Gordon and all, especially you John Patrick, Agreed Gordo. Nice try here John, but that interesting piece of PR BS, didn't stick to the wall, so to speak! >;) Try again. Hay John, hows your old buddy George Sorros doing these days? I hear that the DOJ is looking into some of his investment and banking activities in the "Russian scandal"... Need I say more? >;) Good overview here Gordo. >;) Gordon Cook wrote: > Sorry John, I simply don't believe it. > > Here's what I sent elsewhere before I discovered this: > > Yet another propaganda piece artfully and deceptively designed to > reassure those who haven't been paying close attention to facts of > what this unsueable unaccountable clique is doing. The pattern of > deception continues. ISOC, Vint cerf, Patrick himself, Roberts, > Dyson continue to manuever into place an organization that is > absolutely unaccountable. > > Note Patrick's silken assurances below. Contrast his frank statement > on June 8th of this year to VCs when he tried to get money for > ICANN. Patrick: "ICANN is trying to get the policy, technical and > financial aspects of the Internet moved successfully from U.S. > government to the international private sector. Everyone thinks this > is a good idea. In fact, I would say that the future of the Internet > is dependent on the execution of the plan." > > POLICT TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the internet. There you > have it. Privately in Patricks own words June 8th 1999. Not as he > says below just coordinate the internet plumbing. > > Patrick to the Venture Capital ists on June 8th. "Not sound > alarmist, but if ICANN fails e-business/e-anything is in jeopardy. > This means your future investments and your past ones." > > Now I and others including Pat Townson as moderator to 65,000 readers > of Telecom Digest have asked Cerf, R oberts, Dyson et al to come up > with a real scenario rather than a sound byte as to why the internet > is in trouble and e-commerce will fail if ICANN fails. Not one of > the ICANN clique has come forward with anything except the statement > that if ICANN fails, the net will be accountable to politicians who > in turn are directly accountable to the electorate. (That apparently > is seen by the ICANN power brokers as unacceptable.) If you lift the > self serving bed covers and look at the naked ICANN beneath you will > see that ICANN is accountable to no one and certainly not to its > membership which is not yet and installed and from which the ability > to sue ICANN is being prophilacticly removed. > > You Dave Farber were asked for your own scenario that explained why > the Internet is in danger if ICANN fails. About 7 to 10 days ago you > said you were very busy and promised one when you got the chance. > One would think, if these assertions were correct, that the Internet > really would fail that Cerf, Dyson, Patrick, Roberts etc, as the core > operatives of the ICANN/GIP, would have had well worked out arguments > that they could publish, and that they would use these arguments to > defend ICANN as the solution. One might have thought that they would > trust the rest of us to come to our own conclusions. That they > offer instead nothing but one or two sentence prophecies of gloom > and doom while saying that we should trust an organization that can > and does continually change the legal rules for its operation (its > bylaws) bespeaks their healthy contempt for the rest of us. > > This is what Cerf says in private on June 7 1999. Compare it to > Patricks smooth assurances: "If IBM and MCI Worldcom can come up with > $1M in "bridge" funding, to be paid back at a later time under > reasonable terms that will not harm ICANN, then perhaps we can begin > a new fundraising campaign knowing that we have the ability to back > up the campaign with a rescue effort in the short term. It will be > easier for John Sidgmore to make the case to the MCI WorldCom > management if IBM is willing to go into this with us and split the > $1M cost. Is it possible? I would then launch a campaign with GIP, > ITAA, Internet Society, and other interested groups on the basis that > ICANN must succeed or Internet will be in jeopardy. This ought to > play well with any company whose stock price is dependent on a > well-functioning Internet." "Thoughts?"" > > and 48 hours ago from Jon Cohen head of ICANN's intellectual > property constituency: > "a new, secret candidate who may be announcing his intention > to run [for the ICANN Board] and he apparently already has, or will > have the support of > business, ISPs and most Americans. I spoke to Steve, and he > immediately informed me that this candidate is likely former > Congressman Rick Waters, from the Pacific Northwest, who is > apparently very well known and has worked in this area." > > R ick White will be ICANN's chosen "fixer/lobbyist' to reassure the > US Congress that it should no longer question Icann's intentions. > The fixing will go on while ICANN will own all domain names and can > remove anyone's name for any reason that it so chooses. Quoting > ICANN: "You agree that your domain name may be canceled, deleted or > transferred at any time." > > Take a look at the complexity of pattrick's monstrosity at > http://www.wia.org/icann/after_icann-gac.htm > > you decide. > > >Recently there has been a lot of discussion about ICANN and the role IBM > >plays in the organization's efforts. A lot of what I have read is > >inaccurate and I'd like to use this posting to clarify what's really going > >on. > > > >Let me start with my strong belief -- shared by IBM, government leaders and > >many technology organizations -- that the Internet is rapidly becoming the > >global medium. Not a medium. *The* medium. We already see that e- > >business is dependent on the Internet, and we're starting to see people > >around the world relying on it for education, disease management, > >entertainment, real-time communications and collaboration, and even > >government services, to name just a few uses. In fact, it's hard to see > >what won't be dependent on the Internet. So what makes the Internet work > >and who is responsible to ensure it will continue working in the future as > >the growth continues? That's the role that ICANN was designed to play. > > > >We all know that when you type "www.myfavoritewebsite.com," it has to be > >translated to an all-numeric address that the Internet infrastructure > >understands. Because the Internet is made up of many heterogeneous and > >separately-managed networks, the early Internet inventors and pioneers > >realized that a central third party was needed to manage the assignment of > >domain names and network addresses so that "www.myfavoritewebsite.com" > >always translated to the correct address, even though different users would > >consult different servers to do the translation. > > > >And because most of the early Internet development happened under U.S. > >Government auspices, that central third party was originally designated by > >the US government. But now that the Internet is a global entity, there is > >broad agreement that having one country be the ultimate authority is > >inappropriate. In fact, it's clear that the central third party needs to > >be a global, non-profit, private-sector organization. And, after a long > >and public design process, ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned > >Names and Numbers) was created to fill that role. IBM was one of the many > >private sector organizations that chose to provide input into the design > >process, and we felt then, as we do now, that a neutral, global, non-profit > >organization is the right choice to oversee the administration of Internet > >domain names. > > > >Once the ICANN charter was recognized by the U.S. and the European > >governments, the organization was quickly recognized as the legitimate > >manager of the domain names and numbers by more than 40 countries and many > >of the major private sector organizations with an interest in this area. > >The Internet Society, International Chamber of Commerce, Internet > >Engineering Task Force, U.S. Council for International Business, > >International Trademark Association, Global Internet Project, World Wide > >Web Consortium, and all of the Internet IP address registries (APNIC, RIPE, > >ARIN, etc) are just a few of the organizations that have publically > >supported ICANN. > > > >So who pays for ICANN? ICANN depends on fees charged to users of its > >services. But those fees will not be determined or charged until ICANN has > >a permanent board which will determine the appropriate fee structure. Right > >now, ICANN is in "start-up" mode, with an acting board of directors, and no > >income. As a result, transitional funding has been necessary. > > > >Toward that end, there have been some private sector organizations and > >companies that have stepped up to help out. The Global Internet Project > >(GIP) initiated a fund-raising program in July 1998, and raised > >approximately $400,000. (Note: I am the chairperson of the GIP.) Also, > >MCI and Cisco have made loans or loan guarantees to ICANN. IBM has > >announced (see following link to letter) a $100,000 grant. > >http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ibm-letter-24sept99.htm There are many > >others that have contributed and ICANN has posted the names of these donors > >on their Web site at http://www.icann.com. Considering the support for > >ICANN in the industry, I expect more companies will help with funding > >during this transitional period. > > > >Some people have questioned whether there needs to be an organization > >managing the administrative hierarchy; they'd like to see it handled by > >some distributed self-managing approach. And perhaps such an approach > >could work *if* we were starting with a clean sheet of paper. But with > >hundreds of millions of people and millions of computers using the Net > >every second, there is great risk involved with changing the model. It > >just isn't practical. ICANN plays a critical role in addressing a narrow, > >well-defined list of tasks that define the plumbing of the Internet: > >Coordinating the assignment of the top level of the domain name system; > >overseeing the root name server system; coordinating the assignment of > >parameters for technical standards; and overseeing the assignment of IP > >addresses. > > > >In many respects, ICANN is an unprecedented effort by the Internet > >community to create a globally representative, non-governmental entity - - > >one which will ease the transition of the Internet from a non-commercial, > >research network to the global medium. This transition, unfortunately, > >won't be without growing pains. ICANN has been very open to suggestions > >and criticism and has reacted positively to all constructive input. In a > >relatively short period of time, ICANN has taken significant steps to more > >effectively manage the core functions I described. Among its efforts has > >been the adoption of a new set of rules designed to reduce piracy and > >trademark infringement in the domain name system and the creation of > >competition for domain name registrations. > > > >The bottom line is that I believe - and IBM agrees - that ICANN is an > >essential organization to ensure the long-term growth and health of the > >Internet. If ICANN were to fail, I think that the likely result would be > >governmental agencies - subject, as always, to political influences - > >taking over the management of the Internet. Few people think this a good > >idea; I certainly don't. Neither IBM nor I have any official relationship > >to ICANN, but I am happy to say that when ICANN has asked for help, IBM has > >been responsive; we intend to continue to provide assistance > >and support to ICANN in the future. > > > >So what does IBM get from ICANN by helping them? Nothing more or less than > >everyone else who uses the Internet gets: stability of the Internet. > >We're helping ICANN through its transition because we think it's the most > >effective way to move the authority for Internet names and numbers from the > >U.S. Government to the global private sector - in fact, to the Internet > >community itself. And the sooner we can get through this transition, the > >sooner the stakeholders of the Internet - individual users, as well as > >institutions - can continue to take advantage of the Internet instead of > >arguing about it. > > > >John Patrick > >Vice President - Internet Technology > >IBM Corporation > >http://www.ibm.com/patrick > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > **************************************************************** > The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN > and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml > **************************************************************** 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
