The article states in part "Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek
to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust
exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part
of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally.
So
In worst case fork the code! Balkanize the internets.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 7:22 PM Keith Smith
wrote:
>
> The article states in part "Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek
> to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust
> exemption. Authoritarian regimes have
It seems like pretty much everything in America started with the election of
one Barack Hussain Obama in 2008.
I guess the world will end when he steps down next January, eh?
-David Schwartz
> On Aug 28, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Keith Smith wrote:
>
>
> The article states in part "Without the U.S
8 years ago, when Obama was elected the buzz HERE was how it was wonderful,
he'll bring change.
8 years ago, MY reply was: "You people are going to get exactly what you deserve. The only problem (I) have is that (I) will get
what YOU deserve as well."
On 08/28/2016 09:06 PM, David Schwartz
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/14/icann-internet-control-domain-names-iana
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
And for those who don't trust liberals:
http://www.hoover.org/research/tricky-issue-severing-us-control-over-icann
Basically the US had to turn it over, or there
meh … what do coders know.
If coders ran things, there would be two food groups: pizza and energy drinks.
And nobody would get paid to write code because it would be illegal to charge
for software or to write it. After all, information wants to be free.
-David Schwartz
-David "The Tool Wiz"
My suggestion?
Taking a deep breath, pouring the Koolaid down the drain instead of drinking
it, and repeating to yourself, "I should really stop jumping on every
conspiracy bandwagon I see."
Seriously, I have little doubt that if we had a republican president and a
democratic majority in cong
David,
I had no intention of making this a political discussion. That will do
none of us any good. It will lead to a long multi-person rant with
little discussion of the subject matter.
My concern is what might happen. We will not know until it happens.
There is a lot riding on this. T
As far as I know, the Internet was created by Americans with tax payer
dollars. The Internet belongs to the taxpayers. If other countries do
not like that they do not have to play. The Internet should stay the
property of the USA.
I think we should think about allowing private networks. So
Here is some hope!
The solution is a grass-roots solution.
To counter central technology, we will use dispersed and independent
technology. If and when it becomes necessary or expedient, a community
WiFi network is entirely possible. Most people have routers which can
sustain a power input of o
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:01:41 -0700
Keith Smith wrote:
> David,
>
> I had no intention of making this a political discussion.
No, of course not. Your suggestion that the U.N. is subject to greater
control of "authoritarian regimes" isn't an anti U.N. dog whistle
guaranteed to perk up the ears
oh yeah, there are plenty of us hams about and some of us are on a local mesh
network.
now, all I need to do is find a DD-wrt capable router with removable twin
antennas, make a beam or 2 and put it on air.
anyone got a suggestion on the best model to use?
I might also look at using my linux l
Amazing how clear every thing becomes when you take a deep breath!... and
burry your head in the sand.
On Monday, August 29, 2016 1:43:22 AM MST stevenss...@cox.net wrote:
> My suggestion?
>
> Taking a deep breath, pouring the Koolaid down the drain instead of drinking
> it, and repeating to y
ok, I see some issues here.
first off, I am a conservative. I don't hide it but, then, I don't trumpet it
either. As far as I am concerned, politics should have very little to do with
technology or how it gets implemented. Unfortunately, politics has injected
itself into our very lives in the fo
How can we circumvent the current system and use the current
infrastructure?
On 2016-08-29 10:00, Eric Oyen wrote:
ok, I see some issues here.
first off, I am a conservative. I don't hide it but, then, I don't
trumpet it either. As far as I am concerned, politics should have very
little to d
Have you ever read the book Cyberstorm by Matthew Mather? They do exactly
this. Excellent book by the way!
On Monday, August 29, 2016 12:26:04 PM MST subscriptions wrote:
> Here is some hope!
> The solution is a grass-roots solution.
>
> To counter central technology, we will use dispersed and
I'll toss some ideas out. Not saying any are silver bullets but they're
possibilities (all of which depend on getting enough like minded people
and the willingness to coordinate, but then find a solution that
doesn't):
* If you just want an alternative space to kick around in and not a
super-
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:53:09 + (GMT)
stevenss...@cox.net wrote:
> * If I'm going to dream, figure a wireless networking standard that
> can operate at say a mile's range, even something that drops to
> dialup speeds when it's unlicensed and thus you have lots of people
> using it.
Obviously
you could just use this: https://www.ubnt.com/products/
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steve Litt
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:53:09 + (GMT)
> stevenss...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > * If I'm going to dream, figure a wireless networking standard that
> > can operate at say a mile's range, even
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:00:36 -0700
Eric Cope wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steve Litt
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:53:09 + (GMT)
> > stevenss...@cox.net wrote:
> >
> > > * If I'm going to dream, figure a wireless networking standard
> > > that can operate at say a mile
What is the problem with using the existing Internet?
No doubt that's fascinating. From a brief read it seems to fit the bill
quite nicely from a technological viewpoint.
Some potential challenges remain:
A lot of people would be willing to buy a $100 repeater for the good of
the community,
You (Keith) mentioned the UN/DNS connection, and the non-political
portion of the thread flowed from possible solutions if the UN thing
ever came to pass. Eventually it got to mesh, or peer to peer, or
whatever you call it, and one person said he wished the solution's
communication points could spa
LOL, I did everything but answer your question, which was "what is the
problem with using the existing Internet:
1) In dozens of ways, including the "UN connection", or government
snooping or corporate snooping or other ways I haven't begun to
think of, the Internet and/or its associated DNS
well, so long as you have IP addresses, names are not that important. That is
the key right there. since ICANN deals mostly with assigned names, it should be
easy to work around.
now, this may be a tauter simplistic view of the problem and solution, but
then, it's the simplest solutions that of
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:32:52 -0700
Eric Oyen wrote:
> well, so long as you have IP addresses, names are not that important.
> That is the key right there. since ICANN deals mostly with assigned
> names, it should be easy to work around.
>
> now, this may be a tauter simplistic view of the proble
At 12:46 PM 8/30/2016, Steve Litt wrote:
and sleazy little extortionists
(the guy who registered coke.com).
Maybe he was not (I don't know) a 'sleazy little extortionist", but
someone like me, who, as a franchised Culligan Dealer, begged and pleaded
with Culligan, Inc to register their domain na
I don't agree that names are not important. They aren't relative to
computers but our human society and economics literally runs on name
recognition in one way or another. Working for the largest registrant in
the world I can tell you that name recognition is everything in the
internet. I recen
I probably should have been more forthcoming. What I was wondering is
why can't we use the existing Internet infrastructure?
What the U.N. would get is oversight of the root servers. If this fails,
or even goes a little bad there might be an uprising and a new American
Internet could be creat
For the most part you are talking network. Which is needed, however the
real control comes with root server oversight. I would agree the
network needs to improve. the U.N. will not own our U.S. Internet
network. They may have some oversight which we can refuse at some time
and just add ou
What you described is why giving the Internet away is a bad idea. Right
now the Internet is stable. If you have countries and businesses
fighting over things, my fear is you and I will suffer.
In it purist form we are all stake holders and each one of us benefit
from what we know as the Inte
I here what you are saying. My point is that the other infrastructure
pieces create a check and a balance to the entire system. It is an
internet cold war if you will. If Country XYZ forces the UN to require a
member of ICANN to shut down access to a TLD in the US, Country XYZ and
even the UN ha
31 matches
Mail list logo