| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Report From Monterrey (2nd DNSO Meeting) Chuck and all, Your point is well taken here and of course an excellent suggestion. However it is only part of what is necessary or being required by Stakeholder/users. Not only are users wanting more choices in what TLD's that they can register Domains in, they are also part of the basic fabric of the Internet and as such should have equal determination as to how and under what policies or procedures those critical resources of the Internet are managed. These are to include (TLD's, DNS, IP addresses, ASN's, Port assignments, DHCP, and Protocols). cgomes@internic.net wrote: > Without minimizing the importance of individual users, I > would like to suggest that the best way to allow for their > representation is to provide them real choices with regard > to domain registration services. By creating a system that > will allow free market principles to operate to the maximum > extent possible, users should then be able to be represented > by their buying choices. Considering the complexity of the > user community, I believe this will be the most effective > way to provide for user representation. > > Chuck Gomes > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 9:09 PM > To: IFWP Discussion List > Subject: [ifwp] Re: Report From Monterrey (2nd DNSO Meeting) > > > The absence of NSI notwithstanding, the meeting was also > broadly > > representative of DNS interests. There were numerous ccTLD > registries > > represented - Namibia, Chile, Denmark, Austria, and > Brazil, for example. > > There were representatives of EuroISPA, the telcos, CABASE > (the So. > > Amer. Internet alliance), POC and CORE, the INTA (the > trademark > > association), the ORSC, MCI, ISOC, RIPE, CENTRE, and > others. > > I don't see a single representative mentioned for those who > use domain > names. > > Yet those who use and are affected by domain names vastly > outnumber the > number of registrars, registries, and others you've listed. > > Given the names you've mentioned, and with a total of 41 > people present, > there isn't much room for the domain name users, so I think > it is safe to > assume that there few if any user representatives. > > I would suggest that this is therefore a highly > non-representative > meeting. > > And as such the DNSO is very much at risk of becoming simply > a special > interest group to hand over the DNS system to those who sell > names (or > trademark them) rather than those users who need names for > their > businesses, homes, schools, churches, community groups, and > political > groups. > > --karl-- > > __________________________________________________ Regards, > Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] No S.O. Board Positions Bob and all, Bob makes a good and interesting point here that should be addressed an/or considered and is in line with the Oct 20th letter from Beck Burr. However if the Individual Membership Organization has equal representation and voting capability on any policies that the Supporting Organizations may provide in the form of a Referendum before enactment by the ICANN this should provide for adequate check and balance within the structure of the ICANN. Our proposal encompasses this precept. Bob Allisat wrote: > Chris Ambler wrote: > > The DNSO can simply put in their bylaws that they will not appoint > > any board members, and choose to allocate their 3 board members > > as part of the election of members by the NewCo membership. > > David Shutt replied: > + This is an outstanding idea, and one that I would hope the > + participants in the DNSO meetings would seriously consider. > > Respectfully to all concerned: > It has become very clear that > aloting seats on the "Newco" > Board to "Supporting Organization" > is problematic at best. And sets > up this organization to face > many problems in the future. > > Who about we all agree only > *individuals* drawn from a > wide membership be Board > members instead of trying > akward kludges to work > around this obvious deficit. > > Bob Allisat > > Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net > http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Kindest Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Magaziner: ICANN, Mend Thy Ways - Swan song. All: Subtitle: Joe Sims, this means you! FYI, http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16356.html Excerpt: The Commerce Department on 20 October sent a letter to ICANN expressing its hopes that the group will revise its bylaws "consistent with the principles of stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and representation." It said the Clinton administration wanted any group that would manage a privatized Internet to do it with "openness and transparency." Magaziner will meet Thursday with ICANN board members, including chair Esther Dyson and counsel Joe Sims, a lawyer at Jones, Day, Reavis, and Pogue. Dyson said no plans to change the bylaws are in the works. "I don't know of any plans to change that," she said Wednesday. "We'll go over there. We'll listen to what they have to say," Sims said. Kindest regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com The real openness of the ICANN? All, Earlier today, Joe Sims, legal advisor to the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board indicated that the Chair of the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board would not be available for comment in order to supposedly to avoide rumor and a reporters story regarding the assigning of contracts for the registration of Domain Names. (See below post from Joe Sims) To Esther Dysons credit she answered a question put to her regarding this story from Christopher Ambler however. We wonder however if this might be "Previews of coming attractions" to be expected from the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board. It has been noted by many that few if any of the other ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board have been much less than forth coming with comments and response to valid and reasonable questions, and at more than few times even Esther Dyson as well. As the White Paper requires openness it appears to us that such a statement from Joe Sims is an attempt to insulate this ICANN "initial" and Interim Board from being accountable, which is also one of the serious precepts of the White Paper. We can therefore only be left wondering if such a position will become the mantra carried over from the IANA/ISI durring Dr. Jon Postels tenure? ===================Joe sims public post starts here================== Subject: [ifwp] Re: Esther, can you clarify this? Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 15:13:50 -0500 From: "Joe Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com> Reply-To: list@ifwp.org To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> CC: edyson@edventure.com, list@ifwp.org __________________________________________________________________________ This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. __________________________________________________________________________ since I know Esther is not available for the rest of the day, and to avoid the usual rumors, this is obviously a misinterpretation by the reporter . ICANN obviously will not be "assigning domain-naming rights," whatever that means; that is not one of its purposes. (Embedded image moved "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com> to file: 11/18/98 01:52 PM pic04294.pcx) Extension: To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay) Subject: [ifwp] Esther, can you clarify this? ========================end of Joe Sims post ====================== Kindeat regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Report From Monterrey (2nd DNSO Meeting) Ken and all, Very interesting retort to Karls response here Ken. However not unexpected, as par for the course.... We would point out though this "The DNSO" makes the claim of an open organization their own web site betrays that very claim, in much the same fashion as the gTLD-MoU, as it has several relevant mailing lists that are by definition closed. See: http://www.dnso.org/docs/mailinglists.html for further details. As such, this "The DNSO" as it has bee characterized, is not in compliance with the requirements of the White Paper with respect to Transparency, openness, and accountability. In this light we can only therefore conclude that this organization should be viewed in that self stating light, and considered as a less than what some of its members unfortunately claim. Ken Stubbs wrote: > hello karl > > if you had been there karl you would have seen that specific discussion and > consideration was given for educational institutions, non profit > organizations, emerging countries, small business, individual users, and > many of the categories you mentioned below. > > many of us who were there are small business owners and have family members > and friends > who use the net. i am a member of a computer club where i live which has > 1000 individual users as members. we tried very hard to look very closely > from their perspectives as well. > > karl, i know that you are also fully aware that one of the basic problems > with the Internet is that their are no organizations like AARP to advocate > for the individual user. if there were they certainly would have been > invited. > > i am certain that all would glady accept constructive suggestions for > specific additional organizations, people etc whom you might suggest be > involved. > > Ken Stubbs > monterrey attendee > e-mail = kstubbs@corenic.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> > To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> > Date: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 9:15 PM > Subject: [ifwp] Re: Report From Monterrey (2nd DNSO Meeting) > > > > >> The absence of NSI notwithstanding, the meeting was also broadly > >> representative of DNS interests. There were numerous ccTLD registries > >> represented - Namibia, Chile, Denmark, Austria, and Brazil, for example. > >> There were representatives of EuroISPA, the telcos, CABASE (the So. > >> Amer. Internet alliance), POC and CORE, the INTA (the trademark > >> association), the ORSC, MCI, ISOC, RIPE, CENTRE, and others. > > > >I don't see a single representative mentioned for those who use domain > >names. > > > >Yet those who use and are affected by domain names vastly outnumber the > >number of registrars, registries, and others you've listed. > > > >Given the names you've mentioned, and with a total of 41 people present, > >there isn't much room for the domain name users, so I think it is safe to > >assume that there few if any user representatives. > > > >I would suggest that this is therefore a highly non-representative > >meeting. > > > >And as such the DNSO is very much at risk of becoming simply a special > >interest group to hand over the DNS system to those who sell names (or > >trademark them) rather than those users who need names for their > >businesses, homes, schools, churches, community groups, and political > >groups. > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >To view the archive of this list, go to: > >http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > > >To receive the digest version instead, send a > >blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > >subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > >unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > >___END____________________________________________ > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: ICANN, NSI, ISC and the management of the root servers Roeland and all, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 02:02 PM 11/18/98 +0100, Onno Hovers wrote: > >> On 18 Nov 1998, Onno Hovers wrote: > >> > > >> > It is a fact that NSI did not always do what the IANA told them > >> > to do with the root servers. So NSI does *not* do a decent job of > >> > managing the root servers. > >> > >> My concerns are operational. We need a stable Internet and for that > >> we need a stable root name server system. There have been some well- > >> known errors over the last two years, but by and large NSI does a > >> decent job in managing a.root-servers.net and through it the rest of > >> the root name servers. > >> > >> I suspect that your concerns are ideological. > > > >ICANN is supposed to manage the domain name system. They are the ones > >who are going to decide if and when new TLDs should be added and where > >to delegate these TLDs to. Those are an ideological issues, indeed. > > > >However, when such a decision is made, the operator of the primary > >root server has to abide by the decisions of the ICANN. That is a > >purely operational issue. > > > >> I listened carefully to statements by various members of the board in > >> Boston. I find it hard to disagree with the description most commonly > >> used in conversations during breaks: clueless. > > > >The if the board of ICANN is clueless, that is an ideological issue. > >If you do not trust the ICANN to effectively govern the Domain Name System, > >then you are saying that there should be another 'newco'. > > To sharpen this point into proper focus, *that* is exactly the issue here. > Do we accept ICANN, as presented, or not. If not then under what, if any > conditions. If they fail to meet those conditions, what is the alternative(s)? Exactly right here Roeland. It amy be too early to tell if theICANN 'Initial" and Interim Board, however in that all of us were bamboozled into how they came about beyond any doubt from the Boston Meeting, it is difficult that we can except them without some fairly strict conditions. Some of those condition are already known from the IFWP conferences and the White Paper requirements, which the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board have not come close to meeting yet. If they don't do so soon, than the alternatives are, or should be clear. The ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board must be replaced. How is a bit more difficult question to answer. > > > >When the ICANN gets to operate the primary root server, the board members > >will not be the ones who will sysadmin that server. The fine technical > >staff of the IANA/ISI, that the ICANN inherited, will babysit that server. > >It is the same staff that has operated B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET for many > >years. > > Dave made a very good point (he does that sometimes), running > b.root-servers.net is very different from running the whole migilla. True. > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com ICANN, NSI, Root Server mngt, cooperation to:[ifwp] NSI/BIND: Dangerous Combination Dave and all, In our humble opinion, Jim is correct here. NSI has not done a perfect job, but they have thus far, done a relatively good job on the whole. Until, as Jim Dixon contends we can all indeed trust the ICANN, if ever, than NSI should remain in charge of the Root. You comment on the that allot of time is being spent on criticizing the ICANN on anything that they say. Well sure they are, and so they should be. Thus far the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board have not lived up to the White Paper and are blatantly contending that they are not going to do so, with such statements regarding Open Voting Records, and several other statements made in public like the November 6th letter to the NTIA in contrast to Esther Dysons own comments on this very list. They must pass muster, just that simple. If they don't, than they will fail and we shall start again. The devil is always in the details. And those details are important. Dave Crocker wrote: > At 08:50 AM 11/18/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: > >My concerns are operational. We need a stable Internet and for that > >we need a stable root name server system. There have been some well- > >known errors over the last two years, but by and large NSI does a > >decent job in managing a.root-servers.net and through it the rest of > >the root name servers. > > > >I suspect that your concerns are ideological. > > Jim, > > We need to be very careful, when characterizing NSI's work with respect to > the DNS root servers. > > There is a difference between knowing how to operate a single machine, at > the direction of another, versus being able to provide overall coordination > of an integrated service. NSI has done the former, not the latter, with > respect to the DNS. > > There is nothing in NSI's work on the DNS root service which suggests that > it is particularly qualified to run it now. In fact, there are a number of > very specific operational indicators which suggest that it would not be a > very good choice. > > Since your concern is primarily operational -- and I very much encourage > maintaining that focus -- it is curious that you have somehow concluded > that NSI is particularly qualified. > > >> NSI has shown, repeatedly, that they cannot be entrusted with the control > >> of the root servers. The most recent incident being the fact that they > >> made F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET secondary for their gTLDs without coordinating it > >> with the IANA. > > > ><sigh> OK, explain to me what provisions of their contract with NSF > >this violated. Alternatively, show me how this impacted the operational > >stability of the Internet. > > And that, I think, is exactly the point: It is not a question of the words > in a contract, it is a question of working collaboratively with others > providing Internet service. > > In some circumstances, NSI staff does this very well. DNS Root operations > seems not to qualify in that regard. > > >I have my differences with NSI. We operated gTLD servers at the LINX in > >London under an IANA/LINX/RIPE/ISPA UK agreement for a year and a half; > >NSI steadfastly refused to point the root name servers at our gTLD servers, > >creating one excuse after another for doing so and leaving all of us > >furious. > > Q.E.D. > > >But I am not blind. I can see that the ICANN board, although they may be > >individually competent and have good intentions, have not shown us the > >necessary evidence of their ability to manage critical network resources. > > We can thank all of the political and emotional forces that have brought us > to a point of such extraordinary pressure and criticism for the fact that > the ICANN board cannot possibly make any statements that will be generally > acceptable. > > As a consequence, we need to look at the substantive actions and stop > spending all our bloody energy on criticizing or challenging every > micro-component of process. > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445 > <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Post Office Box 296, U.P.M. > Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA > Brandenburg Consulting > <http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253 > Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Vixie/BIND: Dangerous Combination Jim and all, Jim Dixon wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Jim Dixon wrote: > > > > > The root name servers are a critical Internet resource. They are > > > currently under the control of NSI, who do a decent job of managing > > > them. That is, the current arrangement works. > > > > Only the master and one other root nameserver are under the control of > > NSI. > > Control of the entire set of root name servers is effected by loading > a.root-servers.net with data. The other servers then copy it. There > are some niggling details (like the management of {a-m}.gtld-servers.net) > but let's ignore them. NSI controls the content of all of the root name > servers and gTLD servers. This is of course correct given that there are not other methods around thecurrent Root servers structure. But of course this is not the case, as we all know. However in as much as it relates to whom points to which Name servers, and the advent of late changes in Browser and shared Root server DNS architecture, we now know that there is a definite grass roots (No pun intended), effort afoot that may or may not have a effect on what gTLD's will be valid under what structure or structures that can be interfaced. > > > > The other root nameservers are run by a number of different > > individuals and their activities were coordinated by Jon Postel of IANA > > until his untimely death. So if the current arrangement continues to work, > > it is not thanks to NSI, it is thanks to the root nameserver operators who > > are continuing their task even though they have lost the IANA's central > > coordinating function. Since ICANN is intended to fill the role that IANA > > filled they have a responsibility to make arrangements to fill the role > > that Postel used to fill. > > This is angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. If NSI changes > something in its master servers, it changes in all of the other > servers. If NSI doesn't change it, it doesn't. This is true as far as it relates to a-m root servers only, and may not evengo that far in the near future. Here is an area where policy will be a considerable factor in the near term future possibly. > > > NSI has had practical, not theoretical, control over the root name > servers for years. It has made a number of errors, but when all is > said and done, NSI has done a decent job. Very much agreed. However having someone like Paul Vixie in an activerole under contract may or may not effect this should that be a possibility and a policy decision. > > > > > It is difficult for me to see any merit in turning the root servers > > > over to ICANN. It may be ideologically correct. But as a group they > > > have no track record at all and what I saw in Boston on Saturday did > > > not fill me with hope. > > > > I do not expect the ICANN board to have any involvement at all in the > > operation of the root namemservers. I only suggest that they should > > administer whoever does run the root nameservers. > > Then the root name servers should stay with NSI until ICANN demonstrates > the sort of steady competence that merits moving them. Agreed. Thus far ICANN has a long way to go to be in that sort ofa position logically. > > > This isn't some little political play. It's a practical matter. The > proper management of the root name servers is crucial to the operation > of the Internet. Practically we agree here, however that may not be in line with policy orpolitics. As most wise folks know, Politics and politicians often have strange bedfellows from time to time. > > > We know how NSI will handle the root name servers. They have been > doing it for years and have done a decent job. We know how Paul Vixie > would handle the root name servers. He is the guy who wrote the software > for these servers; he has been managing f.root-servers.net for years. > We can trust him; we know who he is. From a particle point of view, we would agree. However even Paul Vixiecould be influenced politically to do something that is not practical necessarily. And this is really where the rubber meets the road so to speak.... > > > The ICANN board on display in Boston seemed generally competent and > knew how to smile. But we haven't a clue how long they will hang > together and there is no sign of the specific competence necessary to > run the root name servers. A good public image does not make for a good board. Much of historyin many areas of endeavor have proven this time and time again. > > > What makes sense for the Internet is to keep the root name servers and > other critical assets in demonstrably competent hands while giving the > ICANN board time to prove its own competence. This doesn't mean simply > competence in making people feel good. It includes competence in > handling technical resources. How true Jim!! > > > > > Esther Dyson thinks that the Internet is somehow similar to the old > > > Soviet Union; she thinks it would be, in her words, "fun" to try to > > > fix it. She does not even seem to notice that ICANN's objectives > > > as spelt out in the company's articles are very limited and purely > > > technical. Nor does she seem to understand that, unlike the Soviet > > > Union, the Internet runs very well indeed. > > > > Quite frankly I am mystified at how anyone can see parallels between the > > ultimate libertarian dream of a decentralized, self-governing Internet and > > the top-down hierarchical centrally managed economy of the Soviet Union. > > The Internet may be like an elephant, i.e. hard to fully comprehend, but > > it doesn't take much study to realize that it is almost a complete > > opposite of the Sovet-style central bureaucracy. > > Yep. Her remarks about how experience in Eastern Europe prepared her > for a role as ICANN chair were startling. Agreed. Startling indeed, yet not necessarily a negative concern as we are surethat this is not her only experience background. Lets hope the Esther Dyson is overly influenced by her experiences with EFF.ORG It would be wise for her to take a more pragmatic and plural approach in her and the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board. > > > > > Given all this, no, I can't see turning over the root name servers > > > to ICANN and then having Vixie design an operational infrastructure. > > > This would put the operational stability of the Internet at risk for a > > > year or two. Simply leaving the servers at NSI is preferable. > > > > The servers are not at NSI. They are in several locations throughout the > > USA, plus one in London and one in Tokyo. > > I know where the servers are. The server in Stockholm has been there > far longer than the servers at the LINX and in Tokyo. And no, Stockholm > is not in the USA. > > > I am not suggesting that Vixie > > should design a replacement infrastructure, but that he would be a > > suitable individual to act as a liaison between the ICANN board and the > > operational infrastructure that they inherit from IANA. > > I see. What I am suggesting is that either the root servers stay at > NSI or be transferred to Vixie/ISC. We are sure that this approach is not in the best interest of the vast majorityof the Stakeholders/users, nor is it in line with the White Paper's requirements. > > > To be frank, I don't think that Paul Vixie is temperamentally suited > to act as liaison between the ICANN board and whatever you mean by the > operational infrastructure inherited from IANA. As far as I know, he > is not the sort of diplomat needed to tell the ICANN board that "well, > no, it's not a good idea to do that just at the moment because <smile> > it might just cause all of the root servers to ..." go belly up and land > us in 47 different law suits at the same time. As far as the ICANN is concerned it is likely given current direction, anywayLaw suits are inevitable. How bad and what their impact will or may be is the only real question. > > > The ICANN board itself demonstrably has the skills that you are looking > for. These people are good at looking good. What we need at the moment > is someone who can get things done. Paul Vixie is that kind of guy. If > he were willing, he (presumably via ISC) would be an excellent alternative > to NSI in managing the root name server system. The ICANN has two strikes against it presently. > > > -- > Jim Dixon Managing Director > VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Member of Council Telecommunications Director > Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG > http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org > tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: Attention ICANN/Christopner Ambler: Sun wins injunction against Microsoft Christopher and all, Chris,Patrick and all, No concern at all in Michael's obvious silly approach at yet another of his games. My position is quite secure, rest assured. >;) But I have to admit it is funny! ROTFL Rant's eh? Well pot, kettel black.... Chris's problem is he is unfortunately associated with an organization that is coming under a tremendous amount of fire from the DOJ, and will be in even more trouble when that process is settled. Poor Mr. Bill has reaped the whirlwind and is now facing the music. "Soap on a rope, anyone?" >;) Could this backdrop be previews of coming attractions for the ICANN? According to sources within the DOJ, "it's looking that way". Christopher Ambler wrote: > >> Why the hell is this attention to me? I have nothing to do with Java. > >> > >> Next time they issue a story on idiots, I'll make sure and call it to > your > >> attention. > > > >You do work for microsoft don't you Chris? Hummmm? Java is only a side > issueas > >anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would certainly figure out. > > I work in Exchange, which has nothing to do with Java. Microsoft is huge - I > don't even know anyone who works on Java. > > As I said, leave me out of your rants. > > Sure you don't want me to post your personal information, including your > social security number, home address, home phone, employment > history, etc? What do you have to be afraid of? > > Christopher Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: Attention ICANN/Christopner Ambler: Sun wins injunction against Microsoft Christopher Ambler wrote: > Why the hell is this attention to me? I have nothing to do with Java. > > Next time they issue a story on idiots, I'll make sure and call it to your > attention. You do work for microsoft don't you Chris? Hummmm? Java is only a side issueas anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence would certainly figure out. And so the worm turns, eh? > > > Christopher > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM> > To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 11:58 AM > Subject: Attention ICANN/Christopner Ambler: Sun wins injunction againstSun > wins injunction against > > >All, especialy Christopher Ambler and ICANN Board, All, especially Christopher Ambler and ICANN Board, Subtitle:Could this be previews of coming attractions for the ICANN? http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28937,00.html Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Attention ICANN/Christopner Ambler: Sun wins injunction againstSun wins injunction against All, especialy Christopher Ambler and ICANN Board, Subtitle:Could this be previews of coming attractions for the ICANN? http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28937,00.html Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Esther Dysons repeating Mantra, was:Who are we? Eric, Estra and all (Particulary Esther Dyson), You Eric, have pointed out a very seemingly repeting mantra that Esther Dysons style of side stepping or attempts of shifting responsibility in order to NOT answer any questions put to her or the ICANN "Initial" Interim Board with respect to the action or lack there of of that Board. This seems to be a developing repitition of what we all remember form the gTLD-MoU days of (not too) old. It is indeed unfortunate that this kind of response to your very reasonable question to Esther Dyson, Eric, that you point out. However it is also intresting to note that the URL's that you point to as references do not contain those that participated in the iFWP process via electronic means, i.e. the Internet. This is unfortunate as well. Eric Weisberg wrote: > I was talking with Esther Dyson during a break in the meeting on > Saturday about the complaints which were being aired that the ICANN > board is not representative of the Internet community. I suggested that > the board ask the IFWP to elect an advisory committee to help it > determine our consensus. As in the past, she questioned whether the > IFWP, itself, is representative of the Internet community. I responded > in the affirmative and asked which interests were not represented. > However, I did not have the actual data as to who had attended IFWP > functions or were on this list. > > I just did a quick search to see who we are. I found who participted at > our Reston and Singapore meetings, > <http://www.bogus.com/participants.htm>; > <http://www.apng.org/apcctld/singapore98/registrationlist.html>. > > I did not find a list of participants at Geneva, but did find some > information on attendance at Buenos Aires > <http://www.cwanet.com.ar/advscripts/cabase/page.asp?CABASE/ifwp-en> > where it was reported that: > > 140 people registered for the event, coming from countries in the region > such as Brasil, Chile, > Uruguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and Argentina. The attendees represented > different sectors of the > Internet in their countries, and included NICs, Educational > Institutions, Service Providers, Content > Providers, Carriers, Government Entities, etc. Extra-region participants > from Spain,France,United > Kingdom and the U.S. were also present. Not less than 100 people were > present in the conference > hall at all times during the event. > > Would someone provide the attendee lists for Geneval and Buenos Aires to > complete our information? > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Response to Dave Crockers eval of:Preliminary report from Boston Dave and all, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 09:32 AM 11/16/98 -0500, Esther Dyson wrote: > >We do not think that openness and transparency require that open > >voting/meetings be in our by-laws, but there is nothing to prevent Board > >members from telling you how we voted as individuals, expressing > >disagreeements with other board members or otherwise being open. (That in > > Esther, et al, > > As people debate the 'requirements' for openness and transparency, it is > helpful to note existing processes that carry this label. Most notable is > that, in fact, there is a wide range of styles that are permitted under > this label. This statement on its face may indeed be true or accurate, however in thecontext of the White Paper it does not necessarily apply, and it would be both wise and prudent for the ICANN "Initial and Interim board to consider that in this respect. > > > For example, the US government has open votes. The IETF does not (within > the IAB, the IESG and the NomCom.) Both are considered to be open and > transparent. Considered by whom? What is their standard for openness. The IAB, IETF, and theIESG in particular would not meet the litmus test of the Federal Election Commission, are NOT open and transparent as they do not provide for public access to voting records within their respective organizations. In that the USG, of which the Federal Election Commission is a part of along with the NTIA and the Department of Commerce, any allowance for the ICANN or any of its parts (i.e Supporting Organizations), would be in stark contrast to well established practice and in ethical violation of the White Paper, in specific. We are sure that Secretary Daley would bear us out on this point. > Since ICANN is evolving an existing Internet activity, it > should not be surprising that it made decisions which continue in an > Internet, rather than a government, tradition, especially since ICANN's > scope pertains to administration and not governance. This comment is a gross point of contention as recent Congressional hearingshave borne out just prior to the mid term elections. Where I believe that Sen. Pickering was quite clear in making a very specific distinction on this point. > > > Consequently, people need to be careful in claiming that the ICANN board's > decisions in this regard are somehow suspect or unacceptable. Rather than > holding forth rigid rules based on a narrow theory, critics need to explain > the specific difficulties with a particular "configuration" that the board > has chosen. The key term here in Daves comment/statement is "Chosen". Yes indeedthe Configuration is definitely in serious question as the Boston Meeting made abundantly clear. In addition HOW the ICANN "Initial" Interim Board was "Chosen", will at some point yet again brought into question we are quite sure. As to which venue it will be brought will of course be partly in the hands of the ICANN "Initial" Interim Board itself, and partly in the hands or others, as well a timing. > > > For example, if the primary concern is the actual work/output of the board, > then there is no need to know the intimate details of the way the decisions > are reached. If finer 'grain' is required, critics need to explain why. Critics is really not the question here. Rather it is those that are askingspecific and pointed questions ask of the ICANN "Initial" Interim that remain either unanswered, or unsatisfactorily answered. If the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board continues down the path that it so far has decided to follow they are likely to continue to meet such continual challenges as they have thus far experienced just prior too and during the Boston Meeting. From the people that I spoke with in Geneva, and London, specifically, such as members of the EU Commission and respected members of the press in London in particular, John Snow, as I am sure that Jim Dixon is well aware of. Unfortunately this trip to europe was during the same time as the Boston meeting and did not allow me to return quick enough to make that Boston Meeting. > > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445 > <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Post Office Box 296, U.P.M. > Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA > Brandenburg Consulting > <http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253 > Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Vixie/BIND: Dangerous Combination Roeland and all, It would be a big mistake in my mind to have only one person in complete control of any important resource as the A.Root.server or the ".", for that matter any of the other Root servers. But in charge of "The Rppt" is a particularly dangerous situation indeed for very obvious reasons irrespective of their honesty or trustworthiness. Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 11:24 PM 11/16/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: > >On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Bob Allisat wrote: > > > >> John Reynolds wrote: > >> > Since most DNS administrators run BIND without modifying the db.cache > >> > file and consequently 'subscribe' to whatever is listed therein, this > >> > means that de facto control of the DNS root rests with Paul Vixie. > >> > >> Another frightening thought > > > >Scarcely. We have at the moment two choices for managing the DNS root: > >Network Solutions Inc, who currently operate a.root-servers.net, and > >ICANN, who have petitioned the US government to be allowed to take over > >operational control of the root. While NSI has done a decent job, when > >all is said and done I find it hard to feel comfortable with them in > >charge of the root. However, ICANN is at this moment a complete unknown. > > > >But Paul Vixie is known to be reliable, trustworthy, and honest. I for > > In some cases, brutally honest, I might add. Also, somewhat terse, > abrasive, and of strong convictions of what is "right". These are not > negative qualities, unless one wants to run for elective office. They also > make him entirely predictable. Personally, I find him admirable, and well > suited for the CTO slot. If you could ever get him to take the job. I would > think him a better candidate than Postel ever was. > > >one would be happy with a solution that involved turning over day to day > >operational management of the root name servers to him, at least until > >ICANN has enough of a track record for us to trust it -- perhaps in a > >year or two in other words. > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Preliminary report from Boston Roeland and all, Yes you are essentially correct here. However they can be challenged in US District court form any entity outside the state of California and is an american citizen. We predict that this may indeed come to pass should such actions that the ICANN has ben pursuing continue along their present course. Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 08:42 AM 11/16/98 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote: > >>4. Mike Roberts was asked to be president in early > >>September, prior to the board being named at the end > >>of that month. He apparently was not chosen by the > >>board. > > > >Who asked him then, and who "chose" him? Isn't the fact that the board > >didn't choose him contrary to the bylaws? If the bylaws aren't being > >followed now, would they be followed when the only oversite is the CA > >Attorney General? > > The BoD didn't choose him, listen to the record of the Saturday meeting. > Postel chose him, before even founding the BoD. Mike was instrumental in > selecting the BoD, by his very own admission. > > BTW, the CA Attorney General is very famous for excersizing selective > prosecution. If it is insufficiently political, to California voters, > action is not usually taken. The CA Attorney General is an elective office. > Ergo, the ICANN is *only* responsible to residents of the State of > California. This is a major reason for the desire to reside ICANN in DE. > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Network solutions CEO Resignes All, My how the world turns! >;) Very interesting development considering some of the topics and comments made at Boston, Eh? See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28830,00.html Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: For the record:ICANN Public Meeting Archives Patrick, I am afraid you are mistaken. Patrick Greenwell wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > Ben and all, > > > > For the record, NONE of the comments or questions that I submitted as > > representative > > of the INEG. Group are anywhere in your archives that you indicate below. > > Please advise!!! > > Jeff, > > It is time for you to stop the lies. There is no INEG, Inc. > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v > CTO (925) 377-1212 v > NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f > Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Open board voting records and accountability was:[ifwp] Re: Preliminary report from Boston Milton and all, Milton uses a good and useful example here that hopefully the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board will take into serious account. Tony's question begs an answer directly from the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board that should not go unnoticed. We believe that Miltons response is of course correct in order to fulfill the requirements of the White Paper with respect to both Accountability and Transparency. However, we presently are not sure if this is required under California state law governing Non-Profit corporations. Maybe someone can look that up? I am sure we will! Milton Mueller wrote: > Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > > Are there any examples where an association of this > > nature has non-disclosed Director voting? > > Note: even the US Federal Reserve Board, which is deliberately insulated from > politics in many respects, releases its voting records. > > > Wouldn't the organization be more accountable (and > > ultimately better meet its objectives) by not only > > providing for public voting, but also for individual > > board members to articulate for the record why they > > voted in the manner they did? > > Of course, the answer is yes. > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: DNSO / ICANN Funding Model Paper, Version 0.1 Chuck and all, Good points and questions here Chuck. If the SO's are even partly responsible for ICANN funding than there is certainly a conflict of interest concern. To many games to be played here. The same is true with fees as well. No, the ICANN needs several reliable long term sources of funding. In our proposal to the NTIA we proposed a Trust fund, along the lines of something that Karl A. once suggested. We now have that Trust built and funded. There are also other methods a well. Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Why should SOs be concerned with ICANN funding? SOs should be concerned > with self-funding their own activities while ICANN should be concerned with > funding its activities. It seems to me that ICANN will enter into > contractual relationships with registries (name and number) and will > establish funding through those relationships. > > Because SOs will be making recommendations to ICANN, it seems like there > would be a possible conflict of interest if the SOs were also funding ICANN. > > Chuck Gomes > > - huge snip - regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: ICANN meeting mechanics Bern and all, This is pure unadulterated nonsense. You ARE offering excuses, and long winded ones as well. I gave you a lead in for Cable and any other type of feed in you needed and YOU never contacted CNN, TNT, CNBC, Nynex, Bell Atlantic, which would have provided the services you needed in a 24 hour period. I know, I checked myself. You know, some people might take this nonsense you are spouting here seriously, but I am not buying in. Pardon the language here, but you know that excuses are like assholes, we all got them, and they all stink! This one would knock the buzzard of a gut wagon! Ben Edelman wrote: > In the spirit of complete openness, I'm going to do my best to explain a bit > of how the tech side of this weekend's meeting was put together. I hope > everyone will take this in the context in which it is offered -- full public > disclosure in a situation for which, in my mind, such disclosure is actually > not necessary. > > (What follows is my view of what happened -- others involved with the > process may disagree with the facts as I've reported them, and I haven't > asked anyone else to review this text before I post it, but I believe I've > gotten most of this right.) > > It was on November 2 that I was first informed of the Berkman Center's > intention to be involved with the meeting, and everything that you saw on > Saturday was pulled together within those twelve days. Not to make excuses, > for that's truly not my intention, but people should understand that that's > not much time to organize an event of this magnitude, especially given a low > budget and the many other responsibilities of the Berkman Center staff > involved. In fact, we nearly chose not to broadcast the event because we > worried it might be too time and resource-intensive; however, given the > clear consensus expressed on this list and in IFWP meetings that real-time > broadcasts would be a valuable addition to the public meeting process, it > was decided that we'd do our best to arrange a streaming broadcast of the > events. Luckily we had help: Karl Auerbach of Cisco quickly volunteered to > host an MBONE feed of the event, while Larry Honig of Basic Telepresence > came forward shortly thereafter offering to host a mirror feed of the > RealMedia stream I proposed to setup. (At the last minute, we also arranged > for a feed via the Real Broadcast Network using a telephone coupler.) > > Point is that none of us does audio/video production for a living; Mitchel > Ahern, who loaned us his video camera for the day, comes the closest, while > Larry Honig's company does video feeds more than a/v production. Taking > that into account and realizing that the Berkman Center ran this event pro > bono so we didn't have a budget for professional videographers or purchasing > or renting top-notch equipment, I'm actually quite happy with the way things > turned out. > > To speak to your particular suggestions, Roeland, I certainly agree on all > counts. Indeed, we initially placed our streaming media computers and video > camera at the front of the room for the very reason you mentioned, but we > found that the audio feed was too weak when run from the rear sound board to > our equipment up front, so we had to move the camera and computers to the > back because none of us had appropriate audio amplifying gear or a long > enough video cord. The choice was easy at the time -- when choosing between > good audio and good video, we picked audio -- but you're certainly right > that an alternative shot would have been preferable. > > Should we be asked to organize a similar event again -- whether for ICANN or > any other group -- I certainly intend to use the insights I gained from this > process, and I'm confident that we could indeed do a better job the next > time around. > > For everyone's information, Basic Telepresence has offered the use of their > RealServers for archives of the meeting's RealVideo, so the video clips are > back up at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive/ . They've got plenty > of capacity, so no further offers of server space are required, but thanks > to all who already offered. > > Ben Edelman > Berkman Center for Internet and Society > Harvard Law School > > Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote in message > <7A2DD0970520D2118FF800A0C9B3C14BCC47@cyber.law.harvard.edu>... > > Hello Ben, > > might I suggest that the next time you do such a meeting that you have a > > camera pointed from the fron of the room towards the audience microphone. > > Considering the amount of time spent listening to the audience, aview > other > > than the backs of their heads would have been preferable to a view of the > BoD. > > ___________________________________________________ > > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > > ___________________________________________ > > Who is John Galt? > > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com INEG Group Response to comments on:[ifwp] Re: Preliminary report from Boston Esther and all, I personally am sorry that I was not personally able to attend the Boston meeting in some respects. However representatives from our organization's were there and are preparing a "Boston ICANN Meeting Final Report" as I type this. As to these comments, Esther, I have personally gotten 30 reply's thus far. NONE of them could construed as positive. This ICANN "Initial Board with you and Mike Roberts (Self appointed), is very cleverly being much less than honest with the Stakeholder community. From my brief trip to London, and Geneva an speaking with some industry and government folks there especially within the EU commission, this mantra of impropritary as to the selection of the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board members is not playing very well there either. We here at INEG have made several suggestion for this ICANN "Initial" and Interim board to clear the air and also provide some sense of Stakeholder perceived legitimacy in it's existence and than further function. We nor I have received any response from ANY member of the ICANN 'Initial" and Interim board to date on any of those points or suggestions publicly or otherwise. As of the Boston meeting is should be clear to you the "10", to understand from this point forward, will not be viewed well unless or until some action is taken in this regard that has the support of the Stakeholder/user community as required in the White Paper regarding a "Bottom-up" and Stakeholder driven process. Esther Dyson wrote: > Let me try to handle some of these. > > Initial means temporary, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure there's some > point here, but it's too subtle for me. We - the 10 - must resign within > one-two years. Mike Roberts and I are interim, even "more temporary." Both > of us were in fact voted in by the board on October 25, but we (the initial > board) recognized that we didn't know much - hence the interim. > > As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am currently negotiating with an executive > search firm who will help us (the Board) to find a permanent (or at least > long-term) ceo, but that ceo probably won't be found or sign on until the > board has more members. (When we selected Mike, we specifically considered > other candidates as well.) > > We do not think that openness and transparency require that open > voting/meetings be in our by-laws, but there is nothing to prevent Board > members from telling you how we voted as individuals, expressing > disagreeements with other board members or otherwise being open. (That in > addition to all the disclosure/consultation provisions that *are* in the > by-laws.) And there is nothing to prevent the members saying "we won't vote > for you unless you do x...." That is, if enough members want the directors > to do something, they'll have to do so to get elected/stay in office. > Indeed, as you-all rightly insisted, membership/elections will resolve a lot > of these problems - *if* we do the membership right. And that is one of the > major tasks of the *Initial* Board in consultation with the community. > > Esther Dyson > > At 12.48 am 11/16/98 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote: > >Here are some observations from this weekend's ICANN > >meeting in Boston. > > > >1. We were advised that the current board is not > >"interim" but "initial." This is very different from > >what most of us had intended during the IFWP process. > > > > > >2. The "Initial" ICANN board continues to > >refer to themselves as "learning" the issues. > >However, they have no qualms with taking serious > >actions which affect the permanent structure of the > >entity and they will not consider backing down on > >those decisions unless the USG makes them do so. > > > >2 They would not discuss the SO structure, whether the > > > >president should be "ex officio," adding directors nor > >any other change which might introduce other points > >of view, perspective or allegiance to the board. > > > >3. They do not think that openness and transparency > >requires letting the community know how members vote, > >even on issues involving core assets or functions. They > >do > >not think that (all) their meetings nor their on-line > >deliberations should be open to the members. > > > >4. Mike Roberts was asked to be president in early > >September, prior to the board being named at the end > >of that month. He apparently was not chosen by the > >board. > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >To view the archive of this list, go to: > >http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > > >To receive the digest version instead, send a > >blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > >subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > >unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > >___END____________________________________________ > > > > > > I have just been elected as Interim Chairman of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an > important and overwhelming task. Please forgive me if I have > been slow answering your mail. > > Esther Dyson, chairman Always make new mistakes! > EDventure Holdings > edyson@edventure.com > 1 (212) 924-8800 > 1 (212) 924-0240 fax > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) > New York, NY 10011 USA > http://www.edventure.com > > High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest > PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona > Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Preliminary report from Boston eric and all, Well as suspected by yourself, Jay, and many others this ICANN "Initial" board is an attempt to "Capture" the Internet central resources, by a small group of self appointed (By the IANA), much akin to the IAHC initiative. They have no real interest in what the Internet community or the stakeholders. They could not be following the requirements of the White Paper, and are a obvious "Take Over" attempt is what you are saying here is accurate. Would the ICANN "Initial" Board care to comment on Erics observations? Eric Weisberg wrote: > Here are some observations from this weekend's ICANN > meeting in Boston. > > 1. We were advised that the current board is not > "interim" but "initial." This is very different from > what most of us had intended during the IFWP process. > > 2. The "Initial" ICANN board continues to > refer to themselves as "learning" the issues. > However, they have no qualms with taking serious > actions which affect the permanent structure of the > entity and they will not consider backing down on > those decisions unless the USG makes them do so. > > 2 They would not discuss the SO structure, whether the > > president should be "ex officio," adding directors nor > any other change which might introduce other points > of view, perspective or allegiance to the board. > > 3. They do not think that openness and transparency > requires letting the community know how members vote, > even on issues involving core assets or functions. They > do > not think that (all) their meetings nor their on-line > deliberations should be open to the members. > > 4. Mike Roberts was asked to be president in early > September, prior to the board being named at the end > of that month. He apparently was not chosen by the > board. > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (Flashback) Miles and all, Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote: > Roeland, > > You wrote: > "Personally, I think it would do more harm than good, were the present BoD > to step down. It would add nothing more, other than yet more delay, which > may prove fatal at this point." > > I could not agree more. Although there is certainly a great deal to be > disturbed by with the current structure of things, dissolving the current > board is NOT the answer. It is inperative, however, that the apporpriate > concerns be brought to the board, and that they be forced to address them. > The question then becomes - How? Possibly removing the WHOLE board is not a good idea, perhaps it is.the answer to the "How?" is not to difficult to surmise really. here is how we see it: 1.) Retract the November 6th ICANN Interim Board's bylaws. 2.) Require the ICANN Interim BOard to sing a affidavit that is filed in US District court to the effect they will cease and desist any further negotiations/discussions privately That they will also require a "Vote of confidence" on any amendments and/or changes to any Draft bylaws. That they will further address each step (Breaking down to each article/section) of a newly initiated "Work in progress" Bylaws. In addition this Affidavit must include that they will abide by the consensus points reached by the IFWP. 3.) Mike Roberts must step down from the ICANN INterim Board. > > > Hopefully, those who have legitimate issues (and an intelligent approach to > them) will be heard. The alternative is, in order, chaos, anarchy and > revolution. Is that the path we want to follow? Lets hope that we follow the path that was more in line with Reston. > > > Gene Marsh > Diebold Incorporated > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 3:17 PM > To: IFWP Discussion List > Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; DNSO; IFWP Discussion List > Subject: [ifwp] Re: The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (Flashback) > > At 10:48 AM 11/15/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > ><snipped> > >> Should those who > >> now offer service without honoring the first-come, first-served principle > >> outlined in RFC 1591 (March 1994) be rewarded for perservering in their > >> self-serving, potentially root-fragmenting interests? (Latter question > >> assumes that such individuals did not have claims to the iTLDs > transferred > >> by individuals who applied earlier.) > > > >I have felt this way from day one. I have serious doubts about the "Prior > >Claim" rules I have seen proposed on this list by organizations such as > ORSC > >that propose to have those with "prior claim" be first in the queue for new > >gTLDs. They all knew they were moving forward without operational > authority, > >and had no basis for believing they would be added to the roots when they > >began. > > > >Many other organizations with interests in operating registry services have > >worked within the process and not deployed alternative (renegade?) root > server > >efforts and use those efforts as a claim to authority today. > > If we could stop with the inflammatory language, we might actually get > somewhere. Might I suggest the more neutral term Ghost-TLDs? After all, the > only difference is a lack of TLD peer registration. To call them "renegade" > may or may not be accurate, as it pre-disposes/connotes harmful intent. In > legal terms, the term "renegade" is prejudicial. If that intent was indeed > harmful those owners would not be on this list trying to work something > out. Forcing them into a psychologically defensive posture by accusing > them, by implication, of intending to harm the InterNet, is > counter-productive and far from accurate. We all agree that such ghosts do > no harm to the InterNet if operated privately and that private ghosting of > TLDs has a legitimate purpose to someone and harms/effects no one. > > >I also know the controversy such a position can be on this list, since it > is so > >populated with those who have deployed non-operational (meaning not > recognized, > >and outside the IANA roots) TLDs and root servers. But my general feeling > on > >this is that they should have NO stronger claim to any TLD then any other > >organization seeking registry status when ICANN begins delegating gTLD > >registries. They should have to start from position one along with any > other > >organizations seeking to provide registry services for those gTLDs, and let > >ICANN decidee on merits, not "Prior Use." This should also preclude any > >assumption that CORE would get any of the TLDs they are currently > marketing. > >They have no basis for claiming any of them at this point, and when ICANN > >accepts applications for new registries, their application should be on an > even > >playing field with any and all applications for the same TLDs. > > >I could deploy a new TLD today with ease, and have a nearly automated > registry > >system setup within hours. But this does not confer on me any legal > rights to > >that TLD in future ICANN/IANA proceedings. > > That is your opinion, which I may or may not disagree with. I submit that > it is a point of negotiation. > > >I know there are those who say they deployed based on comments by IANA, > but in > >reading them, I found some problems with that argument, mainly that no > >operational delegation ever occured, even though IANA MAY have indicated > that > >they should proceed with a test bed. Suggesting a company do a testing > >deployment is not equivelant to official recognition and operational > delegation. > > Again, I may or may not agree. I do submit, however, that some of this has > been moving at too much the snail's pace. Agreed, this has been due to > contention on key issues, not the least of which is the attempt by some to > force a particular business model on any new TLD registries/registrars. The > other delaying factor is the repeated short-circuting/hijacking of valid > concensus processes. But, I submit that the primary key to this failure is > the resounding lack of response to legitimate leadership issues, > accountability/responsiveness/transparency. > > We have all grown callous, in our distrust of leadership in general, > through this entire ordeal. Heaven forbid that I speak ill of Postel, but > his unilateral dealings are one of the key factors generating this > distrust. Yesterday we found out just how "unilateral" those dealings have > been. Jon Postel never intended the IFWP process to succeed, since he was > "searching" for potential BoD members since last Jun98. Michael Sondow > raised a very valid point, "what gave him the right?" It is painfully > obvious that Postel was not attending the IFWP meetings in "good faith" It > is also painfully obvious that ICANN is Postel's legacy and was created > entirely by him, with very little external input. This is entirely > consistent with our valuation of the "NIH syndrome" factor present at > IANA/ISI/ICANN. > > Personally, I think it would do more harm than good, were the present BoD > to step down. It would add nothing more, other than yet more delay, which > may prove fatal at this point. I do believe that Mike Roberts should > step-down and let a process, whereby another interim president is selected, > be decided and deployed (Mike Roberts has already proven his > trustworthiness when, arguing strongly against an IFWP wrap-up meeting, he > failed to reveal that he was *already* annointed as the ICANN CEO by his > god-ship Jon Postel.) This, if for no other reason, should be done to > rebuild the trust so urgently required of the InterNet stakeholders. I also > believe that the ORSC by-laws are substantively better than the current > ICANN proposal. The current proposal does nothing more than propogate the > situation that has already serially-raped the InterNet stakeholders. Of > course, we're not going to trust it. The track-record is already extant. > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com For the record:[ifwp] ICANN Public Meeting Archives Ben and all, For the record, NONE of the comments or questions that I submitted as representative of the INEG. Group are anywhere in your archives that you indicate below. Please advise!!! Note: Ben Edelman, this is not looking very good!! Ben Edelman wrote: > Just a reminder that archives of today's meeting are available at > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/archive > > The notes of the real-time scribe were available immediately at the end of > each session throughout the day. > > A rough realvideo (see note on the site) is already up, while we'll provide > an video index (making it easy to jump a particular session) within a couple > days. > > The real-time comments will be posted tomorrow. > > Transcripts will likely be ready within a week. > > We're doing our best on updating the site as quickly as possible; hope you > can all bear with us as we sort through the various tasks before us. > > Ben Edelman > Berkman Center for Internet and Society > Harvard Law School > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com ICANN lack of interest in the Stakeholder/user community? Was:[ifwp] Re: Do Internet Users exist? Greg and all, You outline and important point, that has resonated in this process sense the IAHC/gTLD-MoU, and is still continuing with the ICANN Interim Board. The unwillingness of the ICANN Interim Board to take a sincere interest in the Stakeholder community as the lack of any interest in using NSI's WHOIS database for instance in sending out any announcements regarding this privitazation process is only one of several examples that has come to light, yet again. This is of course, a carry over from Jon Postel and the IANA which has operated as low key as was possible or reasonable for years. "The CLUB" mentality, seems to, in many ways to be the preferred practice. Some Glaring examples of this preferred practice: 1.) No complete disclosure of all of the members of the ICANN Interim Board to date. 2.) My brief conversation with Mike Roberts (Self appointed ICANN Interim Board Member and IAHC/gTLD-MoU leadership member) unknowing of any additional meetings in the US, Europe, Asia, Canada, South and Central America. 2.) No queries to any of the major cable, or broadcast companies such as CNN, Turner Network Television, CNBC, TCI, ect. This is particularly glaring as I myself contacted all of these public broadcast organizations inquiring if they would be interested. To which all of them responded in the positive. 3.) Your restated example (See below) in the use of the WHOIS database to expand exposure and generate interest of the broad Internet Stakeholder community. 4.) Lack of participating on the IFWP E-Mail list and not creating their own E-Mail list on the www.ICANN.org. In fact that site is not even up yet. IN CLOSING: Though there are likely many more avenues that could, and we would argue should be pursued, to raise awareness by the ICANN Interim Board, it should be blatantly obvious that that is either not the interest of this ICANN Interim Board, or their stubborn ignorance is preventing them from taking obvious steps for some other purposes. This is similar in many respects to the IHAC/gTLD-MoU failed process. Greg Skinner wrote: > In article <199811131401.JAA10707@panix3.panix.com> you write: > >>A while back, I proposed that each of the domain name contacts in the > >>WHOIS databases be contacted and asked to spread the word about the > >>developments being debated here. Only one person (Jeff Williams) > >>responded. I take that to mean that there isn't much interest in that > >>idea. > >There was an NTIA online conference that did succeed in gathering > >lots of views. An account is in Netizens and the archives is still > >as far as I know online at the NTIA. > > The suggestion I made above would (hopefully) spread the word to a > much larger constituency, something on the order of the size of the > DNS itself, which would (hopefully) give a better idea of what the > Internet user consensus is on the DNS privatization. > > --gregbo > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Kindest Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: No Need For "At Large" DNSO membership (Was: Re: "constitutional protections") Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 07:43:34AM -0400, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote: > > Hello; > > > > This is an interesting proposal and worthy of consideration. However, > > before taking it to the next step of discussing how to implement it and > > what those DNSO "Constitutional Protections" might best be, I'd like to > > reopen discussion on the issue of At Large participation on the DNSO. > > > > You are proposing 9 "At Large" members in the governing committee of > > DNSO. > > > > I propose zero "At Large" members. > > > > An excellent proposal and argument *against* including At Large > > participation in DNSO was made just prior to the Barcelona meeting and > > I'd like to put it back on the table here. > > The way ICANN is currently structured, the DNSO is responsible for policy > concerning DNS, and the ICANN board basically says 'yea' unless > there is a good reason not to. So without an At Large in the DNSO, > there is no effective At Large representation in DNS matters. Lets hope that the Membership Organization doesn't just be relegatedto a place holder as part of the ICANN structure. That would not be in keeping with the White Paper. THe Membership Organization should have final say over any policies that the DNSO or any of the other SO's may suggest. It is true that Whomever becomes the DNSO(s) should all have at large membership with equal voting rights. > > > > The thinking is, that since there will be a *whole other SO* for "At > > Large" participation and representation on ICANN, our including another > > At Large mechanism in DNSO would be redundent and confusing. > > I agree that the situation is kind of confusing. But the ICANN At > Large SO will have very little discretion in DNS matters. I think it > is the At Large at the ICANN level that is redundant and confusing, > and, frankly, sort of useless. THis statement is a bit premature, don't ya think there Kent. > > > OTOH, there really needs to be At Large representation at the DNSO > level, because that is where the "rubber meets the road" as far as > policy development is concerned. Agreed, as well as at the ICANN level as well to insure that any policesare what the Stakeholders believe that they should be. > > > > Lot's of questions and problems arise, not least of which is, how would > > you differentiate between the "At Large" participants in DNSO and the > > "At Large" participants in ICANN? How would their interests differ? How > > would their make up (their members and participants) differ? > > > > By definition, the actual nature of an "At Large" constituency would > > leave *both* groups open to participation by anyone - meaning each could > > (and would) have the same members, more or less. > > This may not be true. At large membership in ICANN could be > restricted to large organizations who pay hefty fees, for example. This would be effectively disenfrangizing the Stakeholder communityunduly and would most certainly be challenged in US District court. There is already allot of president to support this view as well. > > > > I do not think this would be a good idea. I hope this inbred problem in > > the ICANN bylaws is discussed in the meetings with ICANN, its board > > members, and its president during the next several weeks. > > > > Any one else have opinions on this matter? > > > > Bill Semich (NIC JWS7) > > bsemich@mail.nu > > .NU Domain (Niue) > > Memberships: ISOC, ISP/C, APIA, APTLD, IATLD, PAB, Internet Users > > Society - Niue > > -- > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", > kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... > PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 > http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: Test failed Ben, It looks like it is working now. I was giving me an error stating "Text too small". BTW did you get ahold of CNN, TNT, CNBC? Ben Edelman wrote: > In what sense did the link fail? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 8:58 PM > > To: edelman@law.harvard.edu > > Subject: Test failed > > > > > > Ben, > > > > I tested http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/realtime/broadcast.asp. > > It failed. Any ideas? > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Test failed Ben, I tested http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/realtime/broadcast.asp. It failed. Any ideas? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com ARIN Games of misleading? All, I am copying below another one of ARIN Misleading? games. The more things change the more they remain the same. Is it past time for more "Responsible" RIR's? Paul Harvey will have the rest of this story... ======================== Copied Post starts here ====================== Subject: Getting #s from ARIN Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:12:00 -0500 From: Chris Savage <csavage@crblaw.com> Reply-To: list@inet-access.net Organization: Cole, Raywid & Braverman To: list@inet-access.net I have a client who is being told by someone at ARIN that the only way they will get a /19 from ARIN is by having their lawyer send a letter demanding it. (I'm the lawyer...) They can apparently do the normal song-and-dance about efficient use of their various /21s, although they are being told (I gather in vague terms) that their demonstration isn't good enough. (Anybody remember the movie "Bananas" and the running gag between Woody Allen and his girlfriend?) Anybody with any practical tips about running the ARIN gauntlet? Magic things to show you do, or prove you don't do? Particularly wonderful people to contact? A special, double-secret probationary password to say? Any and all help appreciated. Feel free to reply privately if this isn't right for the list. ========================= End of copied post ======================== Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: The Non-Profit Issue Again Roeland and all, Very good brief summary of this argument. Right on the Top Level Dollar (TLD) >;) We agree with Chris's side of the argument, even though a court of law didn't. I personally have told him, that he should appeal. We even offered legal assistance. He will need to refile however in a US District Court. We believe that IOD has a strong case for retrial in the right court. Chris and IOD never considered our offer to assist. Their choice and their loss. It is our belief that the ICANN Interim Board is moving towards a serious legal challenge, most likely one of many. And basically, for the same reason that CORE was challenged, except the stakes are now infinitely higher and their are more factors involved. I personally hope that this doesn't come to pass, but things are shaping up that way I fear. In the transition to privatization the Traditional Internet organizations are doing every thing within their power and influence to stay at the top of the food chain. Their whould reason for existence they feel is threatened. they are not willing to share any of the limited real presence on the internet with the VAST majority. As we all have seen over the past month. There is precious little discussion coming form any on on the ICANN Interim Board on this list. There is NO direct answers that or any or our group have seen to any of the many requests for comments, and other questions. Instead we see this supposedly blue ribbon ICANN Interim Board hiding behind the IANA and Harvard cyber law web page, offering a few meetings for the peanut gallery, ( That the rest of us folks, IFWP, IOD,. IPerdom, BWG, ORSC, INEG Group, and some individual participants ). Does any of this sound faintly familiar? You be the judge. Here are some other questions that need answering? 1.) When is the rest of the ICANN Interim Board going to come clean on who and how they were selected? 2.) When is Esther going to DIRECTLY answer her blatant inconsistencies regarding her Open Letter of November 6th to the NTIA that the Interim board was ELECTED and her own admission that she was ask and than SELECTED to serve on the ICANN Interim Board? 4.) Where are the ICANN's bona fides of this majority of the internet Stakeholder support that is claimed by the Interim Board on the November 6 letter to the NTIA? 5.) In that the ICANN INterim Board also now claims it has this consensus support of the Stakeholder/user community, did they negotiate with all of these supporters? If so, where are the bona fides? 6.) And what about Jim Dixons claim that "Yesterday I was told that an authoritative spokesman for ICANN told my contact that a.) the ICANN Initial Board has all the powers of the full board, b.) the Initial Board intends to use these powers to appoint the Barcelona DNSO as the ICANN domain names support organization no later than 15 December, and c.) the Initial Board also intends to delegate new gTLDs very soon", is any, part or all ot this true or false? 7.) If any of Jim Dixons info is true,(Reference Q #6) does this not seem like a hidden agenda? 8.) (Reference Q #6), If any of Jim Dixons info is NOT true, why hasn't the ICANN Interim Board not addressed publicly these concerns? 9.) again (Reference Q #6), If any of Jim Dixons info is true, how or how not does this meet the requirements of the White Paper? Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > You know, I could save both of y'all the trouble and replay my archives on > this list. I'll bet that 30% are on this issue and you two baiting each > other on. The point's moot insofar as CORE does NOT have online services > for their TLDs, never did, and prolly never will. IOD *does*! They have DNS > up servicing it too. <www.sheesh> In my book, that puts them up first, by a > factor of *years*, maybe even light-years. > > Let's see, ORSC has the staging root, IRSC has their root-cluster, IOD has > their own root-server, where's the CORE root-cluster? I don't see it > *anywhere* on the Internet. Considering that you could build a very nice > root-server cluster with five 486 Linux boxen, they have no excuse on cost > grounds (what with that $200K they have left). > > Kent says that IOD should join CORE, but there are no CORE servers to join. > That means that IOD servers would do CORE's job for them. I don't see the > value-add for IOD in joining such a one-sided deal. I don't think IOD does > either. > > At 11:17 PM 11/11/98 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >>> I find the evidence insufficient to support either > >>>factually, or as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has estab- > >>>lished that it has protectable proprietary interest in the term -- > >>>or the word -- term "dot web," considering the nature of the > >>>interweb and the usage of the term, vis a vis, the interweb -- the > >>>Internet. > > > >My God, Dave, the judge here didn't even know what the Internet > >was! IOD never introduced any evidence about property > >interests, and never made the claim! You're taking this out > >of context and claiming meaning. I encourage people to read > >the whole thing - it's available at IODesign's web site. > > > >>> And the disruption to the Internet -- to the -- and the > >>>potential destabilization and disruption to the Internet so far > >>>outweighs the potential harm that there is harm to the Plaintiff, > >>>that frankly, I don't even think it's a close call when I weigh > >>>the equities and find the equities favor not granting injunctive > >>>relief. > > > >So, let's see - the judge believed the quote about how if the MoU > >wasn't signed that the Internet would come to a halt, and you > >think this is good? Oh, you didn't include that part, did you, > >Dave? > > > >This isn't make-believe - the judge truly believed, and said > >so (above being part), that if the MoU were to be prevented, > >that the Internet would stop functioning immediately. > > > >>So, Chris, you may continue to claim whatever you want about IODesign's > >>"intent" for the lawsuit, but the judge rendered an opinion that was rather > >>more broad than you claim. > > > >Yup, based on incorrect information, and in ignorance. > > > >As I've said, I encourage anyone interested (yes, you two there > >in the back) to read the whole case. Pay careful attention to the > >declarations of Perry Metzger and Jon Postel where they put the > >fear of God into the judge and convince him that the Internet is > >about to grind to a halt if they can't proceed. > > > >How do you sleep at night, Dave? > > > >Christopher > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >To view the archive of this list, go to: > >http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > > >To receive the digest version instead, send a > >blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > >subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > >unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > >___END____________________________________________ > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Similar lessons/consequences to:[ifwp] Lessons from A California Non-Profit Harold and all, Very nice post and a good object lesson story Harold. I have been involved in similar situations myself, much to my personal embarrassment in the long ago past with somewhat similar endings. But I vowed to have learned from those situations, and thank god I did long ago as well. We hope that others really read this story closely and partake in the lessons that you have indeed so kindly shared with all of us here. I for one hope that the ICANN Interim Board pays particularly close attention, I hope you forwarded it to them. >;) I also have personally, as well as from my understanding many or our Group has as well, found all of your posts to this IFWP list very interesting, insightful and educational. Please continue! >;) As I will be likely leaving my company in about 2 years (Retiring), I am keeping you in mind both now and at that time as a possible replacement as we could always find a place for a man such as yourself in our organization some way even presently. Please keep this in mind! >;) More about your story as it relates to similar experiences that I personally have experienced in terms of lessons learned. In your #3 ( Addressing your lessons in reverse order ), you mentioned collecting attorneys fees as part of a judgment. I would say this. If you first don't succeed, try try again. However get the assistance of an attorney that is dogged and diligent and willing to do this pro bono. I realize this is a tall order, if you are still interested, contact me privately I know a well known attorney that would be willing to assist you in this. >;) Your #2 (See Below). Yes, people and organizations do change. It is the people in the positions of responsibility within organizations that are primarily responsibility for that change. If there is not Membership organization that has override authority incorporated in their bylaws that can reign them in when the need arises to do so, than destructive and negative events start to unfold at varying rates and severity's. My company, for instance, though not a non-profit, but similar as it is a employee owned, is structured in this manner as required by Delaware Law for employee owned and non-profit corporations. And it may be interesting to note that we find, at least that the ICANN being incorporated in California suspicious and intentionally taking advantage of under informed or innocently ignorant Stakeholders/users of the Internet community, especially in light of the fact that no Bylaws are filed yet, and the fact there is a problem with the Interim Board determining the structure of a membership organization, as required by the white paper as well as Becky Burr's Oct. 20 letter. I too have experienced nearly exact circumstances some 13 years ago. And this was not the only occasion that I have experienced this either. After a year and a half of litigation ( Very Expensive ) that was court ordered, and another two months of court ordered arbitration we went to court. It lasted 5 days (Pretty short I thought) and as a consequence of the judges overall ruling and issuance of 4 court ordered damages orders (all in my favor) and several appeals by my opponents (All rejected without amendment's of any kind) I was awarded, what I felt was somewhat less than fair punitive damages in terms of direct and immediate financial damages, however it was in the high single digit six figures range. More importantly with respect to people changing and organizations changing the following 4 separate court orders against my opponents were issued by the judge and later upheld after several appeals. This (Below) is how their were forever changed, and the Organization was also changed as a result. 1.) All legal and court costs. (this alone amounted to about $2.8m) 2.) All property that the corporation or the board members owned owned as a result of compensation from the non-profit corporation to be transferred within 30 working days to my name (This was not something we requested and came as complete suprise to me and my attorney. Frankly this was more of a burden to me than I would have liked ). I later set up a asset management trust where most of the assets, except that that was allocated for some charities, would be split equally to the membership indefinitely. 3.) Revocation or transfer of all business licenses to my name to be completed within 15 working days and than reported back to the court. 4.) The immediate removal of all Initial Board members other than myself and one other co-litigant, and that those people would not be allowed to hold a business license within the confines of the United States for a period of no less than 10 years. All case records of this case were ordered sequestered to protect the families of all of the litigants and the company name, except #4 court order. Those records as far as I know remain sequestered to this day. However I have all the documentation in safe keeping. Consequences/Lessons form this experience: ( How Peoples lives changed negatively and tragically ) Two of the loosing side of this ugly experience lost their wife and/or husband and family as a consequence ( One each ), their homes and most if not all of any valuable property they owned. (We, the newly ELECTED Interim Board, voted unanimously at my suggestion to provide for two years of free rent in andy reasonable apartment of their choice along with a small one time cash outlay, and most utilities ). One of these individuals died of a massive coronary (Age 49 yrs) six months after the judgment. The other, died about 6 years ago of a drug overdose and was reported to have been heavily involved in prostitution (Age 39 years). Only two of the remaining 11 are currently gamely employed ( One of these two is working as a contracting custodial engineer, the other as a forklift operator at a warehouse in San Diego California. I hear from him fairly regularly, BTW. The remainder of this Interim Board is currently serving prison sentences from 10 to 35 years ( Without the possibility of Parole) in some of the worst pineal institutions in the US, ( Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and New Mexico). My only hope for these people is that I hope they keep a good while taking a shower, or have a good outside source for "Soap on a rope". All of these people, except one (Female), had wives/husbands and children. BTW, none of these Interim Board members had a criminal record of any kind and none had anything worse than a traffic ticket in their R&I. After some further digging by the DOJ, several other "Little Inconsistencies" began to emerge that lead to further convictions of most of these same People. LESSONS LEARNED: 1.) If you know you are right and you believe that there is wrongdoing occurring, ask plenty of questions, investigate, than, if necessary act! 2.) Once you have decided to act, don't back off. 3.) Everything that you do if you have a family effects them. 4.) Never in a non-profit corporation have a board, officers or other executives that are not under the control of a Individual Membership Organization that can act with extreme haste. 5.) Insure before excepting a Board position or Interim board position that you are legally protected with business legal liability insurance and that the corporation has enough initial funds to cover the cost of this insurance for up to 7 years after you are on this board. and that the corporation incurs these costs in advance. The policy should cover at least $5m and all potential litigation costs. It should be issued in your name only. 6.) Put you home and other valuable property into a non revocable blind trust during you term on any Board of Directors. 7.) Insure that your bylaws provide for unfettered, independent avenues of communication for all board members to the membership, media, law enforcement, and customers. 8.) Insure that your bylaws regarding membership access to company information includes all "Official Notes" of all board members and all corporate documentation other than employee personal data. Board members personal data except medical records, personnel records that are not financially related. And that these records will be provided upon demand and no later than 48 hours should that request come from an electronic means. 9.) Always question authority. 10.) Always be sure that if suing the board or considering legal action against a Board, seek any DOJ support you can get. If you have good self acquired evidence, the best attorney's will represent you either pro bono or on contingent, no up front fee or agreement required. 11.) Remember that most members of a non-profit corporation that know there is something very wrong with a board or a member of a board is either too afraid to act, or is feels helpless. Do things to encourage to stand up and be counted. 12.) Keep thy membership pure simple. In other words make yoiur membership structure a flat as possible (Classes of membership should be shunned). This will provide for some level of protection from possible manipulation from the Board, or members of the board, committees, or executive committees ect. ( This is one of my business Ten Commandments, BTW It is also a recomendation in the book "In Search of Execellence" ) This whole thing to me was just plain ugly, and hart wrenching. I hope that I never have to experience it again. Harold Feld wrote: > Back in the 1960s, a group of college professors, students, and other > intrested researchers got together at a university in California to share > resources for a fun project. This was, at first, a small group getting > together to share notes and have fun. They invented things on the fly and > settled differences by group consensus. > > After a few years, the organization began to grow. Branches started to > spread all over the United States, and then the world. Some of the > founders worried about things getting "out of control," so they decided to > incorporate themselves as a California non-profit. Because they had bad > experiences with politics elsewhere, and because they, at heart, didn't > really trust anybody else with "the Dream," they made themselves a > self-selecting Board of Directors and centralized the power of the > organization in the Board. When other participants protested that this > wasn't necessary, the Board replied that they needed a stable legal > structure, and that they needed some sort of central coordinator to make > sure that the rules that people were developing in the different chapters > worked together. After all, everyone could agree that we wanted stability, > did not want lawsuits, and wanted everyone in every chapter to be equally > welcome and at home in every other chapter. Ultimately, since everyone knew > the Board members and trusted them, the people in the organization agreed > to the proposed bylaws. > > Over time, the organization grew. The spontaneous solutions and > institutions became the sacred traditions of "the Dream." Even the name of > the organization became sacred, and deap meaning was read into its name and > initials. The corporation also grew, and began to make decisions that > effected the local branches beyond mere coordination of minimal > requirements. It instituted dues, decided to start a national newsletter, > coordinated insurance, set policy for regions and local chapters on certain > matters, and began to set itself up as the ultimate appelate authority to > resolve conflicts from the local level on up. These changes, of course, > happened over time. Occassionaly, there was resistance by the membership. > For example, it was a sore point that the Board members all came from one > geographic region. So the Board broadened out the geographic base of > representation, and started moving its meetinsg from just California to > around the world. Of course, this was more expensive, so dues needed to be > raised. But the organization flourished and everyone had a good time. > Besides, the members of the Board were well known and trusted members of > the organization's community. > > Then, one day, about Thirty years after the organization was founded, the > Board realized it was not in control of a volunteer organization designed > for a couple of hundred academics, researchers, and associated interested > persons. It was an international organization with a multimillion dollar > budget, responsible for serious issues like insurance. So they hired a > professional executive director and a general counsel. The excutive > director and the general counsel were *not* part of the community. In > fact, they had been hired from outside the community specifically to get an > "outside" view. The Board reasoned that members of the community might > have too personal a tie to the old way of doing things, and prove > unsuitable despite any relevant professional experience. > > Unfortunately, the new executive director did not think the organization > existed to facilitate research and have fun. The organization existed to > make a profit. So the executive director called an emergency meeting, > informed the Board that it was broke (the Board, being a volunteer > organization, had lousy records and no business experience), and informed > them that a crisis of biblical proposrtions was upon them. Fundamental > changes must be made. These included doubling the dues, requiring that > organization functions be limited to dues paying members, and, oh yes, > buying a nice new executive office and furniture so that the Executive > Director (and the organization) could be "taken seriously" by the rest of > the world. The general counsel nodded sagely, applauded this sensible > course, and hinted at dire consequences if the Board did not comply. > Panicked, the Board voted for the changes. Needless to say, the membership > howled in protest. But, since power was centralized in the Board, > including the power to select a new board, there was not much the > membership could do. Furthermore, a significant section of the membership > considered it treason tot he organization to question the Board. These > were, after all, the sacred traditions of the organization. The Board had > put in countless of volunteer hours to *create* the organization. How > *dare* people question the decision of the Board. > > The folks challenging the Board responded that (1) the Board hadn't created > the organization, everyone participating had created the organization, (2) > The Board did not have ownership, despite the volunteer hours they put in, > since they had excluded other people from volunteering and had taken over > the show for themselves, and (3) people's livelihoods depended on this now. > Business now existed around the organization that had not existed > previously, and allowing six people who were self-selected to make these > sorts of decisions without review was nuts. > > The name of the organization is the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), > the events took place from 1966 (when the organization was formed) until > the "Great BoD Crisis" of 1994. For those interested, a summary exists on > the page of Mistress Ellisif Flakari (mka Monica Cellio) at > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/usr/mjc/www/ellisif.html. > > What saved the organization from being converted from a medieval > recreationist group to a Rennaisance Faire profit-making machine was a > provision in the bylaws giving the general membership access to the books > of account. A small group of folks within the organization asked to see > the books to verify there was a crisis. The Board refused. The group sued > and won. The Board backed down from its more obnoxious policies. > > As someone intimately involved in the 1994 lawsuit (you guessed :-)) I > learned the following lessons that I would pass on to this group here. > > 1) Unless there is a bylaws provision that makes the Board somehow > accountable to the general membership, a California non-profit is nearly > unsuable and completely unaccountable. > > 2) People change. Organizations change. Just because the people in > charge at the begining are good, honest and reliable members of th > community does not mean the organization is safe. > > 3) If you sue, try to win attorneys fees. > > Harold > > [oblig Corck/Crisp: useless, trivial, irrelevant, divisive, red-herring. > Exactly the sort of self-absorbed destructive rant we have come to expect > from you.] > > "Bonds of personal trust are more imprtant and reliable than institutional > safeguards. Institutional safeguards merely prevent trustworthy people > from doing what is necessary and important. Therefore, institutional > safeguards are evil and must be resisted." > --The Little Red User Manual > > __________________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Request for input on ICANN/IETF Brian and all, In a post that was forwarded to the IFWP list you have stated the following: " No. The IETF is nothing to do with the American government. The IETF decides who it delegates its own parameter registration to; right now it is delegated to ISI. Naturally, Jon hoped, as I personally hope, that ICANN would be the natural home for this activity. But we (the IETF) haven't yet reached a consensus on this. " Brian It is my impression that the IETF, of which I am a member/participant, does not have a formal membership structure, nor is it incorporeated. As such, how is a ligitimate "Consensus" going to be reached by we in the IETF? Will there be an official "Membership" vote? Shortly before Jon's death I spoke with him on the phone, at length about this being a potential legal and serious political problem. He assured me that their is no need for a vote to determine if their is a consensus, that "Feel" from the Chair and some of the Working Groups Chairs would pretty much indicate a consensus. I responded to Jon, that this was not a very wise idea and informed him of my position as spokesman of the INEG Group and that groups position, which I strongly agree with for the most part. He basically ask me ask me to get them on board. I replied, that as spokesman that would be acting improperly and unethically, and I wouldn't apply that kind of pressure from my position and that he needed to understand that the internet is growing up, that with the privatization of the Internet Stakeholders/users were going to demand a real say in how thing are done collectively. Jon than got that famous stubborn streak up and got defensive, and said would make a real mess of things. I said back, that "Jon, you are going to have to face the fact that the Stakeholder/user community may or may not "Map" existing traditional Internet organizations into this new Privatization and you will have to trust in the will of the internet community as a whole". He didn't like this idea very well... Over the past several months I and a few others in our organization as well other organizations have discussed this with allot of folks in and out of the industry as well as with several Congressional members. From these discussions and so forth, I don't think that any of the traditional Internet organizations are a lock-in as SO's in the current ICANN structure, and I am sure that Congress will not stand for any shanagans or "Deal Making" towards those ends. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] ICANN and car licence plates Michael and all, Michael Dillon wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Tim Salo wrote: > > > It seems to me that the future of the Internet would be much brighter > > if there was a greater focus on providing good domain name service and > > less focus on either getting rich by providing domain names or > > preventing someone else from getting rich. > > > > I, for one, would much rather see a stable Internet, even if NSI makes > > a lot of money because they were in the right place at the right time. > > A. I have no problem with NSI getting rich. I just don't like to see them > in a position where they can manipulate and control the market. This is one area where we completely agree. Any monopoly regardlessof type or origin's in a free market global economic system is WRONG. > > > B. The creation of gTLDs needs to be done by a body which is open and > accountable to all people of the world. We agree in part here as well. Not only must this body be accountable, toall of the people of the world, it must be based at it's foundation by all the people of the world. Hence why our proposal to the NTIA requires a Individual Membership Organization based on the principal that ALL Stakeholders/users are the owners of the Internet's central resources, namely, IP addresses and their equal and allocation, ASN's, the DNS system and all current and future TLD's, and their use structures and/or policies, Protocols (public) and the policies as to their use, Root server's and the Root server structure, and all of the policies as the their use, addition and or modification thereof. We also are realist enough that there are also property rights and Intellectual property rights mitigation's involved here as well. However those mitigation's should be and eventually will be at the determination of ALL of the White Paper requires or otherwise suggests, and rightly so. That being by the Bottom-up Stakeholder/user determination in as far as jurisdictional, intra and inter and international governmental control will allow. > > > C. The operation of the central registration databases for each TLD and > the nameservers for each TLD needs to be done by a body which is > accountable to the trustees of the TLD. In the case of ccTLDs that is a > national government. In the case of the gTLDs that is the body which > creates them as mentioned in point B. This is where we and most of the Stakeholder/user community partcompany Michael. This was and we suppose still is the position of the IAHC/gTLD-MoU/COR/PAB/POC, which was soundly rejected and prompted the NTIA's Green Paper, and later the White Paper. Specifically, no "Trustee" can be unilaterally in control of policy of Registration, Registries or Registrars, or otherwise any TLD, gTLD, or ccTLD, as it is too likely a group of devious or otherwise non-benevolent people with certain monetary or political aims can create a monopolistic situation that would be devastating to small and some large business and individuals alike. This would be in violation of US Anti-Trust laws as well as in violation of many existing trade and tariff existing agreements as well as international law. > > > D. Registration services needs to be opened to unfettered competition, > i.e. we need to ensure that no organization can manipulate the market or > hold a natural or unnatural monopoly. Agreed. However in "C" or you conditions, the use of a trusteeshipis neither strong enough nor open enough to meet this requirement. > > > Consider for a moment the issuing of automobile licence plates in the > province of British Columbia in Canada. The licence plate is visible > evidence that your automobile is registered in a central registration > database. This database is operated by the government of B.C. which is > accountable to the voters of B.C. YEs, but it is not directly accountable to the voters of the B.C., andtherefore is an inadequate comparison to the Internet central resources. > > > When I brought a car into the province from California last December, I > had to get B.C. licence plates for the car. So I chose one of the several > agents in Vernon (pop. 40,000) who can supply licence plates. These agents > also happen to sell auto insurance (required to get plates) and various > other forms of insurance. I believe some of these agents also sell various > financial planning and investment services. The point is that the agent > who serviced me is competing in an open market and they are at liberty to > run their business pretty much as they please. > > Why can't DNS be like this? Simple answer is that DNS is global in scope and in no way in natureis it similar. > > > Why can't ICANN instruct the DNSO to act as a trustee for gTLDs? Because the gTLD's are a public resource and that requires the approvalby vote of the majority of the Stakeholders/users of the Internet. It would also be in stark violation of current US Anti-trust law as well not to mention trade and tariff agreements as well and International law. > > > Why can't ICANN contract for the operation of the registration databases > and gTLD servers? It can with the approval of the majority of the Individual MembershipOrganization represented in, as required in the White Paper as the "Bottom-up" Stakeholder/user community. > > > Why can't the business community go out and compete in the marketplace > offering registration services as an agent for ICANN? It can, as long as the Individual membership Organization is in place,and it is represented in, as required in the White Paper as the "Bottom-up" Stakeholder/user community. > > > This just makes too much sense to me and in all the squabbling I really > don't see these points being addresses. Maybe we need less political > grandstanding here and some real thought about how to structure the DNS so > that it is fair to everyone, business and consumer alike. Agreed Michael. And this begins with YOU! > > > -- > Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com > Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Still No Answer from CORE Christopher and all, Christopher Ambler wrote: > Sure, Michael, I'm happy to answer! > > >Will IO Design acknowledge that .WEB was claimed by two different > >individuals prior to the claim of IO Design? > > IOD tried to find out what happened with them. An IANA representative > told us that no followup was ever made. No registries were ever set up, > and the two individuals have never, not even once, participated in this > discussion over the myriad of lists and conferences, since day-one. > Neither of them ever contacted IOD when information about IOD's .web > registry became public knowledge, or when that info was emailed. IOD > hasn't heard a single peep. They have, in short, abandoned their claim. > > >BTW, What did IO Design do with all the money that it collected from > >people for .WEB registrations? > > It is in a bank account, in California. Some of it has been spent on > equipment upgrades. It pays the monthly communications bill, as > well as the salaries of IOD employees. Not feeling right about having > it pay my salary while I sat around at IOD, once the software was > complete, I moved to Washington and took a new job - I can't stand > to sit around idle, I prefer to code, hence my current job that I enjoy > very much. Quite the majority of it is waiting for another major upgrade > once entry into the roots is completed. Oh, and I used $100 one day > to take the programming staff to a very nice lunch. > > For that matter, Michael, if you're really that curious, I could send you > an non-disclosure, and I'd let you read the P&L statements for the > past 3 years. IOD is a private company, as you know, so it's not published. Interesting you should make such a requirement on Michael, as on severaloccasions both publicly on this and other lists and in private posts, you have chastised me for requiring the same thing. In this regard, you are being hypocritical Christopher. You should be ashamed. :( > > > Oh, and just to be complete, we don't have 24,000 employees, and even > if we did, they probably wouldn't like it if I tried to claim to speak for > all of them. I know that one of them (Greg) often disagrees with my > opinions (but he's a hell of an SQL DBA). Another slur Christopher. And at that a misstated one. Again you should beashamed of yourself. As I have pointed several times INEG does NOT have 24,000 employees. We have approx. 2492. >;) Our affiliates and other wholly owned organizations would total slightly more that 24,000 soles however. That is a defiant distinction from the slur (See above). YEs I do and am legally and duly elected as the spokesman for all and more of the 24,000 stakeholders/users you refer to ( See above ). We just had a new election on monday. I will be posting the bona fides in report form soon. The required copies have been sent to the federal election commission and the SEC as required. If you seek further confirmation please make the proper legal inquiries from them as is required by US Federal Statute. > > > I hope this has answered your questions. Anything else? > > -- > Christopher Ambler > > Pardon any delay in replies, please, there is a new baby > in the house that takes priority. Rest assured that email > is being read and replied. > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com ICANn meetings and reaching out. Patrick and all, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Phil Howard wrote: > > > Tony Rutkowski wrote: > > > > > One could argue that it even went backward by including > > > the Art. V, Sec. 14 addition mandating the Board constantly > > > move its meeting place around the world. (Thanks for highlighting > > > it in yellow, Ellen.) How this serves anyone's interests > > > but the Board taking endless paid junkets through the > > > fleecing of Internet users, beats me. > > > > Let's just require that all board members live in San Jose and hold > > all meetings in a centrally located cafe in San Jose. Yeah right. > > > > If the board members are uniformly distributed throughout the world, > > as they should approximately be, then random locations around the > > world won't really increase the overall travel costs. > > There is a wonderful device that was invented in the late 1800's called > the telephone. It works pretty darn well. The ISP/C uses it for all its' > board meetings save the annual one. It is a good point that Patrick is making here. I was requested to makesuch a suggestion of the ICANN Interim Board along these lines regarding the Boston meeting having 800 # question amongst other suggestions. I honored that request as spokesman for out group (INEG Group). I exchanged several E-Mails with Ben Edelman (cc'ed on this post) concerning this function and having CNN, TNT, and CBC with providing Broadcasting live and live imput through Internet Video Confrencing for the Boston Meeting. Ben indicated that he had not contacted any of the organizations I suggested. (Relevant post can be provided by private Request). I personally checked with CNBC, TNT, CNN, NyNEX, and Bell Atlantic for 800# call lines. None of these folks even knew of the ICANN none the less been contacted by ICANN or any representative of ICANN. I than sent Ben Edelman my phone number stating that if he would call I would attempt to assist him in providing for broader participation in the Boston Meeting. That has been over a week ago now and no reply or retrun phone call. What all this amounts to is that there seems to be strong reluctance on the Part of the ICANN Interim Board to "Reach Out" to the Stakeholder community in any meaningful manner. We find this extraordinary and inconsistent with the precepts of the White Paper in the extreme. > > > There is no need for our company and our customers to bear the costs of an > ICANN that wants to jetset. Now, if ICANN were to make the meetings open > to the public as they should be given the nature of what they are doing, > that would be a different matter entirely. Completely agreed ( See above comments ). There is in inherent lack ofeither ability or will on the part of the ICANN Interim Board to adequately and basically provide for the vast majority of the Internet Stakeholder community to participate, none the less provide for a truly Open process and Esther Dyson promised in her November 6th letter to the NTIA. > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v > CTO (925) 377-1212 v > NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f > Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] ICANN meeting in Brussels, 25 Nov with EC-POP Nick and all, Good point here Nick, however I had received a private post telling me about the Brussels meeting. You are correct however that this should have been made public before your post here. Thanks for doing so. This however should have been done as an announcement by the ICANN Interim Board. Poor judgment on their part in this regard. And yet we hear the precious few comments, and no answers to question "on line" form most of the members of the ICANN Interim Board. Our question is, "Hummmmmm, this is supposed to be about the Internet and their (ICann Interim Board) are not using the internet to gather ideas and discuss?" Shame on them we say! Nick Lordi wrote: > Why is it one has to first see a link to this meeting off the IANA web site, > <http://www.iana.org/index2.html> instead of an announcement via any of > the lists, such as IFWP, dns-policy or IANA-announce ? > > http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/wpmeet3.html > > Finally, this URL refers to a 4 Nov letter from Bangemann to Daley. > Will this be made public? > > Nick > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Attempt? to calrify Intelectual Property issues for TLD's Was:[ifwp] RE: The Non-Profit Issue Again Roberto, You again have raised an very good point today Roberto. Good boy! that is two in one day! >;) Let me see if I can attempt to clarify this very simply. >;) WEB = A word, ART or ARTS = word(s), and hence under current service mark and Trademark law singly could not be serviced marked or Trademarked. IBM = acronym and IS a trademark but is not a word. .WEB (Pronounced "Dot web") = string of characters Cannot be trademarked or service Marked. Same applies for .ART(s) (Pronounced DOT ART(s)). Now, if you were to register a domain name of IBM.ARTS or IBM.WEB, like IBM.COM and IBM.NET are registered trademarks yet they too are Strings of characters!!! Amazing inconsistency here, right? I agree. The problem is in that very inconsistency in US Trademark law as it relates to the ICANN and any potential DNSO that may be formed. Now to take this out one more step. Let say, for the sake of argument and or discussion, that the ICANN or the related DNSO were to allow for multiple registries and registrars and one of those Registries in say Tango, for instance or Panama ( I am choosing these two specific for specific reason. Let see if anyone on this list has the gray matter to figure out why. Hint: think legally ), and a Registrar in Granada, than I or anyone else could register a domain name of IBM.WEB or IBM.ART if an SRS type system is used and there are to be shared (read multiple) registries. Now if there are NOT shared Registries and a limited ability SRS system is standardized, and the only Physical Registry (Database back end function basically ) resides in the US only, than ICANN and any DNSO that may be considered, will be faced with facing a host of legal problems, from a Trademark, Intellectual property law standpoint, not to mention some less serious Anti-Trust and Restraint of trade legal problems, especially with some large Teleco's, broadcasting companies, and Internet service provisions and no doubt, with many regional ISP's ( In the case of a joint class action ). It is for these and other technological reasons, which I will not mention here as they would provide a too detailed view of INEG's technical and otherwise business strategy, that there WILL be shared Registries as well as Shared Registrars. That there WILL be multiple shared Root's as a result. That there WILL be multiple and many new Non-Profit and For-Profit IP Registries. That there WILL be many new Proprietary and nonproprietary Protocols standardized, weather the IETF is in agreement or not. These are the reasons that the ICANN Interim Board we believe should except the reality that an equally representative Individual Membership Organization, can and will be the ICANN's best option for self protection of its Board members, and potential Supporting Organization from repetitious legal disruptions and eventual submission, as Harold Feld provided in an earlier post which I personally responding to later. So as we see it anyway there are four (4) roads that the ICANN Interim Board can take. All are "Workable", however for some individuals some of these road if continued on or taken may be disastrous both perosnally and professionally other roads may be uplifting to some if not many, ect. 1) This road is a not too distant smooth road. (our preferred choice) 2.) This road is a short and VERY rough road. (We don't like this one) 3.) This road is long, curvy and a rough road. (Workable but certainly not preferable) Which road are all of us going to take? Note: It looks to our organization that either #2 or #3. We believe that which one will be determined no later than December 18th 1998. Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Chris, > > You wrote: > <snip> > > As it stands, > > some prospective registries appear to have existing claims > > to TLDs as intellectual property. Whether you agree with that > > or not, it is still an issue that must be resolved, or those > > entities that believe that they have such rights will move to > > protect them, and the issue will be resolved in a court of law. > > > While the title of your post is about having Non-Profit [Registries], the > issue you raise here is different. > > First, the subject of your post. > IMHO, in a perfect world, a Non-Profit Registry would make mor sense, for > both gTLDs and ccTLDs, providing some kind of "basic service" to Registrars, > that act as business units and compete in offering the service of best > possible price/performance to end users. > But, as you note, NSI exists, and I don't see how a company that is doing > lawful business can be "expropriated" (at least without agreed > compensation). > > Second, the sentence above. > I confess I don't understand the claim of intellectual property. > Let me just explain further. > I think that the "intellectual property" of a brand name like Coca-Cola > would be "reasonable" (of course, I would not endorse at all the allocation > of .coca-cola), but I fail to see how .web or .art/.arts can possibly be in > the same situation. > The "brand name" (the character string "web" or "art(s)") did exist prior to > the Registry. > It will be a little like having a new car manufacturer calling itself "car", > and pretending that it has "intellectual property" on the name (and for > instance banning everybody else to use the word "car"). > > So, what I propose is to substantiate the claim for Intellectual Property, > end to define exactly what are the implications of this claim. > > Regards > Roberto > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Kindest regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Comment, and a Question for Interim Board to:[ifwp] Re: Sovereignty and ccTLDs Roberto and all, You are in our opinion for the most part correct here. And the same argument you suggest applies just as well to ccTLD's such as .fr. >;) In other words ccTLD's should be dealt with just as any other gTLD. As for you comment (See Below) on .US, just prior to the ICANN Interim Board being SELECTED, and Jon Postels death, Jon and the IANA/ISI were in some negotiations with the US Postal service in considering administration of .US permenantly. And of course this was going on with the full knowledge that the IANA would be privatized of course. Seems to be in conflict with the White Paper to us here. Any thought? >;) Two questions for the ICANN Interim Board on Roberto's good point here: 1.) Are negations to any of the Interim Board members knowledge by either the IANA, ISI, US Postal Service, or any member of the ICANN Interim Board, yes or no? 2.) Is the ICANN Interim Board considering, now on any time in the future, considering resuming such negations or recommending to the permanent board as a special internal memorandom/other internal ICANN document or thru the in the future to be possibly formed "DNSO" for the .US ccTLD in light of the Esther Dyson November 6th letter to the NTIA, yes or No? Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Tony, > > You wrote: > > Michael, > > > > >> This is pretty amusing. This "world-wide resource" nonsense > > >> was cooked up just about two years ago. Prior to that, .com, > > >> .net, and .org were the de facto US domains > > ^^^^^^^^ > > >Not so. Four years ago I started an ISP in Canada and registered > > >junction.net. You can check the whois database and see the creation date > > >in 1994. I certainly wasn't the first foreigner to register in > > >com/net/org. > > > > The phrase de facto was used to include the exceptions > > like the one you mention. There were (and are) even > > exceptions to .GOV, .EDU, and .MIL outside the U.S. > > as well as .INT outside NATO organizations - although > > the biggest use of the last is for the Rose-Malamud > > TPC.INT purposes. > > > > We can endlessly dispute our own views, but I suggest > > 1) John Quarterman's MIDS statistics where he actually > > parsed every domain and the associated host counts from > > mark Lottor's quarterly/biannual data to determine the > > location of the administrative contact, and 2) a cursory > > survey of books and articles from the period. Among the > > latter is a good article by DNS RFC author Paul Mockapetris > > musing why .com/.org/.net had become de facto US domains. > > > I agree with you that some years ago the registration in .com/.org/.net were > mainly from US organizations and that .us domain was neglected. > > OTOH, the fact that the .us domain was not used for the purpose it was > created for is an internal US problem that I don't really want to get into. > > But I am lost. What were we discussing? The same reasoning you use to > demonstrate that .com/.org/.net were "de facto" US domains (because the US > companies *chose* not to use .us) can be used now to demonstrate that the > gTLDs are now *the facto* international (i.e. world-wide)domains. > > It "cooked" probably only two years ago, but is "de facto" now. > > Roberto > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Quality of IFWP Discussions Mark and all, Thank your for you wise words. Though I certainly cannot speak for all but W (INEG Group) appreciate your words and as has been my life long practice. We believe that our Bylaws proposal to the NTIA is in keeping with your Reminder of the Rotary Club Four Ways to Test Things. Again I would say that our proposal meets that test. If you haven't read our proposal to the NTIA, please do and judge for yourself. See:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm for more details. As I found this post to be quite good and in the interest of this our Vetrans Day, as I am a veteran, I am CC'ing it to the ICANN Interim Board in hopes that it may enlighten them. Again let me personally thank for these wise words and suggestion. MarkRhoads@aol.com wrote: > I have resisted for months making this posting and it is not directed at any > particular individual or group but rather at an Internet culture that needs to > mature. > I respectfully suggest to all readers that it really is possible to disagree > without being disagreeable and that reasonable people are entitled to have > reasonable differences of opinion based on the merits of an idea without > having their motives or integrity constantly impugned. > Finally, if any readers have ever travelled in the humble day to day world > of local main street businesses, they may have accidentally stumbled into a > local Rotary Club meeting. I like the Rotary Clubs Four Way Test of things > members think, say, or do and reprint it here to benefit all: > 1. Is it the TRUTH? > 2. Is it FAIR to all concerned? > 3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? > 4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? > This is just intended as food for thought, not as a gratuitous sermon. > Thank you for your time. > > Mark Rhoads > U.S. Internet Council > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Sincerely, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com INEG: Questions concerning ICANN Interim Board Powers All, Subtitle: ICANN Interim Board Powers Concerning Supporting Organizations Introductory background statement: To whom it may concern, It has come to our attention by the kind and considerate posting that Jim Dixon posted, as a forward to the IFWP E-Mail list, that there is some yet to be verified information ( rumor ) that the ICANN Interim Board or some members of the ICANN Interim Board have indicated that shortly after or about December 15, 1998, the organization calling itself "The DNSO" located on the web at http://www.dnso.org , otherwise known as aka "Barcelona DNSO", will be appointed as the only Domain Name Supporting organization as part of the incorporation of the November 6th iteration of ICANN/IANA/ISI bylaws. Our first question is, does the ICANN Interim Board intend to or in any way at this stage seriously considering such an appointment? Or second question is, in that there is yet to be any final set of bylaws that have been excepted by the NTIA and the Stakeholder/user community, under what authority does the ICANN Interim Board would/could such a contemplation or decision be made? Closing remarks: The intent of these questions is to either confirm or deny this rumor/information in keeping with the requirements of the White Paper. Please consider it such. Supporting Documentation: (Excerpt) Full post below excerpt: Yesterday I was told that an authoritative spokesman for ICANN told my contact that a. the ICANN Initial Board has all the powers of the full board b. the Initial Board intends to use these powers to appoint the Barcelona DNSO as the ICANN domain names support organization no later than 15 December, and c. the Initial Board also intends to delegate new gTLDs very soon I have also been assured by various other sources that d. the Initial Board intends to adopt a set of bylaws of its own devising ==================== End of Excerpt =================== *********** Full Jim Dixon post starts here ***************** Subject: [ifwp] powers of the Initial Board (fwd) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:31:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> Reply-To: list@ifwp.org To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> CC: Geraldine Capdeboscq <geraldine.capdeboscq@bull.fr>, George Conrades <gconrades@polarisventures.com>, Greg Crew <gregcrew@iaccess.com.au>, Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>, Frank Fitzsimmons <fitzsimmon@dnb.com>, Hans Kraaijenbrink <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, Professor Jun Marai <junsec@wide.ad.jp>, "Linda S. Wilson" <linda_wilson@radcliffe.edu>, Eugenio Triana <etrigar@teleline.es>, Joe Sims <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>, Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>, dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov, comments@iana.org, bburr@ntia.doc.gov, Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.gov, Mark.Harrington@mail.house.gov, Charles.Pickering@mail.house.gov, Gil.Gutknecht@mail.house.gov, jim.barcia-pub@mail.house.gov, Tom.Davis@mail.house.gov, Rep.Morella@mail.house.gov, Rep.E.B.Johnson@mail.house.gov, Jim.Wilson@mail.house.gov, talk2geb@mail.house.gov, Richard.Russell@mail.house.gov, John Wood <johnwood@link.org>, Barbara Dooley <bdooley@cix.org>, Tony Harris <oportunidades@redynet.com.ar>, Ron Kawchuk <kawchuk@idirect.com>, deb.howard@2cowherd.net, Michael Schneider <sastre@anwalt.de>, Fred.Eisner@nlip.nl The message that follows was sent to each member of the board of the Internet Corporation for Numbers and Names, ICANN. This group hopes that ICANN will succeed IANA, the body which has for many years acted as a focal point for cooperation in the management of the Internet and so has been of crucial importance to those who operate the Internet backbone, the world's Internet service providers. In a week in which the ICANN board made repeated statements about the importance of openness and transparency, it seems odd that none of them was willing to answer these few simple questions. It seems, to me at least, that it is very important that if ICANN is to replace IANA that it show that it is worthy of the trust that the Internet community placed in IANA. As it stands, the ICANN board is just something that appeared out of nowhere. No one has admitted choosing this board. No one on the board seems able to recall who selected them. Given the great importance of the Internet in the future economy of the world, and given the importance of ICANN's proposed role in the Internet, these lapses are extraordinary. The questions that follow have to do with ICANN's intentions. There are clear suggestions that the Interim Board tends to act quickly on many decisions of crucial importance to the Internet. This would seem to be extremely imprudent. The Interim Board lacks any mandate from the Internet community for precipitate action. In fact, one of the points made repeatedly in the recent series of international conferences, the International Forum on the White Paper, was that the role of the Initial Board was simply to prepare the way for the permanent Board, and that specifically no new gTLDs should be delegated. Note that question (d) below has been answered; the Initial Board has just released a sixth iteration of the proposed ICANN bylaws. To many of us it seems ominous (and yet rather sad) that among the changes to the IANA draft bylaws is that many limitations on the power of the ICANN board have been eliminated. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:11:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> Cc: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org>, Geraldine Capdeboscq <geraldine.capdeboscq@bull.fr>, George Conrades <gconrades@polarisventures.com>, Greg Crew <gregcrew@iaccess.com.au>, Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>, Frank Fitzsimmons <fitzsimmon@dnb.com>, Hans Kraaijenbrink <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, Professor Jun Marai <junsec@wide.ad.jp>, "Linda S. Wilson" <linda_wilson@radcliffe.edu>, Eugenio Triana <etrigar@teleline.es>, Joe Sims <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>, Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us> Subject: [ifwp] powers of the Initial Board Yesterday I was told that an authoritative spokesman for ICANN told my contact that a. the ICANN Initial Board has all the powers of the full board b. the Initial Board intends to use these powers to appoint the Barcelona DNSO as the ICANN domain names support organization no later than 15 December, and c. the Initial Board also intends to delegate new gTLDs very soon I have also been assured by various other sources that d. the Initial Board intends to adopt a set of bylaws of its own devising This last point would of course be against the rules set down by the IANA 5th iteration bylaws. The first three items raise grave concerns about the bona fides of the ICANN Initial Board. Your firm assurance that the Initial Board recognizes that its powers are limited, that any recognition of a domain name support organization must have support from all interested parties, and in particular that the Initial Board will not delegate any new gTLDs would do much to clear the air. Comments on the fourth point would also be helpful. While of course the board of any corporation normally has the power to set whatever bylaws it wishes, the IANA articles and bylaws were the outcome of a long consultative process, including of course the IFWP conferences. The support that ICANN has has been based on the published IANA articles and bylaws. If the Initial Board is going to create a new set of bylaws de novo, this would seem to suggest that ICANN would have to renegotiate terms with all those who have supported it in whatever degree. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 >From jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.netMon Nov 9 21:51:59 1998 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:45:41 +0100 (BST) From: Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> To: dnspolicy@ntia.doc.gov Cc: comments@iana.org, postel@iana.org, bburr@ntia.doc.gov, Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.gov, Mark.Harrington@mail.house.gov, Charles.Pickering@mail.house.gov, Gil.Gutknecht@mail.house.gov, jim.barcia-pub@mail.house.gov, Tom.Davis@mail.house.gov, Rep.Morella@mail.house.gov, Rep.E.B.Johnson@mail.house.gov, Jim.Wilson@mail.house.gov, talk2geb@mail.house.gov, Richard.Russell@mail.house.gov, Barbara Dooley <bdooley@cix.org>, Tony Harris <oportunidades@redynet.com.ar>, Ron Kawchuk <kawchuk@idirect.com>, deb.howard@2cowherd.net, Michael Schneider <sastre@anwalt.de>, "Fred.Eisner" <nlip.nl@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> Subject: ISPA UK statement on Management of Internet Names and Addresses 13 October 1998 Honorable William M Daley Secretary of Commerce c/o Karen Rose Office of International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration United States Department of Commerce 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington DC 20230 Dear Secretary Daley, The United Kingdom Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA UK, http://www.ispa.org.uk) is a trade association representing Internet Service Providers providing most of the Internet connectivity in the UK. ISPA UK is a member of EuroISPA (http://www.euroispa.org), the pan-European federation of Internet trade associations. On behalf of ISPA UK I would like to express our support of the recently-submitted statement of Dr Alfred Eisner of NLIP, the Dutch Internet trade association, regarding shortcomings in the structure of the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers. A copy of Dr Eisner's statement is attached. Please note that it is also endorsed by eco, the German Internet trade association (http://www.eco.de). In a letter to you on 2 October Dr Jon Postel of IANA proposed that ICANN assume responsibility for the management of Internet names and numbers, in effect subsuming IANA's existing role in this regard. That is, ICANN is to become the "new corporation" of the recent White Paper on this subject. The objective of this new corporation is the self-regulation of the Internet industry. It is therefore surprising to us and a matter of great concern that the Internet industry has not been consulted in regard to the selection of the Initial Board for ICANN, nor do its articles and bylaws give the world's ISPs any particular voice in its management. In light of the fact that we are the industry being "self"-regulated, in light of the fact that there are at least proposals that the ISPs should fund the new corporation, and in light of the fact that industry cooperation is essential to the new corporation's success, this is inexplicable. While the rapid pace of developments in this area have made it impossible for the EuroISPA council to meet to formally ratify Dr Eisner's statement, we know that other ISPs across Europe feel the same misgivings about the lack of ISP representation in the management of the new corporation. In fact we know of no ISP association anywhere in the world that supports it. We do not wish to delay the transition to the new system for global management of Internet names and numbers. We believe that it is vital that IANA's role in this be maintained. However, we also believe that it is essential for the success of this exercise in industry self-regulation that representatives of the industry being regulated have a significant voice in it. Without the participation and the endorsement of the ISPs, it cannot succeed. To this end we propose that the NTIA delay acceptance of the IANA/ICANN proposal until such time as they agree to negotiate in good faith with representives of the global Internet industry, with the object of that negotiation being a voice for industry in its self-regulation. Yours sincerely, -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council Telecommunications Director Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65 ------------------------ STATEMENT OF ALFRED EISNER ----------------------- -------------- FOR NLIP, THE DUTCH INTERNET TRADE ASSOCIATION ------------- October 12th 1998 To: NTIA and Secretary Mr. Daley From: Several ISP-organisations, by way of Alfred Eisner (pres./CEO of NLIP Dutch ISPA) Subject: ICANN With regard to the published DNSPOLICY we would like to draw your attention to what we think is a major shortcoming in the rules for and the board of ICANN. This flaw seriously threatens the effect and working conditions of ICANN. "We" in this case are ISP's almost worldwide. Representatives of ISP-organisations of EU, US, Canada, and others. We met in Ottawa oct. 8th. in the margin of the OECD-conference, and we all expressed our deeply felt worries concerning this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of good work has been done to reach some kind of consen sus, the result is not completely satisfactory and does in its present form NOT guarantee quality and continuity. The shortcoming we are referring to is the fact that, where the issueing and control of domainnames and ip-addresses is of crucial importance to the correct functio ning of the Internet as being delivered to the public by ISP's, there is no direct influence of those ISP's in running and controlling ICANN. Since ICANN's policy and operational decisions are to be implemented by us (ISP's) in the worldwide DNS's, and are largely to be paid for by us (and indirectly by our customers), this complete lack of say in these matters is unacceptable. And, just for the record: we are not and feel not in any way represented by people from telco's, networkoperators or large computer or software companies. One might even say: on the contrary. They are not ISP's. To put it more abstractly: Industry-selfregulation without the crucial sector of industry being represented, is a strange idea in itself. It is definitely not industry selfregulation. We are unable to discover valid reasons which could justify the exclusion of ISP's from direct representation in the Interim Board (now) and the final board (later). If this oversight is not duly corrected, the conclusion will have to be that the Interim and final Board do not constitute a valid industry self regulation. To solve this we propose that you allow one more change in the bylaws, leading to the effect that ISP's are directly and adequately represented. Adequately will mean a substantive part of the board. To repair the situation at hand as soon as possible, we ask also that the interim board acts accordingly in their future appointments from the beginning. With kind regards, yours truly, A. Eisner (Netherlands), M. Langford (Canada), M. Schneider (Germany). CIX (USA) is also with us, but will send their reaction separately. ******* End of Jim Dixon's Full post ************ Kindest regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com INEG Group Position/suggestion to:[ifwp] The Non-Profit Issue Again Kent and all, We are very glad you brought up this subject in this new thread. It is our belief that this is or will be one of the "Sticky Points" in the creation of a DNSO as well as other supporting organizations, should the concept of supporting organizations be determined as part of the final Bylaws, whatever iteration that may be. It is our sincere hope that the ICANN Interim board realizes that this issue or "For-Profit" and "Non-Profit" with respect to the Supporting Organizations, will be a very contentious issue to be sure. As this subject has been discussed on the IFWP and the gTLD-Discuss list on several occasions it is well worth the time for the ICANN Interim Board to review those lists relative archives, as there were excellent comments/debates. OUR POSITION: General statement: As the yet again, re-elected (Yesterday) spokesman for our group, I am bound and also personally support our position in this case, with respect to "For-Profit" and "Non-Profit" DNSO(s), or any other supporting organization(s). Our position is that we support "For-Profit" supporting organization(s) as well as "Non-Profit" supporting organizations. However this may be a problem with the ICANN Bylaws as currently described with respect to supporting Organizations bylaws and/or charters as they may be legally inconsistent with current US and California law, not to mention international treaty or existing tariff and trade agreements ( NAFTA and GATT specifically. I and several members of my staff did some work on both NAFTA and GATT) for instance. Hence we are suggesting as an alternative and alternative Supporting Organization structure be considered for the ICANN bylaws to delineate out "For-Profit" and "Non-Profit" designations. As stated briefly, we believe that this alternative Supporting Orginisation(s) structure may reduce or eliminate legal entanglements with international trade agreements, as mentioned as well as inter and intra state differences with respect to the ICANN being a "Non-profit" Corporations setting potential policies for "For-Profit" corporations. ALTERNATIVE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE: 1.) Domain Name Supporting Organization (non-Profit) 2.) Domain Name Supporting Organization (For-Profit) a.) Each, Non-profit and For-Profit to elect one delegate for director and than jointly vote with the Individual membership organization to determine director. 3.) Protocol Supporting Organization (Non-Profit) 4.) Protocol Supporting Organization (For-Profit) a.) Each, Non-profit and For-Profit to elect one delegate for director and than jointly vote with the Individual membership organization to determine director. 5.) IP Supporting Organization (Non-Profit) 6.) IP Supporting Organization (For-Profit) a.) Each, Non-profit and For-Profit to elect one delegate for director and than jointly vote with the Individual membership organization to determine director. CLOSING COMMENTS: It is our sincere hope that this position is considered seriously and that our alternative Supporting Organization structure suggestion will be helpful for the ICANN Interim Board and the Stakeholder/user community in arriving at a solution to this potential quandary. ========================== Christopher Ambler wrote: > Kent, in his last post, expressed a belief that new registries > will be forced to be non-profit. > > I would ask a simple question: how can this position be > argued when NSI is for-profit? Either NSI will be an exception, > or NSI must also be compelled to be non-profit. I fail to see > a scenario where either is possible. > > As for the issue of selection of TLDs, presuming that there is > a single registry for each TLD, regardless of business model, > someone has to be selected to be that registry. As it stands, > some prospective registries appear to have existing claims > to TLDs as intellectual property. Whether you agree with that > or not, it is still an issue that must be resolved, or those > entities that believe that they have such rights will move to > protect them, and the issue will be resolved in a court of law. > > In the case of IOD, this is true with regards to .web. This is > also true in the case of .per for Iperdome, and I suspect that > MCS still claims the same for .biz. Skyscape claims this > for .arts also. > > What Kent seems to think is a clear-cut course of action for > the ICANN, and possibly any Support Organization that is > chartered is anything but. For that matter, Kent seems to > think that it's already a "done-deal" that the "DNSO" that > seems to enjoy so much POC support will be that Supporting > Organization. Again, hardly determined. > > Finally, the conclusion that CORE and IOD should resolve > the .web pre-registrations (Kent's phrasing) and that IOD > should be a CORE registrar is a little backwards. If it is, > as Kent suggests, that simple, then CORE and IOD should, > indeed, resolve the .web pre-registrations, and CORE > registrars should be given registrar status into IOD's > .web registry. IOD is not a registrar and has no desire > to be a registrar. If it is, as Kent suggests, that simple, > then IOD is more than happy to accept CORE registrars > to be IOD registrars - and at no cost whatsoever to join. > But Kent's suggestion that IOD become a CORE registrar > presumes that CORE's registry run .web - and that's the > core of the issue itself (pardon the pun). > > So, CORE, how about it? Want to resolve the issue of > .web pre-registrations and become registrars for IOD's > .web? Please, name your terms, I know that IOD is > listening. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > Personal Opinion Only > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Kindest regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: ICANN Board membership Esther and all, Well this is good! >;) That is three now. Six more to go! Think you will make it by the 14th? However I still have to say that this does not excuse your letter to Becky Burr on November 6th, Subject ICANN Announcement, where you state that the board is not ELECTED. This is blatantly and knowingly an inaccurate and as you say is your wish, it does NOT build trust....... :| Esther Dyson wrote: > And here's one from Linda Wilson: > > > > >At 11.55 am 11/8/98 -0500, Linda Wilson wrote: > >>Colleagues...I am responding to the request that we describe how we came to > >be nominated to the ICANN Board. Prof. Landweber, from the University of > >Wisconsin, contacted me in July, described the planning for the transition > >from government to non-profit governance of the Internet, described the kind > >of individuals being sought for the Board, and told me that my name had > >surfaced in several quarters as a potential nominee. Subsequent > >conversations involved Prof. Landweber or Mike Roberts. > >> > >> Relevant aspects of my background: (1) prior role as Vice President for > >Research at the University of Michigan; (2) experience in helping to found > >the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable at the National > >Academy of Sciences and service as a charter member; (3) service on national > >committees working at the interface between the government and universities; > >(4) service on boards of new non-profit entities designed to bridge research > >at universities and in industry; (5) service on boards of for-profit > >corporations (including chairmanship of the Governance and Nominating > >Committee of one of them) and a major research hospital. > >> > > > > I have just been elected as Interim Chairman of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an > important and overwhelming task. Please forgive me if I have > been slow answering your mail. > > Esther Dyson, chairman Always make new mistakes! > EDventure Holdings > edyson@edventure.com > 1 (212) 924-8800 > 1 (212) 924-0240 fax > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) > New York, NY 10011 USA > http://www.edventure.com > > High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest > PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona > Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] RE: Boston Working Group response to ICANN amendments Dan, Ken and all, Dan, thanks for trying to straighten Stubby out here. I attempted to in an earlier post to this thread. Your brief history on the Lanham act et al was much more complete than mine and I hope that it will be of educational value to Stubby and more importantly to the ICANN Interim board. Over the past year or so I have been periodically boning up on recent events, both in the US and internationally on Trademark Law, as I am just a bit weaker than I care to be in this area! >;) We have hired two leading experts in Trademark law as it applies to the Internet and specifically to Domain names. I have been informed that there have been some fairly recent developments in new Trademark Law. I personally have conferred with a semi retired legal expert by the name of Clearance Conoley in this regard as well. What you didn't mention in your response is that in most countries, the Paris accords are not recognized. In addition most companies do not register their mark as part of a Domain name, for example Toyota a fairly well known Mark to be registered as well as Toyota.com as a Trademark. IBM is one of a very few exceptions to this. In regards to your comment Dan, this does not invalidate your comment with respect to .TJ, or .TO for that mater as well as most other ccTLD's where Domains may be registered. Dan Steinberg wrote: > Ken Stubbs wrote: > > > > a very interesting perspective here !! > > > > i also see that your registry also accepts registrations for domains that > > are in clear violation of clearly famous trademarks. do you have any sort of > > resolution dispute policy? > > Well Ken. > > Let me give you a bit of the required background. Famous marks is a US > concept (Lanham act and other stories (c) US Govt.). Most of the > world signed the Paris convention which deals in 'well-known' marks. > Well-known marks are not necessarily the same thing as famous marks. > And the interpretation of how to decide if a mark is well-known is a > matter for local interpretation (y'know the famous line in the car > commercials: your mileage may vary). The test may or may not require > that the mark be used in that jurisdiction. It may or may not require > that the mark be known to the average person or just the average user > of those applicable goods/services. etc. etc. The important message > from all of this is that there is a test that must be performed by a > court in order to make a determination. Not something a registry is > competent to do. > > Given that the famous mark provisions of the Lanham Act have not been > enacted in 'TJ'-land, how would you expect him to put together a > dispute policy to cover 'em? If a mark is considered 'well-known' in > TJ-land, then it is a simple matter to get something done about it. > > Not knowing which marks you are talking about (other than the > examples) and not knowing what specific tests are applied in that > jurisdiction to decide if a particular mark is well-known, how do you > expect him to do something about it? > > Come to think of it, the whole point is that you cannot decide > up-front if a mark is famous or well-known or even slightly known (AKA > infringing). Only a court can do that. So how can there be clear > violations already? > > Also, since IBM clearly chose to not bother over 2 years ago when > someone else registerd IBM.ORG, I have a feeling they don't care about > IBM.TJ or IBM.ZOO. > > > > by the way is your company anticipating revenues from hosting the domains > > ibm.tj or microsoft.tj (which your "whois" server shown are registered to > > some innocous address in Germany) ? > > > > ken stubbs > > (someone who feels quite certain that dr postel might not be very > > comfortable up there right now with the way some people are using his memory > > and the selective recall of his various writings and speeches) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William X. Walsh <william@tjns.tj> > > To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> > > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 3:13 PM > > Subject: [ifwp] RE: Boston Working Group response to ICANN amendments > > > > First of all let me say that NO ONE at TJNS has received a SINGLE penny of > > compensation for our services with .TJ, or from .TJ Registration fees. This > > is > > only a SMALL part of what we do, with nearly all of our network expenses > > being > > paid out of Web Hosting revenues. > > > > I have my facts straight, do you? > > > > > > > Dr Postel also backed the efforts to privatize the DNS, showing that people > > change their views as time and circumstances change. Too bad some people > > are > > too short sighted to see out of the past. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC > > Network Operations | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj > > william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email, > > +1-(209)-493-6144 | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dan Steinberg > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology > 35, du Ravin > Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356 > Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398 > J0X 1N0 e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Still No Answer from CORE John and all, John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > to whom does IOD speak if they wish to discuss the > > .web issue with CORE? Would that be PAB? POC? > > You've got it wrong. It's ICANN that will decide what's to be done with > gTLDs. If there is some buddy meeting between a couple of very interested > individuals trying to carve up the space for themselves, that would be a > sham. Yes it sure would. And this is similar to what the DNSO.ORG bunchseem to be attempting to do, all be it going the longer road and under a false guise of respectability. But I must say I got to admire their sense of Capitalism, as the want to be able to swap and carve up ALL TLD's amongst their CORE/gTLD-MoU brethren. Now that is real dirty and real greedy! Note: We were going to wait awhile, until after the DNSO meeting in Monterey and see if the ICANN Interim Board were foolish enough to go for this little DNSO.ORG attempt at land grabbing, but that would have been too sneaky and wrong. So we didn't. >;) > If you get NSI speaking to IOD and they come out with "ok, NSI keeps > com/net/org while IOD gets web", then there's something wrong and dirty > there. Wrong because it's obviously ONLY in *THEIR* self-interest. Dirty for > letting it to happen. > > Try and influence ICANN on how gTLDs should be handled, but remember that a > gTLD is just a combination of letters where someone will want to park their > SLD, and as such, one combination or another will be desirable strictly > based on the intrinsic (sp?) "meaning" of that combination, therefore (apart > from any possible "special" cases with charters such as ".museum" to give a > POSSIBLE example), in general the rules, prices and methods to register > under a given TLD should be equal. Just in the same way that it is exactly > the same price for me today to register something.com as it is > something.org, a registration of something.web should also afford me the > same possibilities. Same possibilities, yes. Same price, maybe, maybe not..... > > > Yours, John Broomfield. > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: EU commission tells U.S. it welcomes progress on Internet governance reform Ivan and all, Nice to hear from you here! >;) Interesting post here. One of our people in Europe contacted me in respect to the EU on this subject and I have been ask if I might come and meet with the EU commission folks in regards to ICANN. The schedule is however conflicting with the Bston Meeting. :( So I suppose I will have to evaluate. Ivan Pope wrote: > EU commission tells U.S. it welcomes progress on Internet governance reform > > >From AFX EUROPE, November 5th, 1998 > > European Commissioner for telecommunications and information > technology Martin Bangemann has told the U.S. authorities the > commission welcomes progress in establishing international Internet > governance. > Bangemann expressed his satisfaction with progress on setting up > the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in a > letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce William Daley, which was > released by the commission. > "The commission welcomes the progress that has been made > regarding the formation of the new corporation - We have been > informed of widespread support for this proposal both from the > member states and from the private sector in Europe," Bangemann said > in the letter sent yesterday. > The EU has been keen to ensure a geographical and > functionally-balanced representation in the ICANN to take account of > global use of the Internet and introduction of competition in the > domain name system, he said. > The commission is pleased with the proposal for interim and > permanent boards at ICANN, including the criterion that no more than > half of the permanent board members come from any one geographic > region, he said. > ICANN will be responsible for the organisation and management of > Internet numbering system, the domain name system and technical > standards for Internet protocols, the commission said. > The commission is continuing to scrutinise the agreement between > the U.S. government and Network Solutions Inc to see if this > agreement meets EU competition rules, Bangemann's letter said. > "Meanwhile we would reaffirm the importance that ICANN acquire > and retain the authority and independence to effectively introduce > competition into the domain name system," he said. > A spokesman for Bangemann said Network Solutions was part of the > "old monopolistic" Internet organisation when the system was less > developed. > The commission wants to check that the residual role Network > Solutions has for coordination of certain Internet technicalities is > not abused, he said. > nt/ > Copyright 1998 AFX News. > Source: World Reporter (Trade Mark). > AFX EUROPE, 05th November 1998 > > Ivan Pope ivan@netnames.com > NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY > http://www.netnames.com UK Freephone 0800 269049 > > 180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK > +44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax > > Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death. > Hunter S. Thompson > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Needing Glasses Esther? Was: questions regarding: Oct. 31 conference call notes Esther and all, Pardon me Esther? Are YOU needing a new glasses percription? I have a close relative on Long Island (Unless you don't like Jews) that is an optometrist, that I may be able to persuade to provide as discount for you if you need new specs/contacts. Let me know! >;) I apologize Esther, I was not aware that you may be visually impaired. I am increasing the Font size to 14 to assist in the ease of reading. Hope this helps. I specifically stated and even empathized that these are *NOTES*. To wit form below original reply: (increasing Font Size for visual assistance) "I personally read these notes carefully. And notes they are, NOT a >transcription as Ester Tyson indicated in an earlier post regarding these >"Negotiations/conversations" ( I use that term loosely here ). So as it >is not a transcription, there is no certainty that these *NOTES* are >accurate even to a expectable degree of accuracy." AND.... "> This does not bode well for building TRUST as Esther seems to be interested >in doing with respect to the ICANN Interim Board. In fact we could not trust >these *NOTES* in any meaningful manner other than superficially. However they >have some very limited use for background information. Esther Dyson wrote: > Please read more carefully. These are indeed notes; transcripts are not yet > back from MCI> > > Esther > > At 08.10 pm 11/9/98 +0000, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Molly and all, > > > > I personally read these notes carefully. And notes they are, NOT a > >transcription as Esther Dyson indicated in an earlier post regarding these > >"Negotiations/conversations" ( I use that term loosely here ). So as it > >is not a transcription, there is no certainty that these *NOTES* are > >accurate even to a expectable degree of accuracy. > > > > This does not bode well for building TRUST as Esther seems to be interested > >in doing with respect to the ICANN Interim Board. In fact we could not trust > >these *NOTES* in any meaningful manner other than superficially. However they > have some very limited use for background information. > > > > Vent, doesn't MCI have better voice-to-text capability than this nonsense? > > > > Where are the rest of the conversations that Jay and Eric have reported? > >I suppose we won't be seeing those until after the November 14th Boston > >meeting, right? How convenient! :( > > > > Esther, or any member or the ICANN Interim Board, how do these notes jive > >with the November 6th letter to Becky Burr with respect to her October 20th > >letter, in regards to the Interim board being ELECTED. From these notes > and one > >of your own posts to the IFWP Mailing list, you were NOT elected, but SELECTED. > >Can't have it both ways Esther! So pick one. And as I ask in an earlier > >"open letter", if you were ELECTED, whom ELECTED you? What was the > >ELECTION process? Where is it documented as required by California and > >the Federal Election Statutes? > > > > In these *Notes*, you indicate that you prefer to have a mandate from the > >NTIA on those November 6th ICANN bylaws before the November 14th Boston > Meeting. > >Frankly this *Appears* to be backwards and is an attempt at an end run > >around the INternet Stakeholder/user community in the extreme. Isn't the > >November 14th meeting all about the Stakeholder community coming up > >with a workable set of bylaws as a first step meeting? If not, isn't this > >request or hope as you put it Esther, a bit inconsistent with the NTIA > >October 20th letter and the White Paper in terms of subverting Accountability? > >We believe that it *Appears* that way. This too does NOT build trust. > > > >IN CLOSING: > > > > As I am the spokesman for some 24,000+ stakeholders/users and over > >300 companies and Organizations, that we CAN verify, we fine these > >NOTES, the lack of NOTES or verbatim transcriptions of already > >reported ( By eric Weisberg and Jay Fenello ) additional > >"Negotiations/Conversations" behind closed doors, amongst other > >conflicting public comments the YOU, Esther Dyson have made, and > >obvious and blatent attempt at dictating a consensus, instead of > >building one. This I am afraid will not pass muster, or shouldn't, > >and will lead to more serious consequences if this kind of attitude and > >behavior is not reversed quickly! > > > >Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote: > > > >> Notes from the October 31 conference call between several members of the > >> ICANN board and representatives of the Boston Working Group and Open > >> Root Server Confederation are available at: > >> > >> http://www.iana.org/icann/notes-31oct98.html > >> > >> __________________________________________________ > >> To view the archive of this list, go to: > >> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > >> > >> To receive the digest version instead, send a > >> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > >> > >> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > >> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > >> > >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > >> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > >> > >> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > >> ___END____________________________________________ > > > > Regards, > > > >-- > >Jeffrey A. Williams > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com > >Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > > > I have just been elected as Interim Chairman of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an > important and overwhelming task. Please forgive me if I have > been slow answering your mail. > > Esther Dyson, chairman Always make new mistakes! > EDventure Holdings > edyson@edventure.com > 1 (212) 924-8800 > 1 (212) 924-0240 fax > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) > New York, NY 10011 USA > http://www.edventure.com > > High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest > PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona > Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age," > published by Broadway Books in the US, Viking/Penguin in the > UK, and in 19 other languages. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com TLD's and the White Paper Was: [ifwp] Re: Still No Answer from CORE Milton and all, Milton Mueller wrote: > Kent Crispin wrote: > > > Since, by mandate of the White Paper, all gTLD registries are to be > > run as shared registries, the CORE registrars don't care very much, > > either --if there is a .web they will be able to register names in it > > no matter what. > > This is a demonstrably false assertion about the content of the White Paper.Here > is the relevant language from the White paper on the topic of "competitive > rgeistries:" > > "Both sides of this argument have considerable merit. It is possible that > additional discussion and information will shed light on this issue, and > therefore, as discussed below, the U.S. Government has concluded that the issue > should be left for further consideration and final action by the new > corporation." Correct! And this is makes it fairly clear that any and all decisions withrespect to DNS or TLD's must be jointly made by the Membership Organization and the DNSO(s) by majority vote. > > > The defining feature of the White Paper is that it did NOT decide what to do > about gTLDs, in any way, shape or form. That issue if left up to the new > corporation. > After making an erroneous assertion, Kent moves on to the purely wishful: > > > It is my belief that there is absolutely no way that proprietary, > > for-profit TLD registries are going to be in the IANA root zone in > > any time frame of interest -- it seems completely obvious that the > > political problems are insurmountable for some time to come, and > > that the only new gTLDs will necessarily be run on a non-profit > > basis. > > FYI, there are already several proprietary, for-profit TLD registries in > existence. .TV and .TO are only two examples. Yes, but these are ccTLD's and they may be considered differently.However, gTLD's are a different matter entirely, and there are already several (.com, .net, .org) that are currently managed by a for-profit registrar/registry that is a publicly held company. Also however in the extended agreement with NSI, NSI is mandated to run these gTLD's in a shared registry system and allow for competition for registrars. So, possibly ( .gov and .mil ) are better examples for this argument. > > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] RE: Boston Working Group response to ICANN amendments Ken and all, Ken Stubbs wrote: > a very interesting perspective here !! > > i also see that your registry also accepts registrations for domains that > are in clear violation of clearly famous trademarks. do you have any sort of > resolution dispute policy? Not speaking for William here, but this is a bit below the belt, so I feltobligated to bud in here Stubby! Yeah, he probably does have a resolution dispute policy, it is call the US Justice System. Ever heard of it? If not just point your browser to www.doj.gov, as a starting point. I hope you can follow the links from their all by yourself. > > > by the way is your company anticipating revenues from hosting the domains > ibm.tj or microsoft.tj (which your "whois" server shown are registered to > some innocous address in Germany) ? Well again not speaking for William here, but if IBM or Microsoft havea problem with it I am sure that they can take the appropriate legal steps under the Lahnam Act to correct the situation, or just maybe it is IBM and Microsoft that registered those domains under the .TJ ccTLD with a different registrant that happens to be located in Germany? Ever think of that Stubby? Nahhhh, of course not! > > > ken stubbs > (someone who feels quite certain that dr postel might not be very > comfortable up there right now with the way some people are using his memory > and the selective recall of his various writings and speeches) Possibly. And just a possibly you are doing the same thing here withthis unnecessary comment on this thread which doesn't even fit the subject line of this thread. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William X. Walsh <william@tjns.tj> > To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 3:13 PM > Subject: [ifwp] RE: Boston Working Group response to ICANN amendments > > First of all let me say that NO ONE at TJNS has received a SINGLE penny of > compensation for our services with .TJ, or from .TJ Registration fees. This > is > only a SMALL part of what we do, with nearly all of our network expenses > being > paid out of Web Hosting revenues. > > I have my facts straight, do you? > > > > Dr Postel also backed the efforts to privatize the DNS, showing that people > change their views as time and circumstances change. Too bad some people > are > too short sighted to see out of the past. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC > Network Operations | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj > william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email, > +1-(209)-493-6144 | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: 10-Nov-98 / Time: 11:53:19 > > __________________________________________________ > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Kindest Regards, >;) -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com ICANN: Needs a Means of Adult Supervision (or Martial Law)? Stef and all, Einar Stefferud wrote: > Hello Gordon, et al -- > > I think that there is another way to look at all this, than the one > you deployed below. > > BTW, I hope you have an enjoyable trek on the Everest Trail. I can > both envy you for it, and hate you for doing it without me, but > somehow I find that I have already spent as much time in really remote > and primitive places to allow that I can do without need to go for > more. This of course includes my 38 year trek through Cyberspace, > which began when people were only dreaming about computers that can > communicate. > > But, back to the present situation. See below... > > >From your message Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:17:31 +0300: > } > }an after thought. dave farber said he supports ICANN. It is clear that I > }am not the only one who sees ICANN as a vehicle without any accountability > }set up so that it can do whatever it wants. IE Establish adult supervision > }martial law or what ever your choice of words may be. Dave has observed > }that the internet so far has been incapable of solving these problems. > }Therefore he supports the imposition of a solution....and WHAT a solution. > }I would rather the government assume control than for the Internet to place > }itself under this benevolent dictatorship. This is a dark day staring us > }in the face....... And although Dave may want to surrender our fate to the > }ICANN junta..... I want the junta changed into an organization that is > }responsible and accountable and therefore not a junta. The importance of > }what is before us is well worth the effort. > > I think that the Internet has already spawned some of the richest > means ever known to man for cooperative and collaborative efforts to > enrich the life of the world, and done it in natures way of self > organizing life in the midst of bounded chaos. Yes, I think that the > Internet is alive;-)... It reacts as a whole to being stimulated, and > if you don't believe me, just poke it with a stick and watch what > happens. You will find that it reacts as though it is alive. Indeed the Internet has been the single biggest enrichment boon of thepast half century anyway. In fact it has bee predicted that by 2000 the internet will be a $425B industry sector. Of late we have seen Internet stocks and startup soar to unbelievable hights, and that is only the beginning, ( More on that in another post as we have an press announcement coming out in the very near future). Today nearly 400m messages a day in the US alone are sent via the Internet. We here at INEG. INC. are quite proud to have played and are continuing to play what we believe to be a significant role in that continuing development. >;) > > > The Internet has always managed to keep itself within the region of > bounded chaos, always growing a bit faster than we think can be > handled, but never quite going out of bounds. Unbounded chaos is > damage, and the Internet (community) in its collective wisdom seems to > always find a way to route around such damage. Nice term, "Bounded chaos" I usually use "Controlled Chaos" but I nowprefer your term here Stef. >;) You are of course correct here in saying that collective or non-collective wisdom always finds a way to route around damaging "Unbounded Chaos". As it should and may need to do so again in light of recent ICANN maneuverings. >;) > > > So, what we are seeing here is not a problem that can be solved with > adult supervision, especially when we are no longer able to identify > who are the adults among us who should impose the presumably needed > supervision. So, we now have a big argument among the would be adults > as to which of them is more adult than the other, and thus more > entitled to impose the supposedly required adult supervision. Agreed. And so we see a repetition in history again, a la the gTLD-MoU/IAHCinitiative. However it should not seem particularly strange that this is occurring considering the chain of events that have led up to where we are now and the makeup of the ICANN Interim Board. > > > So, my efforts are focused on trying to locate the real crux issues > and get them out on the table for all to see, touch, feel, and > internalize. All the secrecy so far has only delivered massive losses > of mutual trust and mountains of conspiracy theories. Gordon being > one of the primary conspiracy seekers among us. But, conspiracy > theories are born more of secrecy than of any other ingredient! > Secrecy provides the fertile breeding ground of conspiraaaaacy > theories, and exposing the secrets is what kills the theories. We agree with you here to a point. However we find it a bit unfairand unwarranted to attempt to brand Gordon a person that attempts to breed conspiracy. He may have a style of reporting that seems to appear this way, but thus far he seems to be batting about .600, and that is pretty good in anybody's realistic estimation for a reporter. The root (no pun intended) of conspiracy's is found in the attempt by party or parties do things ore discuss matter of great importance and effect on a broad number of others, in a less that open or secretive manner. Sometimes this is done as a matter of course or sometimes, it is done unintentionally. Of late (past month of so) much secrecy has been attempted, and to some extent has been successful, as Esther Dyson has shown us with her reveling of how she was SELECTED and approached to become a member of the ICANN Interim Board. It showed us anyway that the timing especially was started some time back in August, which I personally found extraordinary to say the least, and indicates directly that the IANA and other "Parties" were responsible for much of the secrecy and subsequent conspiracy chatter sense. Most lately (Past few days), we have some other information that has come to the light of day, through our efforts as well as Gordon's, Eric Weisbergs, Jay Fenello's and yours, Stef that have compounded what the IANA and other parties initiated. That being that there have been closed and private dealings and negotiations conducted initially secretly with the ORSC and the BWG, and for all we now know others as well. Yet that same set of groups, (ICANN Interim Board, ORSC, and the BWG) seek, especially in the case of the ICANN Interim Board, our trust and the trust of the NTIA. We can of course understand the ORSC and the BWG motivations and they are honorable, we believe as they at least reported the gist of their discussions/negotiations. But we cannot understand, condone or tolerate the actions in these instances of any member of the ICANN Interim Board. I personally do know that had or if I were ever to do such a thing within my organization on such matters of importance, I would be ask to resign form our Board, and exercise my stock options immediately. This also happened last year with a company called ADM, the President and Chairman of the Board were forced to resign and were later sued and lost, forced to pay serious reparations. We are not suggesting this kind of action, but there must be a remedy. What is it? We in light of this seemingly repetitions behavior on the part of members of the ICANN Interim Board, do have some suggestions in mind. However they may be seemingly extreme. One, any combination, or all of the following may be appropriate 1.) Have all of the Interim Board publicly apologize publicly to all those that could possibly have been effected by posting a letter form each ICANN Interim Board Member on the IFWP mailing list, The Domain-policy list, and insure that it is addressed to the NTIA, House Telecom Committee and any other governments that may have been effected or otherwise witness, directly or indirectly to these activities. 2.) To sign a sworn statement to never engage in this type of activity in the future as long as they are members of the ICANN Interim Board along with their legal representatives (Jones & Day) and file that statementin any US District court and the World court. Post a copy of that sworn statement on the IFWP and the Domain-policy list. 3.) For the purposes of deterring future inappropriate activities as indicated above all members of the ICANN Interim Board must wear, for the term in which the serve, a monitoring device, such as worn by prisoners on bail for serious offenses that has voice transmitting capability (usually around the ankle) during the hours of 7:00am and 11:00pm will be active and all conversations shall be recorded and made publicly available on the ICANN/IANA web site in ASCII text format. The expense of these devices should be the responsibility of the ICANN/IANA/ISI. Now I am sure these suggestions seem extreme. They are not in light of recent events (See brief description above) and Stefs enlightned comments here. > > > So, lack of trust, and the need for trust building processes has > become the primary meta problem to now be resolved. Certainly has, and the ICANN Interim Board, and it's predecessor,the IANA along with their legal council are for the most part responsible for this meta problem. > > > It (the destruction of trust as we knew it) all stemmed from the root > (pun intended) cause of a major market structure failure at the root > level of the DNS, with arbitrary restrictions on the number of TLDs > permitted to be inserted in the "authoritative DNS root". This led to > the rise of the NSI monopoly as a symptom, and in turn to efforts to > stomp out the symptom in the name killing the infecting virus. In part here Stef, we agree. There is much that you are leaving outdepending on how far back you want to go. We cannot address those problems that are that far back however. The damage is done and the scars will remain. Now however we have a gaping and festering sucking chest wound, that we can address befor it becomes either fatal or is repaired in such a way as not to be permanent. (see my above comments and suggestions). > > > Of course we all know about how one cannot kill a virus by treating > only the symptoms, so in the end, all that we have killed is our > mutual trust, upon which the Internet depends for the very existence > of the fabric of The Internet itself. Very much agreed here. That trust has been eroded for some 4 or5 years now. We can address the most recent problems effectively as I suggested and commented on above. We cannot address the old ones however in that the damage is done. So we propose that all of us consider addressing the most recent indiscretions NOW effectively and reasonably, or suffer the consequences. The choice is ours. The lead responsibility is that of the ICANN Interim Board. The best learned lessons are those that are hard learned..... > > > Now, it appears to me that with so much trust already destroyed, that > the Internet should have already collapsed long ago, but in fact, it > is still standing, almost as though nothing has been happening, and > still growing at the rate of doubling every 13 months. It is now at > least 8 times larger than it was when the DNS wars started in 1994. But as Lincoln once said, "a devided house cannot stand". And yes the Internet is growing at a nearly alarming rate. 7 new users every min. and over 40 new Domains every day. > > > How can this be, in the midst of the first cyber world war? > Why is our beloved Internet infreastructure surviving? > ANSWER: Because of our collective enlightened self interests! Very much agreed here. We have noticed particularly in the pastmonth, noticed a tremendous ground swell of support for our Bylaws Draft proposal, over 80 new companies and organizations and 17k users alone. > > > Well, it just turns out that our Internet technology and community is > much more durable, stable and resilient than our ability to manage our > management of its parts. Frankly, I think that the so called adult > supervision theory is way off the mark, and that the fact of the > existence of a certain level of bounded chaos offers no evidence of > poor management or a need for adult supervision. Our proper job is to > learn how to use our bounded chaos, not to stamp it out. We couldn't agree more here. There seem to be some that have the unfortunate attitude that we, the Stakeholde/user community cannot determine whom our leadership should be, that we are not relevant in self-determination or OUR internet central resources (IP numbers, TLD's, Protocols, ASN's, port assignments). This attitude is seemingly nearly to the point of being absurd. That we are children. That the wants of the few, outweigh the needs and demands of the many and of the free and open marketplace. Of course WE know that this attitude is the one that needs "Adult Supervision" and guidance. Hence the change in Subject line (See Subject above). And it is ours collectively to provide for that "Adult Supervision" and guidance, as of late it is obviously and sorely needed. > > > All we need is a cooperative way of coordinating the administration of > a few things, like a Coherent, Comprehensive, Robust, Secure, Stable, > Reliable, and Open DNS ROOT, with or without a czar to impose "order" > on the people who do the cooperating. Enlightened self interest is > vastly more powerful than any adult supervision czar will ever be. Here Here! The "Adult Supervision" and guidance is needed by those that possess the attitude that suggests that a czar or collective dictatorship arrangement is needed. How sad.... :( > > > Clearly there is no need for a czar to deal with registration of > Protocol Names, Numbers, and Parameters and their Values, as the IETF > has managed to supervise this for a very long long time alredy, and > does not need a new God Given Authority to now take it over. The > secret of the IETF success is tha hey emply some of the most truly > open fair hearing processes ever known to man. Here is where we part company Stef. The IETF is part and parcel tothe wars and problems with the present system that has been steadily degrading. Yes the IETF should be PART of the solution, but they should NOT be the collective technical dictatorship body of the internet or the ICANN. Just to provide you a few examples, ECC, DDS, JAVA API's JAVASCRIPT, IPv8, MLPI, and IP Telephony are only a few examples of Protocols, API's and Encryption algorithms that the IETF has either refused completely to even consider, yet all that I have listed here are currently in use globally on the internet Today. Yet each of this short list (There are many many more) have been rejected out of hand by some in the IETF community, of which I am a member, or has been resisted strongly (ECC, JAVA API's and IP Telephony). Yet the user and business community are demanding them. For this reason our contention is far behind the curve, at least 2 years. That is not exceptable and is not in keeping with a free market system. > > > And, it is clear to me that the IPv4 number allocation scheme can also > be resolved with an open system with appropriate fair hearings given > to the stakeholders, in properly open processes. The secret of the > success of the IETF is in its openness, not its secrets. Again I would differ greatly with you on this point in some areas as Iindicated above. I still have all of the relevant IETF postings that would disprove much of your contention here. For instance ECC inclusiveness as a default algorithm for TLS is one example. I could write a book on the others. Someday I shall. > > > Secrecy in the name of being "adults" is not a required ingredient in > my model for Internet Governance. It is not at all clear to me that > being an adult is enhanced by being secretive. I have always > associated being secretive with not being adult about things. Very much agreed. This is my upbringing and very hard re-learned experience as well. <Sigh> > > > So, my thrust in all this is to attempt to shine a light on all that > matters in forming ICANN, and in forming the new DNSO, and I am > working to bring it all out in the light of day, so we can all behave > as adults, instead of finding ourselves being treated as children by > the secret keeping self declared adults, and thus turning us into the > children we are being treated as. We agree that we must shine the light or honesty and openness onany and all aspects of the forming of the ICANN. We as stakeholders/users must be diligent in this quest as it is good and proper. In doing so, we provide opportunity and service to all of the Internet Stakeholders. As Jon Postel was fond of saying, "it is all about service". In specific it is very important that in forming DNSO(s) that the light be shown brightly on this activity, especially in light of the most recent attempt at entry (www.dnso.org). All doors must be open, no closed communication where the effect is so global and dramatic in its potential effect on the Stakeholder/user community. It is indeed interesting that in this endeavor that such circular and repetitive attitudes and behaviors seem to show their ugly selves. "Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them". <------ (In case there are some of you that do not catch the hint here, this quote is a reference to the IAHC/gTLD-MoU failed initiative). > > > It is a well known concept that if you treat an adult as a child, they > will respond as a child. So, it is not adult to treat adults as > children, unless you want them to behave as children. It takes a > really serious adult to resist the power of being treated as a child > by another person. Wise words indeed. > > > By the way, I have worked much too long and too hard to reach my > current age of 68 years and 10 months, to now give it all up to a > secretive bunch of people that think I need more adult supervision > because I am not behaving in concert with their secret keeping. I personally feel the same way Stef. As I am sure most ADULTSdo as well. > > > And Yes, I am now standing on my soap box, to the great annoyance I am > sure, of some of our secret keeping self declared would be adult > supervisors, but I challenge them to show the world how I am less > adult than they. > > I say "Put your arguments on the line in public, and lets see just who > is adult here and who is not!" > > Then maybe we can do something about rebuilding our mutual trust. > > Cheers...\Stef > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Alternitive questions/considerations was Re: BOYCOTT BOSTON! BAN ICANN! Roeland, Ben and all, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 01:30 PM 11/8/98 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote: > >As the person organizing the online participation elements of the upcoming > >ICANN Public Meeting, I'd like to respond to Jeff's four "friendy > >suggestions for greater online participation." > > > >> 1.) Provide for RealAudio participation on the INternet at the Boston > >> and all subsequent ICANN proposed meetings. > > > >I can assure you that I'm doing my absolute best to arrange streaming video > >of the Boston meeting. We have the encoding side of the project covered; > >the trick is finding an available RealServer with sufficient bandwidth. If > >a hundred people try to view the video at once, we need a RealServer with > >licenses for 100 simultaneous streams, and 100*40Kbps = 4000Kbps = 3 T1s > >worth of bandwidth. If anyone out there has access to both the server and > >the bandwidth and wants to help, please contact me off-list. > > IMHO, an appeal to the RealAudio folks, marketing department, may gain you > access to support for this endeavour, at reasonable cost (maybe "comp'd" on > their marketing budget). Good point here Roeland. I hadn't thought of contacting them myself.( I didn't think it would be necessary in that the ICANN, CANN??) > > > >> 2.) Provide Internet Video Conferencing. (Several avenues are available > >here) > > > >It's not clear to me that two-way videoconferencing is the most appropriate > >solution to the desire to allow real-time interaction between remote > >participants and the real-space group. (See below, item four, for an > >alternative suggestion.) If there were only a few remote participants, it > >might work logistically, but with many it would be difficult to obtain > >enough bandwidth on-site. More importantly, I'm concerned about the > >potential for remote participants to get *more than their share* of > >recognition if videoconferencing were used; I'm sure many of you have > >experienced the phenomenon of looking towards the speakerphone for answers > >when a group convenes in a particular room, joined by a single person via > >telephone, and we might have a similar problem if remote participants always > >had the equivalent of microphones while audience members had to be > >recognized by the moderator. > > A means to control this is possible. IMHO, video-phone is not required and > bandwidth intensive besides. Audio-only Internet-phone with a RealVideo > outbound feed should be sufficient. Not required, possibly, but you loose some "Flavor", here as I indicated ina private post to Ben on this thread earlier. We have already contacted Telco's (Nynex and Bell Atlantic) which service the Boston area, to see if anyone from the ICANN or their representatives ahd contacted them in respect to providing Real time INternet VIdeo conferencing. They had never heard of the ICANN until I called them and explained what the ICANN was. I found this quite interesting, however they would be happy to assist. So bandwidth won't be a problem. They have uplink capability as well. > We don't really need to see what the > remote respondents look like (or the color of their bath-robes <grin>). I > believe that RealVideo is capable of multi-casting (this should be tested) > which will reduce the bandwidth requirement. Good suggestion on the testing. A good second alternative on the I-phoneif there is an 800# dial in. > At MHSC, we use InternetPhone > between our CA and CO offices on a daily basis. One participant only has a > 26400 baud link (via USWORST), the audio quality is quite acceptable but > deteriorates noticably when full-duplex video is added to the link. Try running your video on half-DUX. Works better. > Inbound RealVideo with full-duplex audio-only InternetPhone would work well, > IMHO. Yes it would, but again looses the flavor. > > As for moderation, the chair-person could have an earphone which > continuously monitors the InternetPhone link and a cut-off switch from the > InternetPhone to the PA system. If the participants were well-behaved, they > could give audio indication of their desire to comment which only the > chair-person would hear. The chair-person would then have the option of > engaging the PA switch and giving that remote participant access to the > general audience. Good point. > > > There is yet another problem. Unless there is a roaming microphone, the > participants will not be heard by the remote users. Someone needs to be in > the audience with such a roaming mic. A very small production staff with a boom mic can solve this problem. > > > >> 3.) Provide through Cable Broadcasting affiliates ( CNN, TNT, Ect. ) > >online participation. 800# dial in would for voice questions and concerns > >to be ask world wide. > > > >I've been reading the IFWP lists for some months now, and this is the first > >time that I remember hearing suggestions of cable broadcasting or telephone > > >dial-in to large-scale real-space meetings. Both are perfectly valid > >suggestions, although I'm not personally knowledgeable of how to get our > >feed onto the cable network. But I'd suggest that, despite the quality > >problems inherent in streaming Internet-based video, that's "good enough," > >and, when combined with suggestion 4 below, a telephone connection is > >unnecessary. > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ > ___________________________________________ > I bet the human brain is a kludge. > -- Marvin Minsky > > __________________________________________________ > To view the archive of this list, go to: > http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 |
| jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Re: [ifwp] Re: Working Draft Comparison Site |