Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (was Re: CoolMail.com dispute/lawsuit?)
Michael and all, Good tongue and cheek post here Michael. I also echo Michaels joust here Becky. Yours and the NTIA's oversight with ICANN has been and continues to be the poorest example of oversight from any organization I believe I have ever seen in my entire life to date. Had either of my little girls (7 and 9 yrs of age) done this poor of a job they would be in some serious trouble and punished Michael Sondow wrote: > Dear Ms. Burr- > > Thank you for the stability that you and the NTIA have brought to > the Internet. > > Yours, > Michael Sondow > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:45 PM > > Subject: ElectronMail.com > > > > Greetings. > > > > You are receiving this message because you are a former member of > > Coolmail.com. We are the former owners of the domain name and > > deeply regret to inform you that we have lost it in a lawsuit. > > The court has ordered us to shut down the site immediately. > > Please note that the Coolmail.com service of which you are a > > member is not affiliated with Coolmail.net, Coolemail.com, > > Planetary Motion, Inc., and Coolemail.com, Inc. We deeply > > regret any inconvenience the shutdown may impose. > > > > We are in the process of appealing the court's decision, so it is > > possible that we will reacquire the domain name. If that is the > > case, all of your accounts and messages will be accessible to you. > > In the meantime, however, we recommend that you try our new e-mail > > service, Electron Mail. Your old login name will be working at > > Electron Mail, so you will have immediate access. Electron Mail > > offers voice mail and fax capability free as well as a bevy of > > other highly desirable features. > > > > In case you have forgotten, here is the account information you > > will need to log in to Electron Mail: > > > > Username: > > Password: > > > > Your new e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electron Mail is > > on the web at http://www.electronmail.com/. > > > > We sincerely hope you will accept our apologies and > > support us through our difficult time. > > > > Have a good day, and take care. > > > > Sincerely, > > Techsplosion, Inc. > > -- > > Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org > Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 > 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] Internet stability (was Re: CoolMail.com dispute/lawsuit?)
What he said. I am in complete awe at the amount of thinks that have stopped working recently on the net. At 12:07 PM 3/24/00 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote: >Dear Ms. Burr- > >Thank you for the stability that you and the NTIA have brought to >the Internet. > >Yours, >Michael Sondow > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:45 PM >> Subject: ElectronMail.com >> >> Greetings. >> >> You are receiving this message because you are a former member of >> Coolmail.com. We are the former owners of the domain name and >> deeply regret to inform you that we have lost it in a lawsuit. >> The court has ordered us to shut down the site immediately. >> Please note that the Coolmail.com service of which you are a >> member is not affiliated with Coolmail.net, Coolemail.com, >> Planetary Motion, Inc., and Coolemail.com, Inc. We deeply >> regret any inconvenience the shutdown may impose. >> >> We are in the process of appealing the court's decision, so it is >> possible that we will reacquire the domain name. If that is the >> case, all of your accounts and messages will be accessible to you. >> In the meantime, however, we recommend that you try our new e-mail >> service, Electron Mail. Your old login name will be working at >> Electron Mail, so you will have immediate access. Electron Mail >> offers voice mail and fax capability free as well as a bevy of >> other highly desirable features. >> >> In case you have forgotten, here is the account information you >> will need to log in to Electron Mail: >> >> Username: >> Password: >> >> Your new e-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Electron Mail is >> on the web at http://www.electronmail.com/. >> >> We sincerely hope you will accept our apologies and >> support us through our difficult time. >> >> Have a good day, and take care. >> >> Sincerely, >> Techsplosion, Inc. > >-- > >Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org >Tel. (718)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927 > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnso.com It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability
Richard, You wrote: > > Sure, just think of those grants that Marconi, Bell and others had. > Thank you for mentioning Guglielmo Marconi: I could not have thought myself of a better example to make my point. The grants Marconi received were given at a point in time when the feasibility of his invention (wireless transmission) was already proven, and the extent of the possible exploitation was being evaluated. This happened, for instance, when he was trying to establish a transatlantic connection from the UK to his receiving station at Cape Cod, Ma. OTOH, his early experiments in the previous years were conducted without private grants. In particular, his first succesful transmission was performed in Italy, only with help from the (public) academic structure (namely, the University of Bologna). If I gave the impression of saying that the private sector is not financing research, I beg your pardon, I did not make myself clear enough. What I meant is that the private sector intervenes mostly when the matter under research is likely to produce commercial results. Back to the Internet, this was not obvious in the early years, while it is evident now. Regards Roberto
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 05:15 PM 8/5/99 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Craig, > >You wrote: >> Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the >> Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of >> the burden of >> government. > >It happens all the time. >When new ideas get started, they are largely financed with public resources >(=governments with taxpayers money), often in a lack of interest of the >private sector. Sure, just think of those grants that Marconi, Bell and others had. VHS Compact Casette HDTV 8mm Video MP3 Cable Where was their government support ? 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] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
>Of course we all can complain and try to make it better, but if we try to >eliminate it instead, let's be aware of the risk involved. > >Regards >Roberto Whwat risk? 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] Internet stability
"Craig McTaggart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (2) AOL and @Home are showing that in the consumer market, brands > count, and the Internet on training wheels is actually something > that is desired among the general public. [...] > My concern is that with near-complete control over local access, > @Home has no incentive to tell the blinking-VCR-clock crowd that > .car exists, but if they worked out a marketing deal with .gm, .gm > would be plastered all over the start page. The large providers research their subscriber/customer base, so we can be fairly confident that what appears on the start pages they provide is something that's desired by a substantial portion of their customers. This seems fair. It's not perfect. It's also self-selecting. The type of person who wants to see .car is most likely not going to sign up with a large provider. More likely they are going to be the type of person who selects an ISP that allows them to modify their environment to choose whatever they want to look at. Whether or not such ISPs can survive your future market where they may not be able to compete on QoS, peering, transit, etc. is an open question. One thing they have going for them is that many of the people who work in the field use "raw Internet" services, so there are a fair amount of $$$ available to keep this type of thing going. It's a viable niche market, in other words. > Issues like peering/transiting/settlements and instant messaging > suggest to me that the current Internet model may be something of a > relic of a different past, which I'm less confident than others can > survive its very different future. So I'm trying to think about > what makes the Internet the way it is, what threatens that, and on > what basis we might insist that it be preserved. An Internet > community which instantly devours anyone who suggests there is > anything more than autonomous, private action going here may be > dooming itself to domination by better-organized and better-funded > forces. Sound familiar? I'm not sure that 'we' ought to be insisting that anything be preserved ... after all, wouldn't we be like ICANN then, telling others what to do? :) Seriously, these are difficult questions. I just try to present people with information and let them decide what to do about it. Most people just don't have the time to spend deeply researching a technology to find out how it works and what "should" or "shouldn't" happen with it. For example, I know very little about how my local water or electricity is served to me. Should I know more about it? Perhaps. But that would take quite a bit of time, and leave me with much less time to study these issues. Even if I were to devote my life to studying policy issues, would I have enough time to study all of them sufficiently so that if it came time for me to decide what 'governance' I wanted, I would make the 'right' choices? --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Roberto and all, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ronda Hauben wrote: > > > > So the only way to argue for ICANN to exist is to threaten > > that something > > worse will happen if it doesn't. > > > > That makes clear that ICANN is illegitimate. > > > > And those who argue that you can't complain about ICANN or you will > > only get something worse, show that they have no basis to > > have anything to do with the Internet, certainly *not* take > > over control of its essential functions. > > > > How did we go from the "argue for ICANN to exist" in the first sentence to > the "argue that you can't complain about ICANN" in the last sentence? > > Of course we all can complain and try to make it better, but if we try to > eliminate it instead, let's be aware of the risk involved. Eliminating ICANN would make very little difference in the status quo presently. But again this is really besides the point. Let's really face the fact that "ICANN IS OUT OF CONTROL", it has been sense just before singapore. What does this really mean? Well it means that the current ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board needs to be replaced immediately, that the decisions in singapore and in Berlin need to be recinded and that a membership needs to ratify any and all decisiopns that any ICANN Board, now or in the future might present... > > > Regards > Roberto 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] Internet stability
Craig, You wrote: > Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the > Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of > the burden of > government. It happens all the time. When new ideas get started, they are largely financed with public resources (=governments with taxpayers money), often in a lack of interest of the private sector. When things get off the ground, and the possibility of making money out of it is realized, there is a sudden great pressure to get the evil government their hands off what is perceived as private property. Sometimes the same people are participating in both phases ;>). Regards Roberto
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Ronda Hauben wrote: > > So the only way to argue for ICANN to exist is to threaten > that something > worse will happen if it doesn't. > > That makes clear that ICANN is illegitimate. > > And those who argue that you can't complain about ICANN or you will > only get something worse, show that they have no basis to > have anything to do with the Internet, certainly *not* take > over control of its essential functions. > How did we go from the "argue for ICANN to exist" in the first sentence to the "argue that you can't complain about ICANN" in the last sentence? Of course we all can complain and try to make it better, but if we try to eliminate it instead, let's be aware of the risk involved. Regards Roberto
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Karl Auerbach wrote: > There is a need for coordination of things like TCP port numbers and other > things that go on at the transport level and below. The IETF, W3C, and > IANA have done a fine job of that. All they need is a bit of money to pay > for a couple of people at IANA to keep track of this. These are > non-contentious issues. Assuming that the warm and cuddly 'openness' commitment and business models of the most influential players don't change... > The issue that may require coordination is one with some really tough > technical, economic, and political issues - inter ISP > peering/transit/billing policies. It is unclear whether the current > inter-ISP sitution isn't one being used by the "big guys" to squeeze the > "little guys". On the other hand, the small guys aren't screaming that > loudly (or I'm not hearing 'em.) and here's a good example of how they could change. I agree, I don't hear them screaming loudly either, but I'm concerned that we're in something of a calm before the storm for two reasons: (1) The implmentation of QoS is going to separate the ISPs into those which can make the necessary investment and play with the big boys, and those who are just quaint dial-ups offering 'plain old internet service.' Standard-grade operators would likely die out for lack of customers (particularly business customers), but even if they could play in the QoS leagues, they would get killed on upstream settlement payments (if you believe Geoff Huston, Rob Frieden, and Ken Cukier). (2) AOL and @Home are showing that in the consumer market, brands count, and the Internet on training wheels is actually something that is desired among the general public. "The Internet" is a good enough brand for me, but there are a whole lot of people out there who don't even know there are addresses outside of .com, .net. and .org, much less .tj or .web. I agree that if the .car domain is something that its customers want access too, then any ISP, including @Home, would resolve .car addresses. My concern is that with near-complete control over local access, @Home has no incentive to tell the blinking-VCR-clock crowd that .car exists, but if they worked out a marketing deal with .gm, .gm would be plastered all over the start page. Think about what percentage of Web users probably don't even know that you can change your start page. Think about how many AOL members actually think AOL is the Internet. I know it isn't and everybody on this list knows it isn't, but we're an infinitesimally small percentage of the 'Internet market.' When I see Canada's largest bank and its largest telco falling over each other to buy equity stakes in AOL Canada, I get a bit worried. Issues like peering/transiting/settlements and instant messaging suggest to me that the current Internet model may be something of a relic of a different past, which I'm less confident than others can survive its very different future. So I'm trying to think about what makes the Internet the way it is, what threatens that, and on what basis we might insist that it be preserved. An Internet community which instantly devours anyone who suggests there is anything more than autonomous, private action going here may be dooming itself to domination by better-organized and better-funded forces. Sound familiar? Craig McTaggart Graduate Student Faculty of Law University of Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hello. >Jeff Mason wrote: > >> The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit >> like a mafiosi >> less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain >> from threatening >> comments. > >The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't >think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that >the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter >will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of >international agreement. So the only way to argue for ICANN to exist is to threaten that something worse will happen if it doesn't. That makes clear that ICANN is illegitimate. And those who argue that you can't complain about ICANN or you will only get something worse, show that they have no basis to have anything to do with the Internet, certainly *not* take over control of its essential functions. The Internet was created by a process of trying to figure out what was needed, and then creating the prototypes that would help to see test what was needed in the real world. That was indeed the process my proposal set in motion. see http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt That was what was needed as a process to determine how to create an appropriate institutional form based on study and understanding of what the forms are that have supported the development of the Internet. That wasn't done and instead some secret process created the ICANN form and it has been pushed thru denying and disregarding the illegal nature of the process that is throwing out all the U.S. government procedures and laws that say that it is illegal and illegitimate to give government functions to a private, government created corporation. The secret government activity via the Government Advisor Committee made up of who knows which governments and on what basis, is a harmful means of having government abuse their obligations to do only what they are mandated to do. The problem with ICANN is that private interests are being put in control of a scientific entity. They are incapable of providing the needed oversight and support that that scientific entity needs. The private interests that have come onto the ICANN interim board have been put there because they have a conflict of interest with the public purpose and nature of the Internet. Only a structure that has a means of preventing and fighting against those who have a conflict of interest gaining power, is appropriate for the ownership and control of the essential functions of the Internet. There is knowledge in the U.S. about how to create such a structure. This knowledge is what created the institution that made it possible to give birth to the Internet. These lessons had to be drawn on instead of creating ICANN. There is no authority for the U.S. government to give away this public property. It has the obligation of being responsible in how these essential functions will be controlled. The U.S. government has created ICANN to evade that responsibity, *not* to carry out that responsibility. It is important that there be the recognition of the responsibility and the study and examination of how to undertake that responsiblity. The end of ICANN will be good, *not* something worse. The Internet and its users, utilizing U.S. government procedures, (rather than evading them as those supporting ICANN have done) will be able to figure out what is needed to replace ICANN with. And they will be able to create it, determine how to legitimately test it, and refine it, just as was done in creating the Internet. That is very different from the phony so called "design and test" cooperative agreement that ICANN has been given with the Dept of Commerce. That agreement is *not* for any testing, but for creating what is illegal and figuring out how to evade all the means within U.S. law to stop such illegitimate activity. At the hearing in Washington on July 22, one of the Congressmen said that maybe it was necessary to suspend the authority of the NTIA considering what they are doing with ICANN. Also the authority that the Dept of Commerce provided to the House Commerce Committee for transferring authority from the NSF to itself was not an authority to transfer authority, but only to share authority. The NSF couldn't transfer the authority it had to oversee and provide what is needed for the ownership and control of essential functions of the Internet. The Office of Inspector General of the NSF issued a Report on Feb. 7, 1997 saying that the U.S. government had a responsibility to the public based on the great amount of funding and work that has gone into building the Internet. That the NSF can't just give away ownership and control of the essential functions and it can't give away policy making authority. (The OIG NSF Report is some of the built in checks and balances that the U.S. government has to prevent it from maki
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Mr. Measday and Everyone, I would take several exceptions with several of the statements that you make here. In very general, terms the essence of your comments here are none the less correct, though the predicates for your conclusions are significantly unfounded. I would be more than happy to debate with you on those off-line or on some more appropriate forum at a later time... Mark Measday wrote: > ?? Hypothesis: It's not a question of the networks, it's a question of the legal > frameworks that have jurisdiction in the final analysis over the networks. > Unfortunately, it remains to be proven that the corpus of international and > sovereign law is anything other than public, (in the sense of respublica) and > that the law administers the networks rather than vice versa. Which would be > admittedly much more interesting, I suspect. It is also not to deny that networks > can in the long term create and change law, albeit in a slow and frustrating way. > As soon as the G8 countries elect network managers rather than lawyers as chief > executives rather than presidents, we can all switch. The freedoms you mention > are temporary and get closed down if not largely used in furtherance of the > perceived respublicae. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > "Richard J. Sexton" wrote: > > > At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: > > >And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". > > > > Prove it. > > > > 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] 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] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
Wednesday, August 04, 1999, 5:10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has > hit a nerve. No, not at all. The response is that Ronda (no "h") has placed herself in a position to not be taken seriously by many in this process. Her extremist views and insistent that anyone with any common sense MUST see it her way or they aren't listening, not to mention her insistence at using her own statements to prove her own statements, has seriously effected her credibility. The responses are most annoyances that after all this time, she continues to use the same bad references to support her own bad conclusions. -- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 (IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
Tom and all, I agree I believe in this instance she has indeed, though few would openly admit it [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has > hit a nerve. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > The Communisphere Project > > MA>At 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > MA>> > MA>>It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of > MA>>the Internet. > MA>> > MA>>If you want a private network, have your private network. > MA>> > > MA>Oh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion, > MA>does not work anymore. You might want to set your WayBack machine to 1967 > MA>Soviet Union. It might work there. > > MA>++ > MA>Gene Marsh > MA>president, anycastNET Incorporated > MA>330-699-8106 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] Internet stability (Rhonda Hits Nerve)
At 12:10 AM 8/5/99 EST, you wrote: > >Judging by this and similar responses in this thread I'd say Rhonda has >hit a nerve. Tom, Not at all. I just dislike fiction being represented as fact. Gene Marsh > >Tom Lowenhaupt >The Communisphere Project > >MA>At 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >MA>> >MA>>It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of >MA>>the Internet. >MA>> >MA>>If you want a private network, have your private network. >MA>> > >MA>Oh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion, >MA>does not work anymore. You might want to set your WayBack machine to 1967 >MA>Soviet Union. It might work there. > >MA>++ >MA>Gene Marsh >MA>president, anycastNET Incorporated >MA>330-699-8106 > > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
> ... Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think > about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive > cooperation to make it work. I disagree that it needs "massive cooperation to make it work". There is a need for coordination of things like TCP port numbers and other things that go on at the transport level and below. The IETF, W3C, and IANA have done a fine job of that. All they need is a bit of money to pay for a couple of people at IANA to keep track of this. These are non-contentious issues. ISP's have a self-interest in making sure that routing of IP packets work -- an ISP that is unreachable or which can't reach the outside world is going to lose its customers really fast. So there is no need for top-down regulatory coordination of this, nor has there been to date other than the sanity check on address allocation performed by ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. There can readily be a multiplicity of domain name systems. (See http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm ) The DNS systems that give answers that don't keep people happy is a system that will rapidly fall by the wayside. So there is no need for a top-down regulatory body such as ICANN to sit on top of the DNS. The issue that may require coordination is one with some really tough technical, economic, and political issues - inter ISP peering/transit/billing policies. It is unclear whether the current inter-ISP sitution isn't one being used by the "big guys" to squeeze the "little guys". On the other hand, the small guys aren't screaming that loudly (or I'm not hearing 'em.) There is an increasing need for better operational coordination to hunt down denial-of-service attacks. But I don't think we yet need an imposed apparatus for that to form. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Once the vague 'authority' of the USG is withdrawn from IANA in Sept. 2000, what will take its place? How do we account for the fundamentally cooperative nature of the Internet, yet avoid the awful p-word? Isn't it just possible that what makes this whole damn thing work is something a little more than private? We don't have to use the dirty word 'public,' but can't we find some way to account for the cooperative action which the Internet needs for all of our benefit? Hi Craig, The USG is irrelevant to this. IANA helped coordinate three disparate administrative functions that are predominantly done by others. You can look at the Internet as something akin to the economy. It works because there is a common incentive to make it work, and everyone finds ways to accommodate the various disparate systems. Everybody seems to deny the importance of the USG-funded predecessor networks, but nobody can convince me that what we now know as the Internet Who denies this? Sure it was important. However, what does this have to do with what we're discussing here? Here's a question, without the predecessor networks, whose basic architecture we still use, just how would something like the Internet, as opposed to something like AOL, have arisen? AOL was a single private network. The Internet is not a network at all, but a means of sharing resources across networks - largely due to the vision of Bob Kahn. That paradigm is what's important, and what the wannabe controllers don't understand. Think about the instant messaging war going on and think about how far 'private network' thinking will get us as we try to defend the Internet from the @Homes, AOLs, and Microsofts of the world, who have a lot more money than any of you private network owners out there. ditto the paradigm. --tony
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Okay, we seem to think there is absolutely nothing public about the Internet, and that this allows us to finally break free of the burden of government. Now let's move on to the next step, and find a way to think about the Internet as something we all share, which needs massive cooperation to make it work. Once the vague 'authority' of the USG is withdrawn from IANA in Sept. 2000, what will take its place? How do we account for the fundamentally cooperative nature of the Internet, yet avoid the awful p-word? Isn't it just possible that what makes this whole damn thing work is something a little more than private? We don't have to use the dirty word 'public,' but can't we find some way to account for the cooperative action which the Internet needs for all of our benefit? Everybody seems to deny the importance of the USG-funded predecessor networks, but nobody can convince me that what we now know as the Internet could have arisen without the groundwork laid by the ARPANET and NSFNET. AOL arose, like GEIS and all sorts of VPN services and closed content services like Nexis, on a completely different model to the Internet. Here's a question, without the predecessor networks, whose basic architecture we still use, just how would something like the Internet, as opposed to something like AOL, have arisen? Think about the instant messaging war going on and think about how far 'private network' thinking will get us as we try to defend the Internet from the @Homes, AOLs, and Microsofts of the world, who have a lot more money than any of you private network owners out there. Craig McTaggart Graduate Student Faculty of Law University of Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Ah yes, what bliss ignorance isthanks for reminding me why I filtered both these people. >Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ? > > >At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > >At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > > > >Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion > >intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one > >from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a > >piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed, > >yes. Does that structure carry out a public function? > >Indeed, yes. If that particular piece of hardware was not > >doing it, some other box would be. It does not matter a > >bit if every bit of plastic and metal by which the internet > >operates were owned by individuals or companies, and not > >the government or ICANN or whoever. The fact remains, > >all that stuff functions within a framework that grew out of > >the efforts of the USG, for a public purpose, and if the > >current hardware and software twiddlers don't want to > >play the game, others will. > > > >If a private network -- 206.5.17.0 or whatever -- wants to > >set itself up and do whatever, then that's fine; it has both > >the structure (the hardware) and its own internal function, > >but as soon as it joins the real world (which of course it > >already has since it is from the real world that it got > >206.5.17.0), it becomes a part of the "internetworking" > >which is the "Internet" and, like USENET, it becomes a > >part of and subject to the rules of this new civilization, > >the Internet, within which the members have the need > >to ensure that the civilization is run for the good of all, > >neither deteriorating into an absolute dictatorship > >(which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively > >into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to > >oppose dictatorship. > > > > > >Bill Lovell > > > >> > >> Dear Rhonda, > >> > >>> > >>> And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". > >>> ... > >>> The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is > >> > >> > >> I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the > >> constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, > >> it is private. Most others are. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. > >>> > >>> They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. > >> > >> > >> Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? > >> Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential > >> function? > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. > >> > >> > >> Can't a private medium be used for communication > >> among the general public? > >> > >> > >> --tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > Roberto - this "threat" has been around for the last 20 years. > Many of us spent some of our careers dealing with it. > Under much more favorable circumstances to these players, > they tried and failed spectacularly. That's why they are > trying to reinvent themselves playing the same game. There > is no way - let me reiterate, there is no way - they could > pull it off with an aggregation of 1 million private networks, > 50 million hosts, and several billion server applications > shared via tcp/ip - - which is what the Internet is. Actually - the estimates are 200 million users, 43 million hosts, 6 million domains, 500,000 nameservers, 150,000 DNS administrators and 1 ICANN. Looks top heavy to me. I wonder who will get crushed first? Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
At 10:44 AM 8/4/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of international agreement. Of course he intended it as a threat. Ever since Paul took over the NOIE organization for Alston and tried to find a life in Aussie politics by becoming Internet relevant, he's leveraged a string of threats. Try doing some search engine trolling and you'll find them all. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations, or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate, but the direction seems pretty clear to me. Roberto - this "threat" has been around for the last 20 years. Many of us spent some of our careers dealing with it. Under much more favorable circumstances to these players, they tried and failed spectacularly. That's why they are trying to reinvent themselves playing the same game. There is no way - let me reiterate, there is no way - they could pull it off with an aggregation of 1 million private networks, 50 million hosts, and several billion server applications shared via tcp/ip - - which is what the Internet is. The real threat is in the area of Internet taxation, and all this DNS stuff is just a quid pro quo. --tony
RE: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Hello. Jeff Mason wrote: > > The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit > like a mafiosi > less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain > from threatening > comments. > The comments made by Dr. Twomey concern me as well, but in fact I don't think he was threatening anybody, but simply state a belief, which is that the most likely event in case of a failure of ICANN is that the whole matter will be ruled by an international organization operating under a sort of international agreement. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what is going to happen. There is no way you can convince the governments not to step in if the ICANN solution will fail. Whether the outcome will be an international body with specific intergovernmental status like ITU, FAO, or other UN organizations, or a different type of body like ICAO, InMarSat, etc., is open to debate, but the direction seems pretty clear to me. Regards Roberto
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Hey Bob, what plans to You Ronda and Bill have for us ? At 10:38 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: >At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion >intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one >from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a >piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed, >yes. Does that structure carry out a public function? >Indeed, yes. If that particular piece of hardware was not >doing it, some other box would be. It does not matter a >bit if every bit of plastic and metal by which the internet >operates were owned by individuals or companies, and not >the government or ICANN or whoever. The fact remains, >all that stuff functions within a framework that grew out of >the efforts of the USG, for a public purpose, and if the >current hardware and software twiddlers don't want to >play the game, others will. > >If a private network -- 206.5.17.0 or whatever -- wants to >set itself up and do whatever, then that's fine; it has both >the structure (the hardware) and its own internal function, >but as soon as it joins the real world (which of course it >already has since it is from the real world that it got >206.5.17.0), it becomes a part of the "internetworking" >which is the "Internet" and, like USENET, it becomes a >part of and subject to the rules of this new civilization, >the Internet, within which the members have the need >to ensure that the civilization is run for the good of all, >neither deteriorating into an absolute dictatorship >(which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively >into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to >oppose dictatorship. > > >Bill Lovell > >> >> Dear Rhonda, >> >>> >>> And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". >>> ... >>> The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is >> >> >> I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the >> constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, >> it is private. Most others are. >> >> >>> >>> The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. >>> >>> They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. >> >> >> Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? >> Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential >> function? >> >> >>> >>> The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. >> >> >> Can't a private medium be used for communication >> among the general public? >> >> >> --tony > > > > > > 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] Internet stability
At 08:13 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: Concerning the following stuff below, much of this discussion intermingles structure and function without distinguishing one from the other. Is a root server a piece of hardware, i.e., a piece of the structure, that can be privately owned? Indeed, yes. Does that structure carry out a public function? Indeed, yes. If that particular piece of hardware was not doing it, some other box would be. It does not matter a bit if every bit of plastic and metal by which the internet operates were owned by individuals or companies, and not the government or ICANN or whoever. The fact remains, all that stuff functions within a framework that grew out of the efforts of the USG, for a public purpose, and if the current hardware and software twiddlers don't want to play the game, others will. If a private network -- 206.5.17.0 or whatever -- wants to set itself up and do whatever, then that's fine; it has both the structure (the hardware) and its own internal function, but as soon as it joins the real world (which of course it already has since it is from the real world that it got 206.5.17.0), it becomes a part of the "internetworking" which is the "Internet" and, like USENET, it becomes a part of and subject to the rules of this new civilization, the Internet, within which the members have the need to ensure that the civilization is run for the good of all, neither deteriorating into an absolute dictatorship (which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to oppose dictatorship. Bill Lovell > > Dear Rhonda, > >> >> And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". >> ... >> The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is > > > I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the > constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, > it is private. Most others are. > > >> >> The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. >> >> They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. > > > Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? > Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential > function? > > >> >> The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. > > > Can't a private medium be used for communication > among the general public? > > > --tony
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 03:05 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > >It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of >the Internet. > >If you want a private network, have your private network. > Oh Rhonda, give it up. Revisionist history, or that based on bent opinion, does not work anymore. You might want to set your WayBack machine to 1967 Soviet Union. It might work there. ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
That doesn't prove anything. It's just somebodies opinion. It is possible to point to the legal language that defines public resources... not so with usenet because it doesn't exist. Show me where is says the internet was created as a public resource. Or, if it was created as a private resource, show me where this was made into a public resource. At 07:52 PM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: >Richard Sexton wrote about public computer networks: > > >> Prove it. > >Here's the discussion of why Usenet was a public network: > >>From Chapter 10 "Netizens: On the History and Impact of >Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ > >- > >Usenet as a Public Computer Users Network > > While the ARPANET was subject to the regulations and >policies set by the U.S. Defense Communications Agency (DCA) >during this period, Usenet was considered a public computer users >network. Policies were proposed, and then were subject to >discussion by the Usenet community. > > For example, in October, 1981, Horton proposed the following >statement of policy for Usenet: > > USENET is a public access network. Any User is allowed to > post to any newsgroup (unless abuses start to be a problem). > All users are to be given access to all newsgroups except > that private newsgroups can be created which are protected. > In particular, all users must have access to the net and fa > newsgroups, and to local public newsgroups such as general > [net.general]. > > He continued: > > "The USENET map is also public at all times, and so any site > which is on USENET is expected to make public the fact that > they are on USENET, their USENET connections (e.g. their sys > file), and the name, address, phone number and electronic > address of the contact for that site for the USENET > directory.(27) > > > >Ronda > > > 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] Internet stability
Gene Marsh a écrit: > > In a previous message I drew this exact corollary. There are many > parallels, some of them not so inviting (much of the amateur radio spectrum > has been whittled away under the current administration). Natch. No profit from those pesky amateurs, and they clog up the airwaves (read "bandwidth"). :-) 73 Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Richard Sexton wrote about public computer networks: > Prove it. Here's the discussion of why Usenet was a public network: >From Chapter 10 "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ - Usenet as a Public Computer Users Network While the ARPANET was subject to the regulations and policies set by the U.S. Defense Communications Agency (DCA) during this period, Usenet was considered a public computer users network. Policies were proposed, and then were subject to discussion by the Usenet community. For example, in October, 1981, Horton proposed the following statement of policy for Usenet: USENET is a public access network. Any User is allowed to post to any newsgroup (unless abuses start to be a problem). All users are to be given access to all newsgroups except that private newsgroups can be created which are protected. In particular, all users must have access to the net and fa newsgroups, and to local public newsgroups such as general [net.general]. He continued: "The USENET map is also public at all times, and so any site which is on USENET is expected to make public the fact that they are on USENET, their USENET connections (e.g. their sys file), and the name, address, phone number and electronic address of the contact for that site for the USENET directory.(27) Ronda
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 07:22 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >A.M. Rutkowski wrote: >> >> I'm more than familiar with those struggles. >> This why you want to avoid the characterization >> of being a public resource - and why conversely >> the GAC has adopted an international agreement >> stating Internet Name and Number systems are >> public resources. Being a public resource >> means that governments will ultimately control >> it. >> >> The radio spectrum was progressively made a >> public resource and brought under increasingly >> more extensive regulatory regimes by the ITU >> beginning in 1903 and the US Dept of Commerce >> in 1912. > >Yes, my father (W2AT) used to tell me all about that when I was a >kid. He was a member of the Brooklyn Amateur Radio Club, of which >David Sarnoff and other later radio industry notables were also >members. According to what my father told me, they were all aghast >when the USG started claiming authority over the air waves, since it >was the members of the private amateur radio clubs who developed >their use, and it was they who invented many of the technical >devices that permitted long-distance short-wave radio communications >(e.g. rf amplifiers, crystal-controlled transmitters, directional >quad antennas, etc.). > In a previous message I drew this exact corollary. There are many parallels, some of them not so inviting (much of the amateur radio spectrum has been whittled away under the current administration). Gene Marsh, N9OZI >> (In fact, my call sign was the 18th >> issued by them in August 1912.) > >You must be around 90 years old, then. :-) > >> --tony >> W3AR (and President of the Detroit >> Amateur Radio Association. 1964-65) > >Michael Sondow >formerly K2SAH, member of the Long Island Microwave Society >(1956-59). > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > This why you want to avoid the characterization > of being a public resource - and why conversely > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > public resources. Being a public resource > means that governments will ultimately control > it. > > The radio spectrum was progressively made a > public resource and brought under increasingly > more extensive regulatory regimes by the ITU > beginning in 1903 and the US Dept of Commerce > in 1912. Yes, my father (W2AT) used to tell me all about that when I was a kid. He was a member of the Brooklyn Amateur Radio Club, of which David Sarnoff and other later radio industry notables were also members. According to what my father told me, they were all aghast when the USG started claiming authority over the air waves, since it was the members of the private amateur radio clubs who developed their use, and it was they who invented many of the technical devices that permitted long-distance short-wave radio communications (e.g. rf amplifiers, crystal-controlled transmitters, directional quad antennas, etc.). > (In fact, my call sign was the 18th > issued by them in August 1912.) You must be around 90 years old, then. :-) > --tony > W3AR (and President of the Detroit > Amateur Radio Association. 1964-65) Michael Sondow formerly K2SAH, member of the Long Island Microwave Society (1956-59).
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 07:21 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >>The router at our local public library, which is paid for by taxpayer >>dollars and, therefore, is owned by the public (and there are many examples >>of this). > >Ok, show me how, I as a memebr of the public affect policy concerning >this router. > Ahhh, that is a different story! Actually, I could (as a taxpaying citizen of my community) affect (to a certain degree) how this router is utilized, when it is upgraded, etc. Again, though, your point is very valid. The *significant* pieces of the Internet (large-scale routers, backbone segments, *DNS servers*, etc.) are *privately* held and controlled. It is by the good graces, good will, and good business practices of the *owning* organizations that public access is allowed. I know of no law which requires UUNET to maintain an OC-48 link between Cleveland and Chicago... it is the desire of their customers to have such a link, and they provide it. > > >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] > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>The router at our local public library, which is paid for by taxpayer >dollars and, therefore, is owned by the public (and there are many examples >of this). Ok, show me how, I as a memebr of the public affect policy concerning this router. 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] Internet stability
At 06:04 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > >That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's. > >That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet. > Rhonda, are you kidding here? The RFC's have NOTHING to do with Internet governance. RFC's have no law-providing qualities whatsoever! > >Lawyers who try to do otherwise will only be contributing to serious >problems. > Hogwash. >And they will not be building on the kind of good precedent that >was established in the CDA decision at the Philadelphia Federal >District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. > More hogwash. >The ITU is governing another telecommunications medium, not the >Internet. > The ITU is not governing the Internet at all. >Gordon, are you replacing the RFC's with the ITU's decisions? > It is you, Rhonda, wha are saying that the RFC's should replace legal ITU decisions. This is akin to saying gasoline prices will affect automobile colors next year - non sequitur. >Ronda > > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 05:58 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >>>Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand >>>the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather >>>than obfuscate. >> >>Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about >>international telecommunications law and policy development than tony. >> >>if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its RFCs >>you are incredibly naive. > >I could say all Sears stores were "public" too, but if you aksed >me to prove it I'd be hard pressed to do that. > They are available for public use, therefore they are public. That does not infer the public owns the Sears stores. >There's a difference between "the public can use it" to "the public >owens it". Yes. > >Show me ONE PIECE of the Internet that is deeded to the public. Just >one router... one circuit... one. The router at our local public library, which is paid for by taxpayer dollars and, therefore, is owned by the public (and there are many examples of this). However, that is not the point. Most of the interconnecting pieces of the Internet are owned and controlled by *private* organizations and made available for *public* use. They are not, by and large, owned by the public. > > > > > >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] > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
yeah right Ronda. sigh this take the cake for the most inane and stupidest thing i have ever heard you say... and if you r eally don kn ow that I am not a fan of the itu then you are not only naive but stupid.. find me an knowledgable lawyer that suppost the tripe about r fcs as a some unique law of the internet. But i don't expect to see your answer since you have joined brian hollingsworth as todays additioons to my filters > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) > by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) > id 41591F00A; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT) >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074) > id 17064F00D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT) >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net >(grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.100]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C149FF00A > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa225.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net >[38.26.139.225]) > by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10542 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-Id: <v04210112b3cd09a7b80c@[192.168.0.1]> >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:06:29 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Status: R > > > > >Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about > >international telecommunications law and policy development than tony. > >Gordon, the first principle of the legal decision regarding the >Internet and the CDA (Reno vrs ACLU decided in 1996) was that >one must look at the unique aspects of the communications medium. > >And the judges proceeded to examine the unique history and development >of the Internet. > > >if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its R > >FCs you ar e incredibly naive. > >That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's. > >That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet. > >International telecommunications law and policy development of >other communications media are *not* the basis to determine what >the law will be regarding the Internet. > >Lawyers who try to do otherwise will only be contributing to serious >problems. > >And they will not be building on the kind of good precedent that >was established in the CDA decision at the Philadelphia Federal >District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. > >The ITU is governing another telecommunications medium, not the >Internet. > >Gordon, are you replacing the RFC's with the ITU's decisions? > >Ronda 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] Internet stability
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 17:13:43 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579DE18C42 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) id 41591F00A; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074) id 17064F00D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.100]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C149FF00A for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa225.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.139.225]) by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10542 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: <v04210112b3cd09a7b80c@[192.168.0.1]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:06:29 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: R > >Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about >international telecommunications law and policy development than tony. Gordon, the first principle of the legal decision regarding the Internet and the CDA (Reno vrs ACLU decided in 1996) was that one must look at the unique aspects of the communications medium. And the judges proceeded to examine the unique history and development of the Internet. >if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its R >FCs you ar e incredibly naive. That unique history includes a standards setting procedure of RFC's. That is the basis to determine the law that will govern the Internet. International telecommunications law and policy development of other communications media are *not* the basis to determine what the law will be regarding the Internet. Lawyers who try to do otherwise will only be contributing to serious problems. And they will not be building on the kind of good precedent that was established in the CDA decision at the Philadelphia Federal District Court and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ITU is governing another telecommunications medium, not the Internet. Gordon, are you replacing the RFC's with the ITU's decisions? Ronda
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>>Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand >>the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather >>than obfuscate. > >Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about >international telecommunications law and policy development than tony. > >if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its RFCs >you are incredibly naive. I could say all Sears stores were "public" too, but if you aksed me to prove it I'd be hard pressed to do that. There's a difference between "the public can use it" to "the public owens it". Show me ONE PIECE of the Internet that is deeded to the public. Just one router... one circuit... one. 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] Internet stability
> >Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the > >telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses too funny > >Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand >the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather >than obfuscate. Ronda, it is you who obfuscates but assuming you know more about international telecommunications law and policy development than tony. if you think that the only thing that defines the internet is its R FCs you ar e incredibly naive. > >why can't you get it through you head ronda that Tony is talking > >international telecommunications *LAW* as defined by the ITU and by > >governments which are obliged to obey ITU decrees!? > >But the Internet has been created through a process of RFCs that have >helped to define it, not as either defined by or in reaction to >ITU. > >The RFC's point to the Internet as a public internetwork of autonomous >networks. > >Those distinctions are important. > >Also there is a need to understand the Internet's unique development >which is different from that of the telephone system. >Hence ITU law or reaction to ITU law is not an appropriate way >to determine the nature of the Internet. > >Ronda 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] Internet stability
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 3 15:54:10 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BE318C1B for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) id 22E8BF01D; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074) id DDDE0F01F; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.100]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51B7F01D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (ipa48.trenton2.nj.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.139.48]) by grebe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27698 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: <v0421010bb3ccf4fadc53@[192.168.0.1]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:39:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: R Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the >telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses too funny Its disappointing Gordon that you make fun rather than try to understand the distinction being made and try to help to clarify rather than obfuscate. >why can't you get it through you head ronda that Tony is talking >international telecommunications *LAW* as defined by the ITU and by >governments which are obliged to obey ITU decrees!? But the Internet has been created through a process of RFCs that have helped to define it, not as either defined by or in reaction to ITU. The RFC's point to the Internet as a public internetwork of autonomous networks. Those distinctions are important. Also there is a need to understand the Internet's unique development which is different from that of the telephone system. Hence ITU law or reaction to ITU law is not an appropriate way to determine the nature of the Internet. Ronda
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Jeff and all, Agreed. I wasn't intimating that you specifically had a fear of government, especially ours. However I was intimating that the GAC and ICANN DO have such a fear. Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: Hello: I appreciate the support. It's not at issue that I fear the government. The only issue I see here is that governments officials must be well behavied and refrain from such arrogant behaviour. Government are our friends, and Dr. Tooney's comments make them look evil and i'll kept. On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Jeff and all, > > I can see your point. I tend to agree to the extent that people that are afraid > of government, shouldn't be, at least not in the US anyway. But some seem > to be in instances where some regulation is involved. However the USG is > at least accountable to the voters, that can't be said of the ICANN or the > ICANN's creation the GAC and Mr. Toomey. > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi > > less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening > > comments. > > > > Regards > > Jeff Mason > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Jeff and all, > > > > > > Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics. As such > > > he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack > > > in creditability. > > > > > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > > > > > This why you want to avoid the characterization > > > > > of being a public resource - and why conversely > > > > > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > > > > > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > > > > > public resources. Being a public resource > > > > > means that governments will ultimately control > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 > > > > > > > > I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting > > > > treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments > > > > would take over the function. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Jeff Mason > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > 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 Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 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] Internet stability
>This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified. Where ? >Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet. > >Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed >to be part of the communication with others etc. > >Usenet was a public entity. Nope. Usenet is a common private trust. There's absolutley nothing public about it. I'd love to see some evidence it was public. 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] Internet stability
Oh my god, so ronda as the denizen of usenet can't see the telecommunications world except through USEnet glasses too funny why can't you get it through you head ronda that Tony is talking international telecommunications *LAW* as defined by the ITU and by governments which are obliged to obey ITU decrees!? >"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Dear Rhonda, > > >>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". > >>... > >>The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is > > >I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the > >constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, > >it is private. Most others are. > >It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of >the Internet. > >If you want a private network, have your private network. > >If you want to be part of the Internet, then you have become >something different from your private network, you have >become part of an internetworking of networks. > >You are *no* longer private. > >This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified. > >Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet. > >Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed >to be part of the communication with others etc. > >Usenet was a public entity. 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] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Hello: I appreciate the support. It's not at issue that I fear the government. The only issue I see here is that governments officials must be well behavied and refrain from such arrogant behaviour. Government are our friends, and Dr. Tooney's comments make them look evil and i'll kept. On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Jeff and all, > > I can see your point. I tend to agree to the extent that people that are afraid > of government, shouldn't be, at least not in the US anyway. But some seem > to be in instances where some regulation is involved. However the USG is > at least accountable to the voters, that can't be said of the ICANN or the > ICANN's creation the GAC and Mr. Toomey. > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi > > less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening > > comments. > > > > Regards > > Jeff Mason > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > Jeff and all, > > > > > > Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics. As such > > > he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack > > > in creditability. > > > > > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > > > > > This why you want to avoid the characterization > > > > > of being a public resource - and why conversely > > > > > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > > > > > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > > > > > public resources. Being a public resource > > > > > means that governments will ultimately control > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 > > > > > > > > I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting > > > > treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments > > > > would take over the function. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Jeff Mason > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > 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 Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Jeff and all, I can see your point. I tend to agree to the extent that people that are afraid of government, shouldn't be, at least not in the US anyway. But some seem to be in instances where some regulation is involved. However the USG is at least accountable to the voters, that can't be said of the ICANN or the ICANN's creation the GAC and Mr. Toomey. Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: Hello: The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening comments. Regards Jeff Mason On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Jeff and all, > > Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics. As such > he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack > in creditability. > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > > > This why you want to avoid the characterization > > > of being a public resource - and why conversely > > > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > > > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > > > public resources. Being a public resource > > > means that governments will ultimately control > > > it. > > > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 > > > > I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting > > treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments > > would take over the function. > > > > Regards > > Jeff Mason > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > 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 > > -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 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] Internet stability
"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dear Rhonda, >>And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". >>... >>The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is >I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the >constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, >it is private. Most others are. It can be yours, but it still isn't private if it is part of the Internet. If you want a private network, have your private network. If you want to be part of the Internet, then you have become something different from your private network, you have become part of an internetworking of networks. You are *no* longer private. This issue came up on early Usenet and got clarified. Those sites that wanted to be private, couldn't be on Usenet. Once one was on Usenet, one announced one's site, agreed to be part of the communication with others etc. Usenet was a public entity. If AOL or your network Tony, want to be private, then have your network. By agreeing to collaborate the way the Internet requires one collaborate, one doesn't change the internal nature of ones network, but one becomes part of a larger entity, and thus not a private self contained entity. The point is that Compuserve or the Source were private networks. People signed onto them and had the benefit of what they provided. But until they became part of the Internet their users couldn't communicate with other users on other networks. If you want a private network, why be part of the Internet? Why not just have your private network? The point is that if you are part of the Internet you agree to be part of a people-computer-network communication system that is something bigger than your private network. If you don't want that, then have your private network and perhaps figure out how to have a gateway to some other private network that also wants to be private. That is different from being part of an Internet. >>The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. > >>They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. >Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? >Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential >function? Isn't there something public? Isn't it that the participating networks are there to make the routing possible? What about the IP numbers? What about the root server system? If these are essential for the Internet to function then the private entity who will control them will control the Internet. Then it will *no* longer be an Internet, but a privately controlled entity which must be obedient to the whims and wiles of who controls the IP numbers. Then the open architecture concept that is the foundation of the Internet is no longer functioning. It is no longer that any network that wants to join can join, it is that there is the power to decide who will join which will reside in whoever controls the IP numbers. Similarly if the root server system becomes private then he who controls the root server system will control who will have access and who won't. Either these are public functions that mean that they are in the public domain and have certain obligations and procedures can be required to make sure that all have access, or they are in the private control of the one who grabs the control. >>The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. >Can't a private medium be used for communication >among the general public? But that isn't the Internet. Tony, what is an Internet to you? My point is that the Internet is a system that is made up of a number of diverse parts that make it possible for there to be communication. It depends on cooperation of those diverse parts and of contributions from those diverse parts. Once we start with something private we have a different paradigm. We no longer have an Internet. >--tony 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] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Hello: The comments made by Dr. Tooney concern me, he sounds a bit like a mafiosi less the dentures. It's critical that government refrain from threatening comments. Regards Jeff Mason On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > Jeff and all, > > Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics. As such > he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack > in creditability. > > Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > > > This why you want to avoid the characterization > > > of being a public resource - and why conversely > > > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > > > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > > > public resources. Being a public resource > > > means that governments will ultimately control > > > it. > > > > >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 > > > > I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting > > treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments > > would take over the function. > > > > Regards > > Jeff Mason > > > > -- > > Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 > > 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 > > -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability - ICANN Creditability
Jeff and all, Jeff, Paul Toomey is frequently using these fear tactics. As such he along with the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board show their lack in creditability. Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > This why you want to avoid the characterization > of being a public resource - and why conversely > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > public resources. Being a public resource > means that governments will ultimately control > it. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments would take over the function. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 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] Internet stability
> >So, if NSI wants to add more servers for .com/.net/.org it isn't going to > >be able to do so, at least not from the current root system, at least > >without violating that part of the specification. > > They can have as many servers as they want, so long as no individual > response from the roots is more than 512 bytes. It'd be pretty simple > to twiddle BIND to rotate through the list giving each requester 12 > servers chosen from the total set so that each server appears in > `roughly equal numbers of responses. > > This code may already be in place. I know that AOL and some other > large sites rotate the answers they give to queries for MX servers and > for things like the ICQ master server. You are right. Yes, the DNS spec only demands that there be no more than twelve servers listed in the packet. But I'm not at all sure what happens, however, as a user's intermediary server learns that a TLD has more than 12 servers. Those intermediary servers would have to also limit their responses to listing only a subset of what they know. (All in all the 512 byte restriction is a pain, and an obsolete one.) --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
> > http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/ > > Well and succinctly put. Thanks. > Cooperation among the various root operators (or lack thereof) would likely > determine the best working model. When you say "various root operators" do you mean the server operators or the operators of the each of the groups of servers, each of which constitutes what I've been trying to call a "root system"? There certainly needs to be some firm cooperation between the operators of root servers who belong to a given root system. But as far as inter-root system cooperation goes -- I don't see the need for there to be any beyond adhering to a common protocol standard. I see enlightened self interest as a force that will cause there to be no net-instability causing practices. By-the-way, I forget to mention the "value added service" that I didn't put into the URL mentioned above -- that is that when there are multiple root systems, one can subscribe to one that will vector you to TLD servers which are in parts of the net that are topologically close to where you are. This can have significant benefits. DNS queries won't end up travelling so far across the net (this saves potentially mongo on long-haul bandwidth), response times ought to be shorter (although long haul delays on today's net aren't all that bad), and the traffic would transit fewer exchange/peering points, one of the the prime places where internet packet loss occurs. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
?? Hypothesis: It's not a question of the networks, it's a question of the legal frameworks that have jurisdiction in the final analysis over the networks. Unfortunately, it remains to be proven that the corpus of international and sovereign law is anything other than public, (in the sense of respublica) and that the law administers the networks rather than vice versa. Which would be admittedly much more interesting, I suspect. It is also not to deny that networks can in the long term create and change law, albeit in a slow and frustrating way. As soon as the G8 countries elect network managers rather than lawyers as chief executives rather than presidents, we can all switch. The freedoms you mention are temporary and get closed down if not largely used in furtherance of the perceived respublicae. Please correct me if I am wrong. "Richard J. Sexton" wrote: > At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". > > Prove it. > > 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] Internet stability
>At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". > > > >Prove it. don't look for ronda to respond in any reasonable fashion as far as i can tell she is simply not interested in taking her blinders off. > > >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] Internet stability
At 02:09 AM 8/3/99 , you wrote: independent cable-TV as well. My father was an amateur radio operator when radio first got started, and his stories about the fight to stop amateur radio station licensing sounded very much like the present struggle. I'm more than familiar with those struggles. This why you want to avoid the characterization of being a public resource - and why conversely the GAC has adopted an international agreement stating Internet Name and Number systems are public resources. Being a public resource means that governments will ultimately control it. The radio spectrum was progressively made a public resource and brought under increasingly more extensive regulatory regimes by the ITU beginning in 1903 and the US Dept of Commerce in 1912. (In fact, my call sign was the 18th issued by them in August 1912.) ICANN's regulatory regime bears a striking similarity to what ultimately occurred with respect to the use of the radio spectrum. --tony W3AR (and President of the Detroit Amateur Radio Association. 1964-65)
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > I'm more than familiar with those struggles. > This why you want to avoid the characterization > of being a public resource - and why conversely > the GAC has adopted an international agreement > stating Internet Name and Number systems are > public resources. Being a public resource > means that governments will ultimately control > it. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=real&dir=icann&file=DNSO-GA-052599&start=3-37-30&end=5-25-30 I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments would take over the function. Regards Jeff Mason -- Planet Communication & Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 08:01 AM 8/3/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility >wrote: >> >> I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting >> treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments >> would take over the function. > >There is absolutely no doubt that if ICANN fails, governments will >take over at least some of the functions. If you look closely, the >USG, in the form of NTIA, actually has current control over the root >zone... > >-- >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be >[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain Very cool. Can't wait. 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] Internet stability
At 07:57 AM 8/3/99 -0400, Ronda Hauben wrote: >And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". Prove it. 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] Internet stability
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:24AM -0400, Planet Communications Computing Facility wrote: > > I was very surprised to see Dr. Paul Toomey at the GAC Open Meeting > treatening the world with such statements as, If ICANN fails, governments > would take over the function. There is absolutely no doubt that if ICANN fails, governments will take over at least some of the functions. If you look closely, the USG, in the form of NTIA, actually has current control over the root zone... -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Dear Rhonda, And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". ... The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is I have juxtaposed two of your sentences. One of the constituent networks - 206.5.17.0 - is mine. I assure, it is private. Most others are. The essential functions of the Internet aren't "private" at all. They are part of a public medium, *not* a private entity. Is routing an essential function? How does it occur? Is there anything public whatsoever about this essential function? The Internet is a communication medium and its *not* something private. Can't a private medium be used for communication among the general public? --tony
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 2 12:10:58 1999 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F9518C1E for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) id 60BF3F019; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix, from userid 1074) id 35DC3F029; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca (bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca [128.100.132.16]) by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E3CF019 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from elope.dialin.utoronto.ca ([142.150.129.134] HELO Craig.utoronto.ca ident: NO-IDENT-SERVICE [port 1038]) by bureau6.utcc.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <464222-8823>; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:10:40 -0400 Message-ID: <004f01bedd01$2e849820$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Craig McTaggart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Internet stability Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:07:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: R "Craig McTaggart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > At 06:24 PM 8/1/99 , Dan Steinberg wrote: >> >Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, >> >why the requests to make changes that would enhance the >> >stablity of the internet were denied? > >> I would go one further and ask why and under what >> authority the US Dept of Commerce is involved in >> details of name server operations for an enhanced >> information service on private computer networks. There isn't any basis for commerce to give this away. And the Internet isn't "private computer networks". That's the trouble with the effort of both the Commerce Dept trying to give this away and with the whole way that the give-away started. It was under this same set of terms. There Office of Inspector General of the NSF in their Feb. 7 1997 report which the NSF and the Commerce Dept ignored, explained what the authority and obligation of the U.S. government was to protect the large public investment and development that has built the Internet to see that the public purposes and needs be served, rather than that these public resources are seized by illegitimate private entities for their private purposes. The Internet is an internetworking of networks -- that is something that requires coordination and oversight and support to continue its scientific development. The Commerce Dept cannot understand this nor has any business with any of it. When I read the Dept of Commerce response to the early letter that Bliley sent, it said that the NSF could cooperate with the Dept of Commerce to write contracts, *but* not that the NSF had the authority to give anything to the Dept of Commerce to give away. >By what authority did NSF give NSI's its monopoly? Why does NASA run root >servers? I'm a little confused about the USG's involvement in this network >too, but I think it has something to do with its funding and direction of >the management of ARPANET and NSFNET. No, the Internet is not ARPANET nor >NSFNET, and hasn't been for some time -- the physical infrastructure and >content elements have changed completely. Yet we are still using the same >technical infrastructure, the same restrictive root zone, and the same root >server system. To the extent that I'm wrong, and it's not the same stuff, >the difference is one of scale, of quantity, not quality. The problem was that NSF allowed NSI to charge amounts on a government contract that weren't appropriate. The NSF had the authority as it has been part of the structure in the U.S. government to develop the Internet (which still needs to be developed). But the NSF doesn't have the authority to be privatizing public property, and thus its allowing NSI to run the contract in a way that leads to privatizing all this is the problem, *not* that it had the contract, and basically it seemed from the letter of the Commerce Dept the NSF should still have the contract. ICANN had and will have no authority. The U.S. government did have and does have the authority to continue to support and oversee and even run the aspects of the Internet that are necessary for the public to have the benefit of this scientific development built with public fund
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Karl Auerbach wrote: > > The most interesting part is that there is not a thing that NTIA or ICANN > can do to stop the creation of multiple root systems. I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you, Karl. The USG stopped alternative radio and TV networks, and they've stopped independent cable-TV as well. My father was an amateur radio operator when radio first got started, and his stories about the fight to stop amateur radio station licensing sounded very much like the present struggle. = INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS http://www.iciiu.org(ICIIU)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel(718)846-7482Fax(603)754-8927 =
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 12:09 AM 8/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >The best way to answer you is suggest that you check out: > http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/ > >In the second second section of the current issue I describe what I'm >thinking of. > Karl, Well and succinctly put. But my question was more one of philosophical approach than technical. I fully understand the operational considerations. My point was more that there are at least two ways to approach a multiple root system which allows for both new and legacy root resolution. Cooperation among the various root operators (or lack thereof) would likely determine the best working model. BTW, I agree with your basic premise at the above URL. Gene... ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
Craig, By what authority did NSF give NSI's its monopoly? Why does NASA run root servers? I'm a little confused about the USG's involvement in this network The same authority that gave "monopolies" to the root and all the other 15 million domains, to MCI-IBM (NSFNet), to MFS et al. (NAPs), Sprint (ICM backbones), to the regional networks, to (3000 other awardees of various infrastructure pieces with attendant intellectual property). It's was a private shared user network, even when it was substantially funded and controlled by the US Government. .com) is the VHS tape, the 3.5" floppy, the Windows of the Internet. NSI should scare the hell out of multiple root supporters, but instead it has emerged as something of a hero in the battle against top-down regulation. I don't think Commerce has any authority here whatsoever, but I prefer them to NSI. Glad to see we're in agreement on the law. Call me biased, but we're going to pick agencies without authority to do the transition, my choice is the FCC as an independent agency with a private-sector orientation rather than an Executive Branch agency that represents the government's interests. > > Does the Commerce Department intend to begin managing > the operations of even more critical network functions > of the Internet? ^'s composite networks and applications If the Internet isn't a network, how could it possibly have 'critical network functions'? See above. --tony
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > At 06:24 PM 8/1/99 , Dan Steinberg wrote: > >Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, > >why the requests to make changes that would enhance the > >stablity of the internet were denied? > > I would go one further and ask why and under what > authority the US Dept of Commerce is involved in > details of name server operations for an enhanced > information service on private computer networks. By what authority did NSF give NSI's its monopoly? Why does NASA run root servers? I'm a little confused about the USG's involvement in this network too, but I think it has something to do with its funding and direction of the management of ARPANET and NSFNET. No, the Internet is not ARPANET nor NSFNET, and hasn't been for some time -- the physical infrastructure and content elements have changed completely. Yet we are still using the same technical infrastructure, the same restrictive root zone, and the same root server system. To the extent that I'm wrong, and it's not the same stuff, the difference is one of scale, of quantity, not quality. How private are the entities which operate the root servers? Why are they involved in the details of name server operations for an enhanced information service on private computer networks? They should just walk away and let a new root server system self-organize, since it sounds so easy. Commerce should just walk away and let the Internet community deal with NSI on its own. That would be a good way to make sure there is never any meaningful competition in TLD registration, especially if NSI were still in control of the root. The legacy root, mind you, and there's no reason there can't be others. Unfortunately, the legacy root (or more precisely .com) is the VHS tape, the 3.5" floppy, the Windows of the Internet. NSI should scare the hell out of multiple root supporters, but instead it has emerged as something of a hero in the battle against top-down regulation. I don't think Commerce has any authority here whatsoever, but I prefer them to NSI. > > Does the Commerce Department intend to begin managing > the operations of even more critical network functions > of the Internet? If the Internet isn't a network, how could it possibly have 'critical network functions'? Craig McTaggart Graduate Student Faculty of Law University of Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
> Would you suggest a "common root server" model (where, for example, all > roots point to the A server as well as others) or a "mirrored root server" > model (where, for example, A, B, and C root servers are identical and used > for the common point) for the central control of the root? The best way to answer you is suggest that you check out: http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/ In the second second section of the current issue I describe what I'm thinking of. In essence it is completely distinct systems of roots, operated with no imposed coordination except the enlightened self-interest of their operators. Those systems of root servers build their "inventory" of TLD pointers according to what they think they can sell to their user/customer base. Each root system operator selects which TLDs will be included and which will not be included. As I describe in the note, there are economic pressures which will drive each root system to include all of the "viable" TLDs. And there are value added services that can give a user reasons for selecting one root server system over another. (Yes, there really are value added services -- it was a big surprise to me, but, in fact, there are several, although I only mention one in the note I mention above.) As for the TLDs -- I'd leave it to the TLD operators to duke it out among themselves using traditional legal and economic methods, and without any top-down imposed regulatory structures. TLDs which are disputed are likely to be considered "not viable" by the root operators. The most interesting part is that there is not a thing that NTIA or ICANN can do to stop the creation of multiple root systems. The technology is in place and deployed. And there are already several existance proofs that it works and that the net is not destabilized. --karl-- (As an aside, there is utterly nothing special about an "A" server -- the one used by the current roots is simply a legacy of operational procedures, nothing more.)
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 08:41 PM 8/1/99 -0700, you wrote: >As it stands, however, we could easily obtain a further improvement in net >stability if we established multiple root systems that pointed additional >servers for the current TLDs. Karl, Would you suggest a "common root server" model (where, for example, all roots point to the A server as well as others) or a "mirrored root server" model (where, for example, A, B, and C root servers are identical and used for the common point) for the central control of the root? Gene... > >That would allow me as a user, ISP operator, or corporate/organizational >administrator to select a root system that best met my own needs. And if >it went down, I could quickly switch to another root system. > > --karl-- > > > > ++ Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated 330-699-8106
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
> I have been informed that recently NSI requested permission to deploy > additional TLD servers for enhanced stability. I was further informed > that you denied their request to make changes to the root zone that > would render these servers operational. I just looked at the delegations for .com/.net/.org and they all seem to point to the following twelve TLD servers... A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. Now due to an ancient (and essentially obsolete, but nevertheless still in RFC1035) limitation on the size of UDP packets: 4.2.1. UDP usage ... Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes (not counting the IP or UDP headers). Longer messages are truncated and the TC bit is set in the header. This limits the number of answers that can be stuffed into a DNS response packet when one's software tracking down through the DNS hierarchy. In particular, it limits the number of servers that can be assigned to a zone to 12. (I haven't worked out the math on this myself, so I'm relying on calculations performed by others.) So, if NSI wants to add more servers for .com/.net/.org it isn't going to be able to do so, at least not from the current root system, at least without violating that part of the specification. I understand that this 512 byte limit is being reconsidered by the IETF. I can attest that from a software writer's perspective it is a limit that is easy to change. And from the perspective of network MTU -- The old MTU of 576 is hard to find anywhere except on some PPP links, and even then IP fragmentation and reassembly handles the job and reassembly implementations have become rather more robust than they were 12 years ago. I do note however, that the current delegations for .com/.net/.org have many of the same same computers doing double duty as root and TLD servers. That is bad form and if NSI is addressing that, good for them. As it stands, however, we could easily obtain a further improvement in net stability if we established multiple root systems that pointed additional servers for the current TLDs. That would allow me as a user, ISP operator, or corporate/organizational administrator to select a root system that best met my own needs. And if it went down, I could quickly switch to another root system. --karl--
Re: [IFWP] Internet stability
At 06:24 PM 8/1/99 , Dan Steinberg wrote: Can you confirm that these events did occur, and if so, why the requests to make changes that would enhance the stablity of the internet were denied? I would go one further and ask why and under what authority the US Dept of Commerce is involved in details of name server operations for an enhanced information service on private computer networks. Does the Commerce Department intend to begin managing the operations of even more critical network functions of the Internet? --tony
