deal with substantive issues, >> the here and now, not ancient history. >> Linguistic nit picks do not serve the >> larger Internet community. Okay? > >Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare >one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt >world Internet traffic. This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book. Try and discredit a 20,000 word summary, by focusing on a single statement. Come on guys, you can do better than this! Ken, in the interest of moving on, I suggest that you change one word in your summary: > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > redirecting the root servers, *potentially* destablizing world > > Internet traffic." Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480 --- What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig -- > Please deal with substantive issues, > the here and now, not ancient history. > Linguistic nit picks do not serve the > larger Internet community. Okay? Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt world Internet traffic. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Werner and all, Werner, please review the relative E-Mail list archives for this information. Much of the information you seek is there in some detail. Or, you could submit a FOIA to the DOC and NTIA for this information as well on the relative dates in question. Werner Staub wrote: > Ken, > > You said, more precisely, that Jon Postel temporarily > "disrupted Internet traffic" by "redirecting" the root > servers. Could you explain whose traffic was disrupted, > and how? > > Regards, > > Werner > > Ken Freed wrote: > > > > Werner -- > > > > What sort of comment would you like? > > He was in a position to impact things, > > He could. He did. What else can I say? > > > > For the historic record on it, > > check out Tony Rutkowki's > > website or Ellen Rony's site. > > Links are posted at -- > > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm > > > > Thanks for your interes. > > -- ken > > > > >Ken, > > > > > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from > > >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > > > Internet traffic." > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >Werner > > > > > >-- > > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland > > -- > Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, You said, more precisely, that Jon Postel temporarily "disrupted Internet traffic" by "redirecting" the root servers. Could you explain whose traffic was disrupted, and how? Regards, Werner Ken Freed wrote: > > Werner -- > > What sort of comment would you like? > He was in a position to impact things, > He could. He did. What else can I say? > > For the historic record on it, > check out Tony Rutkowki's > website or Ellen Rony's site. > Links are posted at -- > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm > > Thanks for your interes. > -- ken > > >Ken, > > > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from > >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > > Internet traffic." > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Craig -- Please deal with substantive issues, the here and now, not ancient history. Linguistic nit picks do not serve the larger Internet community. Okay? Thanks. -- ken >Ken, > >I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words. > >disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst > > 1: a to break apart, rupture; b to throw into disorder > 2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of > >My reading of events was that Postel's directive *reoriented* part of >the system, yes (and out of displeasure with the Green Paper, maybe, but >that's just one conjecture among many), but he did so without breaking >the Internet. > >Is it possible to demonstrate that anyone's "traffic" was interrupted by >the reorientation? > >I'd also like you to comment, if you would Ken, on your new attitude >toward Esther Dyson. I recall you were once a huge fan of hers, and in >early '98 or so you tried to get her to serve as an arbiter of the DNS >controversy. What ever happened with that? > >There's more at > >http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html (search for the word "hello") >and >http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html > > >Craig Simon > > >Ken Freed wrote: >> >> Werner -- >> >> What sort of comment would you like? >> He was in a position to impact things, >> He could. He did. What else can I say? >> >> For the historic record on it, >> check out Tony Rutkowki's >> website or Ellen Rony's site. >> Links are posted at -- >> http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm >> >> Thanks for your interes. >> -- ken >> >> >Ken, >> > >> >Could you comment on the following excerpt from >> >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm >> > >> > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by >> > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world >> > Internet traffic." >> > >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Werner >> > >> >-- >> >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch >> >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, I think "disrupt" is a far too strong choice of words. disrupt: transitive verb from REAVE implying break or burst 1: a to break apart, rupture; b to throw into disorder 2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of My reading of events was that Postel's directive *reoriented* part of the system, yes (and out of displeasure with the Green Paper, maybe, but that's just one conjecture among many), but he did so without breaking the Internet. Is it possible to demonstrate that anyone's "traffic" was interrupted by the reorientation? I'd also like you to comment, if you would Ken, on your new attitude toward Esther Dyson. I recall you were once a huge fan of hers, and in early '98 or so you tried to get her to serve as an arbiter of the DNS controversy. What ever happened with that? There's more at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html (search for the word "hello") and http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html Craig Simon Ken Freed wrote: > > Werner -- > > What sort of comment would you like? > He was in a position to impact things, > He could. He did. What else can I say? > > For the historic record on it, > check out Tony Rutkowki's > website or Ellen Rony's site. > Links are posted at -- > http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm > > Thanks for your interes. > -- ken > > >Ken, > > > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from > >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > > Internet traffic." > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Werner > > > >-- > >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch > >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Werner -- What sort of comment would you like? He was in a position to impact things, He could. He did. What else can I say? For the historic record on it, check out Tony Rutkowki's website or Ellen Rony's site. Links are posted at -- http://www.media-visions.com/icann-informed.htm Thanks for your interes. -- ken >Ken, > >Could you comment on the following excerpt from >http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by > redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world > Internet traffic." > > >Regards, > >Werner > >-- >Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch >Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
Re: [IFWP] Analyzing ICANN - The committee that would be king
Ken, Could you comment on the following excerpt from http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by redirecting the root servers, temporarily disrupting world Internet traffic." Regards, Werner -- Tel: +41 22 312 5600 Direct line: +41 22 312 5640 http://axone.ch Fax: +41 22 312 5601 2 cours de Rive CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland
