From wessorh at ar.com Sun Feb 1 23:35:06 1998 From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick H. Wesson) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:35:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: Keep It Simple and Scaleable Stupid the internet is a beautiful thing. it works, which is more than can be said about so many things in this world of our, less physics and nature. we can not allow the network to be governed by those that don't truely understand the nets inner workings. i am not pleased with the USG's "green paper." if you feel likewize and wish to see IANA and the rest of the I* organizations retain their ability to to effect positive and scaleable chage to this network, *please* ask your organization to sign the gTLD-MoU, as this is the single Best Way (tm) to vocalize to the USG that the *users* of the network wish to govern themselves. if we let this network be governed by any other, then we loose one of the greatest oppertunities to keep what works... working. regards, -rick -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 00:25:16 MET 1998 --------- From messenbu at sungod.com Mon Feb 2 00:38:47 1998 From: messenbu at sungod.com (Martin Essenburg) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:38:47 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS References: Message-ID: <34D50787.41C67EA6@sungod.com> Rick, I agree with you on your point. But considering when the Internet was developed, universities connected to each other to share info. Now corp. America has used the internet to Market,Sell,Instruct, and communicate. It scares me that now one governs the internet. It really is a bunch of networks interconnected with some minimal BGP rules. I think the Internet would be able to go to the next level with a controling body The old days are just that. We need to put things aside and work on the future. Just my 2 pennies... Cheers Marty -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Martin Essenburg | "Where's the ka-boom? There's supposed to be an HostMaster@ | Earth-shattering ka-boom!...Heavens! Someone has SunGod.com | stolen the Illudium Q-38 Explosive Space Modulator! "Delays, delays!"| The Earth creature has *stolen* the Space Modulator!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 00:50:14 MET 1998 --------- From karl at mcs.net Mon Feb 2 00:49:55 1998 From: karl at mcs.net (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:49:55 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: ; from Rick H. Wesson on Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 02:35:06PM -0800 References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 02:35:06PM -0800, Rick H. Wesson wrote: > > Keep It Simple and Scaleable Stupid > > the internet is a beautiful thing. it works, which is more than can be > said about so many things in this world of our, less physics and nature. > > we can not allow the network to be governed by those that don't truely > understand the nets inner workings. > > i am not pleased with the USG's "green paper." if you feel likewize and > wish to see IANA and the rest of the I* organizations retain their ability > to to effect positive and scaleable chage to this network, *please* ask > your organization to sign the gTLD-MoU, as this is the single Best Way > (tm) to vocalize to the USG that the *users* of the network wish to govern > themselves. > > if we let this network be governed by any other, then we loose one of the > greatest oppertunities to keep what works... working. > > > regards, > > -rick Heh, Rick. Monopolists lost. CORE was just another one, albiet in the worst, and most dangerous place - the top of the hierarchy. IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing federal criminal charges. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 01:09:17 MET 1998 --------- From avc at netnamesusa.com Mon Feb 2 01:08:51 1998 From: avc at netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 19:08:51 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> At 05:49 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the >roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing >federal criminal charges. > Karl, Where would you put NSI, who have effectively hijacked the roots? Or the U.S. Gov't, for that matter? Overnight, the Internet mode of opeation has changed from bottom-up cooperation to top-down diktat. Jon was "ordered", to quote the Washington Post, to point everything at NSI. I thought the roots didn't belong to anyone, that they existed and ran smoothly as a result of root server operators' consensus. Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the respect of those operators. You have long been an expert at seeing power grabs where none existed. Now that there is one with huge implications for the Internet, right in front of your eyes, your only reaction is to be first in line to kick one of the fathers of the Internet while he is down. Bravo. Antony -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 01:30:25 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 01:30:50 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:30:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the > roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing > federal criminal charges. hijack the roots ? mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for ever sascha ps.sory to the list -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 02:18:17 MET 1998 --------- From karl at mcs.net Mon Feb 2 02:18:02 1998 From: karl at mcs.net (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:18:02 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com>; from Antony Van Couvering on Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 07:08:51PM -0500 References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> Message-ID: <19980201191802.07268@mcs.net> On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 07:08:51PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote: > At 05:49 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > > >IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the > >roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing > >federal criminal charges. > > > > Karl, > > Where would you put NSI, who have effectively hijacked the roots? One "hijacking" makes others legitimate? > Or the > U.S. Gov't, for that matter? The US Government owns the roots and owns IANA (since it funds it). Without direction from the government and absent their *constructive* abdication, the root system is effectively theirs. NSI's operation of "A" is under NSF directive - aka, the US Government. Now its under the Department of Commerce's directive. Again, the person paying the piper calls the tune. The piper has said they intend to pass control to a private, non-profit US corporation with the FULL IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTI-TRUST LAW bearing on that organization. That organization is *NOT* the current IANA, although it might bear the same name. To which I say "Its about darn time", and "while you're at it, prosecute any EXISTING anti-trust violations you might be able to find in the current IANA or any other so-called 'oversight' organziation for the Internet." And yes, I do mean Mr. Postel and Mr. Manning, specifically, should be investigated - in my opinion - and if cause is found, brought up on charges. Heh, if they did nothing wrong, then what's the problem with a look back at all of their decisions over the last 10 years in the areas of TLD management (or mismanagement), IP number assignment, etc? I can think of a few explicit instances where I believe that there could be trouble.... but heh, I might be wrong. That's what prosecutors and investigators are for though - to figure out whether or not laws were violated. > Overnight, the Internet mode of opeation has changed from bottom-up > cooperation to top-down diktat. Jon was "ordered", to quote the Washington > Post, to point everything at NSI. You bet. This is as it should be. "Ye who pays the bill calls the tune." > I thought the roots didn't belong to anyone, that they existed and ran > smoothly as a result of root server operators' consensus. Wrong again; consensus requires discussion and OPEN PROCESS, neither of which has been present in the past. What has been present is an effective monarchy. I saw no discussion, comment, or public input into what Postel did - in fact, he did it "under the sheets" explicitly, and it wasn't until it was leaked that people became aware of it! That's not CONSENSUS - its control by an Emporer and, IMHO, an abuse of power. > Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what he > thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the > respect of those operators. Wrong again. Jon Postel is an employee of the US Government in the function of the IANA, since the IANA is funded by the US Government directly and indirectly. Therefore, he has no authority to act on his own in this matter, and in fact never did have that authority. > You have long been an expert at seeing power grabs where none existed. Now > that there is one with huge implications for the Internet, right in front > of your eyes, your only reaction is to be first in line to kick one of the > fathers of the Internet while he is down. Bravo. > > Antony IMHO he deserves to be brought up on charges for that action, and I believe he has deserved that same "reward" since September of 1995. In fact, this situation is far more serious than the one in 1995. Its rather obvious to ANYONE looking at this that Postel's actions were a prelude to a hijacking of the root system DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF THE US GOVERNMENT - with the purpose of adding the CORE TLDs. If there's a violation of law in there somewhere (ie: conspiracy, or perhaps racketeering?) I ask that the Federal prosecutorial system bring charges. "Father figures" are supposed to be held to HIGHER accountability standards than the rest of us. Mr. Postel has breached the public trust placed in him and should be fully and maximally held to account for those actions. I have maintained precisely this position since that time, and the last time I looked I was entitled to my opinion (and to express it). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 02:50:38 MET 1998 --------- From peter at 2day.net.nz Mon Feb 2 02:48:31 1998 From: peter at 2day.net.nz (Peter Mott) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:48:31 +1300 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <045601bd2f7c$aa8e61f0$011a62cb@mail.2day.net.nz> >mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) Everybody down here thinks he is a human, much like the rest of us. Maybe thats what happens if you spend too much time with name servers. One becomes a DOT. >he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your >self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for >ever For ever is a fairly long time :-) Sascha, you make a great supporter of the people you believe in, I give you that. That's about as strong a statement one can make about anybody else. I hope Dr Postel and others dont ever let you down. You may be in for some disappointment. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited. -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 03:17:24 MET 1998 --------- From dcrocker at brandenburg.com Mon Feb 2 03:04:05 1998 From: dcrocker at brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:04:05 -0800 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201191802.07268@mcs.net> References: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> Message-ID: <199802020220.SAA27048@baygate.bayarea.net> As always, we seem to be unwilling to let facts get in the way of a strongly held view: At 07:18 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >One "hijacking" makes others legitimate? When one is the well-established (i.e., ever since the inception of service) authority for an activity and when a change has been planned for a very long time, then one is not "hijacking" the service to put that change in place. >The US Government owns the roots and owns IANA (since it funds it). Without False twice. The USG has power over a portion of the root, not all of it. Whether it has "authority" over any of it is yet a different question, but it certainly doesn't have authority over the entirety. The authority for root rests with IANA. The USG provides funding to IANA, but IANA's authority comes from the community not the US government. >NSI's operation of "A" is under NSF directive - aka, the US Government. And how convenient has been NSI's interpretation of that directive. The directive was absolute yet NSI continued to add TLDs per IANA's direction, without further consultation with the USG. >Now its under the Department of Commerce's directive. Again, the person >paying the piper calls the tune. Directive? When did it achieve that status? I thought this was just a proposal being circulated for comments. >The piper has said they intend to pass control to a private, non-profit US >corporation with the FULL IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTI-TRUST LAW bearing on that >organization. That organization is *NOT* the current IANA, although it >might bear the same name. Odd that no one noticed that IANA has been exploring assorted methods of moving out from under USC-ISI cover and USG funding for some time. How very convenient that the USG "proposal" just happens to match the version of the plan that IANA has gravitated to. >And yes, I do mean Mr. Postel and Mr. Manning, specifically, should be And how convenient that no one seems to have noticed that a judge did, in fact, do some review of IANA and the derivative IAHC work and found it just fine, thank you very much. >Heh, if they did nothing wrong, then what's the problem with a look back at What an interesting approach to the Law, viewing it as a management review technique. I guess that explains the incessant calls for legal action. >Wrong again; consensus requires discussion and OPEN PROCESS, neither of >which has been present in the past. What has been present is an effective Right. Totally lacking. No public discussion or modification. Amazing that anyone would think otherwise. All the email exchanges, all the public meetings, all the modifications must be an illusion. >That's not CONSENSUS - its control by an Emporer and, IMHO, an abuse of >power. But, as Anthony noted, you would rather have control by the White House? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker at brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 03:55:41 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 1 21:49:03 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 20:49:03 +0000 Subject: KIS ASS References: Message-ID: <34D4DFBD.252CA96B@ix.netcom.com> Sascha and all, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote: > On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the > > roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing > > federal criminal charges. > > hijack the roots ? > > mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! > > > he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your > self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for > ever Dr Postel did not do this alone for one thing. Secondly, hero worship is a very percarious thing ans has no place in this situation. Yes Dr. Postel should be respected, but not considered a god. No one should have that status in any field of endevor. > > > sascha > ps.sory to the list Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 04:01:23 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 04:00:43 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 04:00:43 +0100 (MET) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802020220.SAA27048@baygate.bayarea.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Dave Crocker wrote: > But, as Anthony noted, you would rather have control by the White House? mr.crocker thank you for clarifaying some facts any representative of any government/nation hase some of very fine and useful qualitys and so also the officers of the american government they help to organize and to find consensus in their society-in our case the next step of the development of the internet domain name system as you and some other folks have mentioned the politician and officers hase good diplomatic skills and trys to "make everybody happy" but they have not absolute knowledge in any aspects of live so they was not expert on internet so they learn and profit from experts like iana isoc iab ietf so the proposals of the usg hase their roots in the knowledge of internet founders-this are not only the people who pays money :-) BUT as ANY poltician today hase a problem with beeing LIMITED to the concept of ONE NATION so also the american government and hier is exactly the chalenge for the poltical science and management system they have to evolve in the face of internet the internet hase his origin in the united states of america but it is become a global system-wich is not entayerly builded by america allone:-) so there is the chalenge on both side on the side of the internet community to learn from governments how to manaege complex systems and to government to learn how to be a part of a common management of the planet earth system if we see the ideology of a national state and the ideologie of the internet than the internet is superior and its leads the political development so the internet is the superior political entity and poeple who hase understand this they angage them self in building up the internet as the new management system for the society of the planet earth the internet is the new government of the planet earth and it hase its own politicians one of them is dr.jon postel and many of his colegues who all together work for the vision of a new age where the boundaries of national states are nothing more wich will devide us becouse we have the internet wich unity us the aproach of the us government is nationalistic and bears no global visions and also dont meets the development at the present time so there is the need for involvment of the political systems into internet liek the commerce was involved into internet but neither commerce or policy can be the highest autority for the internet so this is the mesage the internet wants to give them > d/ thanks sascha -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 04:11:22 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 04:09:56 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 04:09:56 +0100 (MET) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: <34D4DFBD.252CA96B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! a system administrator on a unix system cals a root so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up the system we today call the internet i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all and for that i also thank to him so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this discussion thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to exchange this ideas and flames thanks sascha -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 04:32:29 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 04:32:17 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:32:17 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> References: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: Tony wrote: >Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what >he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the >respect of those operators. Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 04:43:45 MET 1998 --------- From rsarav at ittc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 2 05:43:17 1998 From: rsarav at ittc.ukans.edu (Saravanan Radhakrishnan) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:43:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It would be nice if all of you restrict such talks to each other rather than sending it to everybody. I don't mean to say that this is crap, just that it would be better to restrict the use of mailing lists to disseminate knowledge and promote subject oriented arguments. I would and I am sure that many would appreciate if you take off those email addresses from the "To:" field. Thanks Saravanan R. On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! > > a system administrator on a unix system cals a root > > so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator > > i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up > the system we today call the internet > > i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded > he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all > and for that i also thank to him > > so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this > discussion > > thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to > exchange this ideas and flames > > thanks > sascha > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 06:55:17 MET 1998 --------- From abhi at tis.co.in Mon Feb 2 19:30:20 1998 From: abhi at tis.co.in (Abhijit Naik) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:30:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Even I think So. _______________________________________________________________________________ Abhijit A. Naik (Software Engineer) Tata Interactive Systems Mumbai Ph :- (O) 8210748, 8220980 (R) 8872373. _________________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Saravanan Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > It would be nice if all of you restrict such talks to each other > rather than sending it to everybody. I don't mean to say that this > is crap, just that it would be better to restrict the use of mailing > lists to disseminate knowledge and promote subject oriented arguments. > I would and I am sure that many would appreciate if you take off > those email addresses from the "To:" field. > > Thanks > Saravanan R. > > > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! > > > > a system administrator on a unix system cals a root > > > > so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator > > > > i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up > > the system we today call the internet > > > > i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded > > he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all > > and for that i also thank to him > > > > so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this > > discussion > > > > thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to > > exchange this ideas and flames > > > > thanks > > sascha > > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 06:59:39 MET 1998 --------- From jim at smallworks.com Mon Feb 2 06:58:21 1998 From: jim at smallworks.com (Jim Thompson) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:58:21 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <199802020558.XAA16271@beavis.smallworks.com> Personally, I'm willing to follow Mr. Manning and especially Mr. Postel straight to network hell, if that is indeed where they're leading. Somehow, I belive the boat is headed the other direction as long as they stay at the helm. All the johny-come-latelys (including Mr. Denniger) can get off said boat whenever they like. I won't miss 'em. Jim -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 12:02:27 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Mon Feb 2 12:00:47 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:00:47 +0200 Subject: Europeans Disappointed By Net Names Plan Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980202110047.006b4078@max.ibm.net.il> I rest my case... Europeans Disappointed By Net Names Plan ( 1/30/98; 9:00 p.m. EST) By Douglas Hayward, TechWeb European Internet organizations could barely disguise their disappointment with a plan published Friday by the U.S. government to privatize the running of the Internet's domain name system. In what has been called the "green paper," the U.S. government said it wants a private nonprofit corporation to control the entire Internet domain name system. The new corporation would appoint up to five independent organizations -- known as registries -- to administer domain names. Each of these registries would be entitled to administer a single new top-level domain. Possible new top-level domains mentioned by the paper include .vend and .store. The U.S. government plan is a grievous blow to two closely related European-based organizations -- the Internet Policy Oversight Committee and the Council of Registrars (CORE) -- which proposed last year to create seven new top-level domains. The White House document gives no detailed timeline for introducing its five proposed new domains, whereas the European bodies planned to get their seven new domains operating by late March 1998. "The plans published today by the U.S. government will delay the introduction of competition among organizations registering domain names," said Jonathan Robinson, managing director of General Internet, a British domain-name registrar that sells .com and .co addresses to users. "That is something that will only serve the interests of entrenched monopolies," he said. "There is no way that cheaper Internet domains are now going to be made available to users right away," said Robinson, whose company hoped to sell addresses using the seven new domains proposed by the European groups. "There is no time frame in the U.S. government plan for establishing the new domain names," said Antony Van Couvering, president of the U.S. arm of London-based domain name registrar, NetNames. "It could be a year or more, despite the fact that CORE and some alternative registries are ready to go," he said. "The plan essentially pushes off all the difficult questions to a group that won't be formed until the year 2000," Van Couvering said. "What is everyone going to do in the meantime?" The green paper effectively guarantees the U.S. government a long-term role in directing the Internet, even though the Clinton administration is supposedly privatizing the administration of the Net, Robinson added. "This just entrenches the U.S government's position, when it should be handing power over to the Internet community," Robinson said. The Internet Policy Oversight Committee and CORE are not going to accept the U.S. government plans, said Robert Shaw, a leading member of the committee. The plan to give commercial groups control over individual top-level domains is a cause for concern, said Shaw, who is an adviser at the International Telecommunication Union, the Geneva-based United nations agency. "The problem with the concept of top-level domains being owned by commercial registries is that the database is worth tremendous commercial value," Shaw said. "We could have a situation where one company in the U.S. is going to have right to one very high value domain name, such as .inc," he said. The committee and CORE will meet with White House technology adviser Ira Magaziner soon to express their concerns, he added. European Internet service providers gave the plan a cautious welcome Friday, but said that the not-for-profit private organization proposed to run the new infrastructure would need greater input from service providers. "Overall, it looks like a pretty good plan, but we are concerned about a lack of recognition of the fact that Internet service providers are stakeholders in the Internet," said Jim Dixon, president of Euro-ISPA, a group which coordinates the activities of national Internet service providers' associations in Europe. "This is a bit silly, given that Internet service providers are investing billions of dollars in developing the Internet," he said. Dixon said the group would like to see the proposed new body restructured slightly so that Internet services providers as a whole have more influence. "But otherwise we are rather satisfied," Dixon said. Friday's plan is a setback for some European government officials who openly backed the two European groups in their failed attempt to create new domains and take over administration of the Internet's domain name system. "A lot of people in Europe are going to be extremely embarrassed by this plan, and we are going to have to come up with some graceful exit options for them," said a high-ranking manager at a European service provider, who asked not to be named. "They have made a major contribution to reforming the domain name system, but they lost the debate." -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:21:28 MET 1998 --------- From wessorh at ar.com Sun Feb 1 23:35:06 1998 From: wessorh at ar.com (Rick H. Wesson) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:35:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: Keep It Simple and Scaleable Stupid the internet is a beautiful thing. it works, which is more than can be said about so many things in this world of our, less physics and nature. we can not allow the network to be governed by those that don't truely understand the nets inner workings. i am not pleased with the USG's "green paper." if you feel likewize and wish to see IANA and the rest of the I* organizations retain their ability to to effect positive and scaleable chage to this network, *please* ask your organization to sign the gTLD-MoU, as this is the single Best Way (tm) to vocalize to the USG that the *users* of the network wish to govern themselves. if we let this network be governed by any other, then we loose one of the greatest oppertunities to keep what works... working. regards, -rick -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:26:44 MET 1998 --------- From karl at mcs.net Mon Feb 2 00:49:55 1998 From: karl at mcs.net (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:49:55 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: ; from Rick H. Wesson on Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 02:35:06PM -0800 References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 02:35:06PM -0800, Rick H. Wesson wrote: > > Keep It Simple and Scaleable Stupid > > the internet is a beautiful thing. it works, which is more than can be > said about so many things in this world of our, less physics and nature. > > we can not allow the network to be governed by those that don't truely > understand the nets inner workings. > > i am not pleased with the USG's "green paper." if you feel likewize and > wish to see IANA and the rest of the I* organizations retain their ability > to to effect positive and scaleable chage to this network, *please* ask > your organization to sign the gTLD-MoU, as this is the single Best Way > (tm) to vocalize to the USG that the *users* of the network wish to govern > themselves. > > if we let this network be governed by any other, then we loose one of the > greatest oppertunities to keep what works... working. > > > regards, > > -rick Heh, Rick. Monopolists lost. CORE was just another one, albiet in the worst, and most dangerous place - the top of the hierarchy. IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing federal criminal charges. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:26:45 MET 1998 --------- From messenbu at sungod.com Mon Feb 2 00:38:47 1998 From: messenbu at sungod.com (Martin Essenburg) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:38:47 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS References: Message-ID: <34D50787.41C67EA6@sungod.com> Rick, I agree with you on your point. But considering when the Internet was developed, universities connected to each other to share info. Now corp. America has used the internet to Market,Sell,Instruct, and communicate. It scares me that now one governs the internet. It really is a bunch of networks interconnected with some minimal BGP rules. I think the Internet would be able to go to the next level with a controling body The old days are just that. We need to put things aside and work on the future. Just my 2 pennies... Cheers Marty -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Martin Essenburg | "Where's the ka-boom? There's supposed to be an HostMaster@ | Earth-shattering ka-boom!...Heavens! Someone has SunGod.com | stolen the Illudium Q-38 Explosive Space Modulator! "Delays, delays!"| The Earth creature has *stolen* the Space Modulator!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:28:23 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 01:30:50 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:30:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the > roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing > federal criminal charges. hijack the roots ? mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for ever sascha ps.sory to the list -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:28:23 MET 1998 --------- From avc at netnamesusa.com Mon Feb 2 01:08:51 1998 From: avc at netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 19:08:51 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> At 05:49 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the >roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing >federal criminal charges. > Karl, Where would you put NSI, who have effectively hijacked the roots? Or the U.S. Gov't, for that matter? Overnight, the Internet mode of opeation has changed from bottom-up cooperation to top-down diktat. Jon was "ordered", to quote the Washington Post, to point everything at NSI. I thought the roots didn't belong to anyone, that they existed and ran smoothly as a result of root server operators' consensus. Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the respect of those operators. You have long been an expert at seeing power grabs where none existed. Now that there is one with huge implications for the Internet, right in front of your eyes, your only reaction is to be first in line to kick one of the fathers of the Internet while he is down. Bravo. Antony -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:30:08 MET 1998 --------- From dcrocker at brandenburg.com Mon Feb 2 03:04:05 1998 From: dcrocker at brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:04:05 -0800 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201191802.07268@mcs.net> References: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> Message-ID: <199802020220.SAA27048@baygate.bayarea.net> As always, we seem to be unwilling to let facts get in the way of a strongly held view: At 07:18 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: >One "hijacking" makes others legitimate? When one is the well-established (i.e., ever since the inception of service) authority for an activity and when a change has been planned for a very long time, then one is not "hijacking" the service to put that change in place. >The US Government owns the roots and owns IANA (since it funds it). Without False twice. The USG has power over a portion of the root, not all of it. Whether it has "authority" over any of it is yet a different question, but it certainly doesn't have authority over the entirety. The authority for root rests with IANA. The USG provides funding to IANA, but IANA's authority comes from the community not the US government. >NSI's operation of "A" is under NSF directive - aka, the US Government. And how convenient has been NSI's interpretation of that directive. The directive was absolute yet NSI continued to add TLDs per IANA's direction, without further consultation with the USG. >Now its under the Department of Commerce's directive. Again, the person >paying the piper calls the tune. Directive? When did it achieve that status? I thought this was just a proposal being circulated for comments. >The piper has said they intend to pass control to a private, non-profit US >corporation with the FULL IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTI-TRUST LAW bearing on that >organization. That organization is *NOT* the current IANA, although it >might bear the same name. Odd that no one noticed that IANA has been exploring assorted methods of moving out from under USC-ISI cover and USG funding for some time. How very convenient that the USG "proposal" just happens to match the version of the plan that IANA has gravitated to. >And yes, I do mean Mr. Postel and Mr. Manning, specifically, should be And how convenient that no one seems to have noticed that a judge did, in fact, do some review of IANA and the derivative IAHC work and found it just fine, thank you very much. >Heh, if they did nothing wrong, then what's the problem with a look back at What an interesting approach to the Law, viewing it as a management review technique. I guess that explains the incessant calls for legal action. >Wrong again; consensus requires discussion and OPEN PROCESS, neither of >which has been present in the past. What has been present is an effective Right. Totally lacking. No public discussion or modification. Amazing that anyone would think otherwise. All the email exchanges, all the public meetings, all the modifications must be an illusion. >That's not CONSENSUS - its control by an Emporer and, IMHO, an abuse of >power. But, as Anthony noted, you would rather have control by the White House? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker at brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 04:32:17 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:32:17 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> References: <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: Tony wrote: >Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what >he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the >respect of those operators. Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 04:09:56 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 04:09:56 +0100 (MET) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: <34D4DFBD.252CA96B@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! a system administrator on a unix system cals a root so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up the system we today call the internet i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all and for that i also thank to him so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this discussion thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to exchange this ideas and flames thanks sascha -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From jim at smallworks.com Mon Feb 2 06:58:21 1998 From: jim at smallworks.com (Jim Thompson) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:58:21 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <199802020558.XAA16271@beavis.smallworks.com> Personally, I'm willing to follow Mr. Manning and especially Mr. Postel straight to network hell, if that is indeed where they're leading. Somehow, I belive the boat is headed the other direction as long as they stay at the helm. All the johny-come-latelys (including Mr. Denniger) can get off said boat whenever they like. I won't miss 'em. Jim -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From peter at 2day.net.nz Mon Feb 2 02:48:31 1998 From: peter at 2day.net.nz (Peter Mott) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:48:31 +1300 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <045601bd2f7c$aa8e61f0$011a62cb@mail.2day.net.nz> >mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) Everybody down here thinks he is a human, much like the rest of us. Maybe thats what happens if you spend too much time with name servers. One becomes a DOT. >he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your >self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for >ever For ever is a fairly long time :-) Sascha, you make a great supporter of the people you believe in, I give you that. That's about as strong a statement one can make about anybody else. I hope Dr Postel and others dont ever let you down. You may be in for some disappointment. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited. -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From rsarav at ittc.ukans.edu Mon Feb 2 05:43:17 1998 From: rsarav at ittc.ukans.edu (Saravanan Radhakrishnan) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:43:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It would be nice if all of you restrict such talks to each other rather than sending it to everybody. I don't mean to say that this is crap, just that it would be better to restrict the use of mailing lists to disseminate knowledge and promote subject oriented arguments. I would and I am sure that many would appreciate if you take off those email addresses from the "To:" field. Thanks Saravanan R. On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! > > a system administrator on a unix system cals a root > > so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator > > i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up > the system we today call the internet > > i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded > he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all > and for that i also thank to him > > so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this > discussion > > thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to > exchange this ideas and flames > > thanks > sascha > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:32:01 MET 1998 --------- From signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at Mon Feb 2 04:00:43 1998 From: signato at email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at (Sascha Ignjatovic) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 04:00:43 +0100 (MET) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802020220.SAA27048@baygate.bayarea.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Dave Crocker wrote: > But, as Anthony noted, you would rather have control by the White House? mr.crocker thank you for clarifaying some facts any representative of any government/nation hase some of very fine and useful qualitys and so also the officers of the american government they help to organize and to find consensus in their society-in our case the next step of the development of the internet domain name system as you and some other folks have mentioned the politician and officers hase good diplomatic skills and trys to "make everybody happy" but they have not absolute knowledge in any aspects of live so they was not expert on internet so they learn and profit from experts like iana isoc iab ietf so the proposals of the usg hase their roots in the knowledge of internet founders-this are not only the people who pays money :-) BUT as ANY poltician today hase a problem with beeing LIMITED to the concept of ONE NATION so also the american government and hier is exactly the chalenge for the poltical science and management system they have to evolve in the face of internet the internet hase his origin in the united states of america but it is become a global system-wich is not entayerly builded by america allone:-) so there is the chalenge on both side on the side of the internet community to learn from governments how to manaege complex systems and to government to learn how to be a part of a common management of the planet earth system if we see the ideology of a national state and the ideologie of the internet than the internet is superior and its leads the political development so the internet is the superior political entity and poeple who hase understand this they angage them self in building up the internet as the new management system for the society of the planet earth the internet is the new government of the planet earth and it hase its own politicians one of them is dr.jon postel and many of his colegues who all together work for the vision of a new age where the boundaries of national states are nothing more wich will devide us becouse we have the internet wich unity us the aproach of the us government is nationalistic and bears no global visions and also dont meets the development at the present time so there is the need for involvment of the political systems into internet liek the commerce was involved into internet but neither commerce or policy can be the highest autority for the internet so this is the mesage the internet wants to give them > d/ thanks sascha -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:32:03 MET 1998 --------- From abhi at tis.co.in Mon Feb 2 19:30:20 1998 From: abhi at tis.co.in (Abhijit Naik) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:30:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: ROOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Even I think So. _______________________________________________________________________________ Abhijit A. Naik (Software Engineer) Tata Interactive Systems Mumbai Ph :- (O) 8210748, 8220980 (R) 8872373. _________________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Saravanan Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > It would be nice if all of you restrict such talks to each other > rather than sending it to everybody. I don't mean to say that this > is crap, just that it would be better to restrict the use of mailing > lists to disseminate knowledge and promote subject oriented arguments. > I would and I am sure that many would appreciate if you take off > those email addresses from the "To:" field. > > Thanks > Saravanan R. > > > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > He is no such thing. He is a human being not a machine you fool! > > > > a system administrator on a unix system cals a root > > > > so dr.postel is something like internet dns root administrator > > > > i also want to thank and congratulate all this people who together build up > > the system we today call the internet > > > > i apologize also to mr.deninger-it was not bad minded > > he is shure trying as good he cans to contribute to the internet as we all > > and for that i also thank to him > > > > so please let us now change the subject and move from the ietf list this > > discussion > > > > thank you all very much and many apologize for using your lists to > > exchange this ideas and flames > > > > thanks > > sascha > > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:35:47 MET 1998 --------- From karl at mcs.net Mon Feb 2 02:18:02 1998 From: karl at mcs.net (Karl Denninger) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:18:02 -0600 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com>; from Antony Van Couvering on Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 07:08:51PM -0500 References: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> Message-ID: <19980201191802.07268@mcs.net> On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 07:08:51PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote: > At 05:49 PM 2/1/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > > >IMHO, Mr. Postel, who recently tried to put in place a way to hijack the > >roots, deserves to end up EXACTLY where Eugene is right now - facing > >federal criminal charges. > > > > Karl, > > Where would you put NSI, who have effectively hijacked the roots? One "hijacking" makes others legitimate? > Or the > U.S. Gov't, for that matter? The US Government owns the roots and owns IANA (since it funds it). Without direction from the government and absent their *constructive* abdication, the root system is effectively theirs. NSI's operation of "A" is under NSF directive - aka, the US Government. Now its under the Department of Commerce's directive. Again, the person paying the piper calls the tune. The piper has said they intend to pass control to a private, non-profit US corporation with the FULL IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTI-TRUST LAW bearing on that organization. That organization is *NOT* the current IANA, although it might bear the same name. To which I say "Its about darn time", and "while you're at it, prosecute any EXISTING anti-trust violations you might be able to find in the current IANA or any other so-called 'oversight' organziation for the Internet." And yes, I do mean Mr. Postel and Mr. Manning, specifically, should be investigated - in my opinion - and if cause is found, brought up on charges. Heh, if they did nothing wrong, then what's the problem with a look back at all of their decisions over the last 10 years in the areas of TLD management (or mismanagement), IP number assignment, etc? I can think of a few explicit instances where I believe that there could be trouble.... but heh, I might be wrong. That's what prosecutors and investigators are for though - to figure out whether or not laws were violated. > Overnight, the Internet mode of opeation has changed from bottom-up > cooperation to top-down diktat. Jon was "ordered", to quote the Washington > Post, to point everything at NSI. You bet. This is as it should be. "Ye who pays the bill calls the tune." > I thought the roots didn't belong to anyone, that they existed and ran > smoothly as a result of root server operators' consensus. Wrong again; consensus requires discussion and OPEN PROCESS, neither of which has been present in the past. What has been present is an effective monarchy. I saw no discussion, comment, or public input into what Postel did - in fact, he did it "under the sheets" explicitly, and it wasn't until it was leaked that people became aware of it! That's not CONSENSUS - its control by an Emporer and, IMHO, an abuse of power. > Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what he > thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the > respect of those operators. Wrong again. Jon Postel is an employee of the US Government in the function of the IANA, since the IANA is funded by the US Government directly and indirectly. Therefore, he has no authority to act on his own in this matter, and in fact never did have that authority. > You have long been an expert at seeing power grabs where none existed. Now > that there is one with huge implications for the Internet, right in front > of your eyes, your only reaction is to be first in line to kick one of the > fathers of the Internet while he is down. Bravo. > > Antony IMHO he deserves to be brought up on charges for that action, and I believe he has deserved that same "reward" since September of 1995. In fact, this situation is far more serious than the one in 1995. Its rather obvious to ANYONE looking at this that Postel's actions were a prelude to a hijacking of the root system DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF THE US GOVERNMENT - with the purpose of adding the CORE TLDs. If there's a violation of law in there somewhere (ie: conspiracy, or perhaps racketeering?) I ask that the Federal prosecutorial system bring charges. "Father figures" are supposed to be held to HIGHER accountability standards than the rest of us. Mr. Postel has breached the public trust placed in him and should be fully and maximally held to account for those actions. I have maintained precisely this position since that time, and the last time I looked I was entitled to my opinion (and to express it). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:42:22 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 13:19:55 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:19:55 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802020558.XAA16271@beavis.smallworks.com> Message-ID: Jim wrote: >Personally, I'm willing to follow Mr. Manning and especially Mr. Postel >straight >to network hell, if that is indeed where they're leading. > >Somehow, I belive the boat is headed the other direction as long as they stay >at the helm. > >All the johny-come-latelys (including Mr. Denniger) can get off said boat >whenever they like. I won't miss 'em. That sounds just like all the others who swear their religious allegiance to their Cult leaders. Next comes the kool-aid, the sneakers and jump suits and the astral trip to that shiney imaginary Space ship hiding behind Comet Hale Bopp. All the more reason to remove control from your crazy constituency. I have seen this attitude repeated here in Toronto in the freaky and isolated society of Sysops and sysadmins who imagine they own our International Communications Computer Network because they manage the machines our contents move through. We are simply putting them in their place. Governments govern. Technocrats are employees and servants of governments. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:56:41 MET 1998 --------- From edd at aic.net Mon Feb 2 13:52:58 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:52:58 +0400 (GMT) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 1, 98 10:32:17 pm Message-ID: <199802021252.QAA22427@aic.net> > Over the last two years EVERYONE You don't have authority to speak on behalf of "EVERYONE". > has ripped Postel's authority to > shreds. And the pitiful respect > of ten guys and a handful of IETF > stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is You ARE irrelevant. Blaming respected people isn't a way to fix things. Or are you going to blow everything up and then build a "bright future"? > deposed. What remains is to install > the next regime. One which must Wow! How interesting. Are you offering yourself for the role of such regime's prophet or something? [can't write respectfully yours, regretfully] -edd -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 15:01:41 MET 1998 --------- From robert at DK.net Mon Feb 2 15:00:28 1998 From: robert at DK.net (Robert Martin-Legene) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:00:28 +0100 (MET) Subject: New Top Level Domain BOF@IETF-LA'98 In-Reply-To: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Bob Allisat wrote: > New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of nTLD = National Top Level Domain -- Robert Martin-Leghne (RM59), Network Manager, DKnet (AS2109) main(){int a[2],b[2];pipe(a);pipe(b);if(fork()){dup2(a[0],0);dup2(b[1],1) ;}else{dup2(b[0],0);dup2(a[1],1);write(1,"R",1);}execlp("cat","cat",0);} -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 15:32:36 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 15:33:01 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:33:01 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802021252.QAA22427@aic.net> References: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 1, 98 10:32:17 pm Message-ID: I wrote: >> Over the last two years EVERYONE >> has ripped Postel's authority to >> shreds. And the pitiful respect >> of ten guys and a handful of IETF >> stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is >> deposed. What remains is to install >> the next regime... Ed replied: >You don't have authority to speak on behalf of "EVERYONE". >(edit) >You ARE irrelevant. Blaming respected people isn't a way to >fix things. Or are you going to blow everything up and then >build a "bright future"? >(edit) >Wow! How interesting. Are you offering yourself for the role >of such regime's prophet or something? Not prophet. More like the emmissary poet of this new direction. Furthermore if respected people blunder and fall and continue in the same disasterous paths we are left no choice but to summarily depose them and, if so called upon, to destroy all they misguidedly created. On the last matter as to who speaks for the prescient "EVERYONE" only tommorrow will tell. My sense is that the vision I promote is in closer tune with the interests of the General Good than is the cult of personaily aka: IANA/IETF/IAB/ISOC/IAHC/CORE/POC/ETC... Fighting words that would be unneccessary if you would but see youir collective folly. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 16:03:06 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Feb 2 16:01:46 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 15:01:46 +0000 Subject: OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda In-Reply-To: <15F86CFE3AEED01197340000F802B97F5E8F4D@eosm4.oecd.org> Message-ID: <0ENR00O72B30I3@hermes.ucd.ie> Thanks, Sam. I'll pass the information on to the RIPE TLD-WG mailing list. Niall > Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 07:34:32 +0100 > From: Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org > Subject: RE: OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > Niall, > > Sorry for the delay in replying to your e-mail as I have been away on > vacation until today. The document is now on our website at: > http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/index.htm > > > ---------- > > From: Niall O'Reilly[SMTP:Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie] > > Reply To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > > Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 1998 11:44AM > > To: Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org > > Subject: OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda > > > > Sam, > > > > I'ld like to be in a position to say something about the "OECD DNS > > Document" at next week's RIPE 29. Could you please update me on > > current status and when it will become public ? > > > > Thanks > > > > Niall O'Reilly > > > > IE Domain Registry > > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG > > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 22:04:16 MET 1998 --------- From veni at isoc.bg Mon Feb 2 21:35:42 1998 From: veni at isoc.bg (veni markovski) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 22:35:42 +0200 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <19980201191802.07268@mcs.net> References: <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> <19980201174955.27322@mcs.net> <19980202001345078.AAA95@belisarius.netnamesusa.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980202223542.007e9980@mail.isoc.bg> A few lines: 1. Was it neccessary to have this subject line in order to start a serious discussion? 2. While you are discussing the problems in the US, don't forget we are facing the same problems in the emerging countries? I understand the importance of the TLD in the US, but believe me - it's very difficult to answer the questions of Bulgarian ISPs, internauts, and usual people when they see the same situation here, except that instead of USGovernment, you could change the words to BG-NIC. And despites our efforts to bring this issue to RIPE, IANA, ISOC, Bulgarian authority... there's no result. You can see the story at http://www.bol.bg, http://www.bioteam.bg, http://www.bis.bg, http://www.cyberlink.bg, http://www.inet.bg, http://www.mobiltel.bg and many other Bulgarian web sites under the gif picture named TLDA.GIF with a signature: .BG - For A Better TLDA Is there someone that can propose some help? Regards, Veni Markovski, Chairmain, the Internet Society - Bulgaria, http://www.isoc.bg, http://www.bulgaria.com/isoc/, http://www.bol.bg/isoc/ phone: (+359-2) 9809666, phone/fax (+359-2) 805012 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria *** Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -------- Logged at Tue Feb 3 10:37:11 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 13:19:55 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:19:55 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802020558.XAA16271@beavis.smallworks.com> Message-ID: Jim wrote: >Personally, I'm willing to follow Mr. Manning and especially Mr. Postel >straight >to network hell, if that is indeed where they're leading. > >Somehow, I belive the boat is headed the other direction as long as they stay >at the helm. > >All the johny-come-latelys (including Mr. Denniger) can get off said boat >whenever they like. I won't miss 'em. That sounds just like all the others who swear their religious allegiance to their Cult leaders. Next comes the kool-aid, the sneakers and jump suits and the astral trip to that shiney imaginary Space ship hiding behind Comet Hale Bopp. All the more reason to remove control from your crazy constituency. I have seen this attitude repeated here in Toronto in the freaky and isolated society of Sysops and sysadmins who imagine they own our International Communications Computer Network because they manage the machines our contents move through. We are simply putting them in their place. Governments govern. Technocrats are employees and servants of governments. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 3 10:37:31 MET 1998 --------- From edd at aic.net Mon Feb 2 13:52:58 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:52:58 +0400 (GMT) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 1, 98 10:32:17 pm Message-ID: <199802021252.QAA22427@aic.net> > Over the last two years EVERYONE You don't have authority to speak on behalf of "EVERYONE". > has ripped Postel's authority to > shreds. And the pitiful respect > of ten guys and a handful of IETF > stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is You ARE irrelevant. Blaming respected people isn't a way to fix things. Or are you going to blow everything up and then build a "bright future"? > deposed. What remains is to install > the next regime. One which must Wow! How interesting. Are you offering yourself for the role of such regime's prophet or something? [can't write respectfully yours, regretfully] -edd -------- Logged at Tue Feb 3 10:38:23 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 2 15:33:01 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:33:01 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802021252.QAA22427@aic.net> References: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 1, 98 10:32:17 pm Message-ID: I wrote: >> Over the last two years EVERYONE >> has ripped Postel's authority to >> shreds. And the pitiful respect >> of ten guys and a handful of IETF >> stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is >> deposed. What remains is to install >> the next regime... Ed replied: >You don't have authority to speak on behalf of "EVERYONE". >(edit) >You ARE irrelevant. Blaming respected people isn't a way to >fix things. Or are you going to blow everything up and then >build a "bright future"? >(edit) >Wow! How interesting. Are you offering yourself for the role >of such regime's prophet or something? Not prophet. More like the emmissary poet of this new direction. Furthermore if respected people blunder and fall and continue in the same disasterous paths we are left no choice but to summarily depose them and, if so called upon, to destroy all they misguidedly created. On the last matter as to who speaks for the prescient "EVERYONE" only tommorrow will tell. My sense is that the vision I promote is in closer tune with the interests of the General Good than is the cult of personaily aka: IANA/IETF/IAB/ISOC/IAHC/CORE/POC/ETC... Fighting words that would be unneccessary if you would but see youir collective folly. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 03:59:38 MET 1998 --------- From wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP Mon Feb 2 06:06:32 1998 From: wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP (wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:06:32 +0900 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it. Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult. Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and should not be allowed to control the Internet. Anything the US Govt. would try to do would end up placing borders on the internet within the US alone, but would have no effect elsewhere in the world. The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government. The government has no controls over whom my company's President will be and neither should they try to decide who will head up the Internet as the internet is a large conglamorate of multi-national corporations, individuals, societies, and consortiums, similar to my own company. If the Govt. doesn't like what they see, then they should not use the Internet and instead, fund their own private project without the assistance of the Internet members/staff/corporations If they so desire. If you like it, use it; if not, then get the hell out; but don't try to control it. Sincerely, Walter Benton ___________________________________ ?? _______________________________________ ??: Re: KIS ASS ???: Bob Allisat at &NWS-Internet ??: 98/02/02 12:32 Tony wrote: >Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what >he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the >respect of those operators. Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 13:08:40 MET 1998 --------- From sabine at denic.de Fri Feb 6 13:08:21 1998 From: sabine at denic.de (Sabine Dolderer) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:08:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: RIPE CENTR Project Message-ID: Hello, just to keep you informed an to start things moving. Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the project. I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. Regards Sabine ----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Sabine Dolderer | eMail : Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de DENIC eG | Fon : +49 69 27235 0 Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 | Fax : +49 69 27235 235 D-60329 Frankfurt | ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 22:38:15 MET 1998 --------- From Jay at Iperdome.com Fri Feb 6 22:37:15 1998 From: Jay at Iperdome.com (Jay at Iperdome.com) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 16:37:15 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> Walter, Thank you for your perspective on this issue. While anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom, it too has problems. When it comes to the Internet, there are some things that *someone* has to decide. Top Level Domain administration is one of those things. Competition at the registry level is another. In the past, these types of questions were addressed through a kind of rough consensus process. Due to many reasons, that process has broken down. So we now face a choice: Do we want the new decision making body for the Internet to be the POC, or do we want it to be something else. Most of us who are familiar with the details of the MoU, as well as the behaviour of its leadership, are more comfortable with something else. With that as background, more comments follow: At 02:06 PM 2/2/98 +0900, wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP wrote: > >The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What >the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, > the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their >monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it. I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. Some even suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the world, resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in this area. >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be >difficult. I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces government to live up to our highest ideals. Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government. That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas and opinions are welcome. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com -------- Logged at Sat Feb 7 02:30:26 MET 1998 --------- From Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr Sat Feb 7 02:27:25 1998 From: Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr (Roberto Gaetano) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:27:25 -0000 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: Jay, May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language. This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive government interference. Any government interference. I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, enforced by an external authority. This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your message. You wrote: > I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you > attribute > to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce > Department > that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. > Some even > suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the > world, > resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. > > As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in > this area. > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the weaker part of the globe. IMHO. > >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world > to come up > > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way > to enforce > >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses > numerous > >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will > be > >difficult. > > I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. > Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians. > >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing > the press > >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that > in...) and > > Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with > this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some > extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with > this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces > government to live up to our highest ideals. > > Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. > We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution > possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. > I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG process has been a good one, you may be right. I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad in itself, independently of which side they are on. What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, instead of praising the intervention of external powers? > >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If > anybody is to > >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the > users, for > > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any > government. > > That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of > the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas > and opinions are welcome. > You are absolutely right. Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him instead of building something with you? Roberto -------- Logged at Sat Feb 7 14:02:08 MET 1998 --------- From ivan at netnames.com Sat Feb 7 12:56:59 1998 From: ivan at netnames.com (Ivan Pope) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:56:59 +0100 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> References: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: Jay Fenello wrote: >I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute >to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department >that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. >Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with >this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some >extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with >this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces >government to live up to our highest ideals. > >Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. >We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution >possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General Electric? Ivan Ivan Pope ivan at netnames.co.uk NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY Global Domain Name Registrar - gTLD Registrar http://www.netnames.com - http://www.gtld.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 -------- Logged at Sun Feb 8 00:54:08 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net Sun Feb 8 00:53:45 1998 From: jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:53:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [apologies for the size of the CC list, but I did cut it by 50% !] On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at > least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom > industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the > evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from > some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this > tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US > Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. This is highly misleading. Telecoms charges in Europe are generally high; charges between European countries are often ridiculously high. BT's tariff for a 2M line between say London and Birmingham is about the same as the charge for a DS3 over the same distance in the US. That is, bit for bit, we are charged more than 20x as much. Over international borders charges are surreal: we are quoted 20% more for a London-Paris circuit than for a London-New York circuit. The cheaper one is carried over fibre that crosses thousands of miles of open sea; the more expensive one follows the rail line between the UK and France. EuroISPA is lobbying to get telecoms charges across European borders reduced to sensible rates. The most effective argument we have is a simple comparison of European and American telecoms rates. Certainly no "internal process of the Telecom industry" has led to deregulation in Europe. Quite the contrary. The telcos are fighting tooth and nail to retain their monopolies and monopolistic price structures. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council President 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 -------- Logged at Sun Feb 8 17:38:19 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 8 11:34:15 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:34:15 +0000 Subject: KIS ASS References: Message-ID: <34DD8A26.78CE9EC8@ix.netcom.com> Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Jay, > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > messages. > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > The rest is being part of the Net. > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > network that unites people of different culture and language. I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in perspective. The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not a government intervention of any kind as I read it. The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. > > > This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human > beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed > at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that > can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive > government interference. Any government interference. What you term as government interferance is mearly government assistance. There is a big diffrence between the two. If the MoU process would have been open, the need for requestin Government assistance would not have been needed. This was discussed at length and eluded to as possibly happening some months ago. The GP is the first tangable results of that precieved need by the majority of the Internet citizens disgruntalment with the MoU. > > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > to be made. > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around the world and company's and orginizations as well. > > > I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of > the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we > start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let > me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet > governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but > I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, > enforced by an external authority. And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). > > > This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I > feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your > message. I for one am glad you did. I hope now, that with my response and the GP, you will inable yourself to see a clearer picture with the flaw in the diffrences in the MoU and the GP form a openess standpoint. > > > You wrote: > > I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you > > attribute > > to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce > > Department > > that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. > > Some even > > suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the > > world, > > resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. > > > > As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in > > this area. > > > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at > least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom > industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the > evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from > some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this > tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US > Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. > > It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the > subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry > Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important > in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and > ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was > not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards > deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the > weaker part of the globe. IMHO. > > > >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world > > to come up > > > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way > > to enforce > > >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses > > numerous > > >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will > > be > > >difficult. > > > > I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. > > > Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other > Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization > outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians. > > > >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing > > the press > > >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that > > in...) and > > > > Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with > > this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some > > extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with > > this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces > > government to live up to our highest ideals. > > > > Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. > > We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution > > possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. > > > I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG > process has been a good one, you may be right. > I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad > in itself, independently of which side they are on. > What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen > Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political > fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, > ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the > Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the > world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our > Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. > > Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, > instead of praising the intervention of external powers? > > > >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If > > anybody is to > > >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the > > users, for > > > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any > > government. > > > > That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of > > the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas > > and opinions are welcome. > > > You are absolutely right. > Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing > you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira > Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him > instead of building something with you? > > Roberto Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 00:55:48 MET 1998 --------- From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Mon Feb 9 01:01:33 1998 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:01:33 -0400 (AST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <34DD8A26.78CE9EC8@ix.netcom.com> from "Jeff Williams" at Feb 8, 98 10:34:15 am Message-ID: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> > > Jay, > > > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > > messages. > > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > > > The rest is being part of the Net. > > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > > network that unites people of different culture and language. > > I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in > perspective. > The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not > a government > intervention of any kind as I read it. Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's NOTHING about international cooperation there. > The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to > carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and > planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without > the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to > become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like > joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the > Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, > and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to "join" would be very low). Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar of mine you will pay me $20K) The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, WIPO, -you all know the rest-). The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that proposal. > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > > to be made. > > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of > gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully > evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around > the > world and company's and orginizations as well. May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...) > And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU > does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the > use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the > MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 responses to the RFC. In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and came out with a document. To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. Yours, John Broomfield -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 03:13:42 MET 1998 --------- From truskows at cisco.com Mon Feb 9 03:08:12 1998 From: truskows at cisco.com (Mike Truskowski) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> from "John Charles Broomfield" at Feb 8, 98 08:01:33 pm Message-ID: <199802090208.SAA26108@diablo.cisco.com> Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. mike > > > > > Jay, > > > > > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > > > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > > > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > > > messages. > > > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > > > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > > > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > > > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > > > > > The rest is being part of the Net. > > > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > > > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > > > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > > > network that unites people of different culture and language. > > > > I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in > > perspective. > > The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not > > a government > > intervention of any kind as I read it. > > Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's > NOTHING about international cooperation there. > > > The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to > > carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and > > planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without > > the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to > > become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like > > joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the > > Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, > > and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. > > Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour > guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in > the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they > mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the > same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've > always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and > running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to > "join" would be very low). > Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars > equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar > of mine you will pay me $20K) > The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse > bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. > And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are > coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd > say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about > all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is > *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it > takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, > WIPO, -you all know the rest-). > The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals > with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most > from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD > and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few > different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than > one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. > Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be > able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as > registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. > CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. > And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish > period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that > proposal. > > > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > > > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > > > to be made. > > > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > > > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > > > The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of > > gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully > > evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around > > the > > world and company's and orginizations as well. > > May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small > thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...) > > > And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU > > does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the > > use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the > > MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). > > Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced > it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : > USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came > out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. > For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took > notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those > that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 > responses to the RFC. > In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), > members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed > from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was > carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or > *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY > type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and > came out with a document. > To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created > the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC > process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. > > Yours, John Broomfield > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:33:04 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:20:57 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:20:57 -0500 Subject: Netizen's Message Message-ID: As the alleged technical master brains of the Internet drift further and further into error by never actually discussing the issues, we the people of the Internet grow ever more restless. No-one has dared to answered the quite basic questions. We say the current system could easily handle anywhere from ten to thirty thousand new Top Level Domains. We say the equipment necessary to operate a Domain Name Registrar/Registry (DNR) can easily reside on any standard WWW server like any other mildly interactive homepage on Earth. We even put up various demo version DNRs for one and all to see how damn simple it can be. No response except denial or silence from the super-brains. These forums are slowly bogging down on tangential concerns. Instead of addressing and clearly stating the facts the great "engineering" minds of the Earth, phucked and wandering, drift out of their area expertise and into the deep and dark shite minefield of political games. In the words of the immortal Robot: "Danger Will Robinson, DANGER"... The Internet routes around censorship. That's the way you silly people designed it to operate. And right about now the IETF/ISOC/IAB/IANA/IAHC/CORE/POC is looking more and more like a rather pathetic form of censorship of the diletante political newbie variety. To be routed around by every little motherphucker who wants to run a simple Domain Name Service like our own http://www.fcn.net (click on the blinking icon). To be routed around by every hacker pissed off at paying through the nose to Internic and facing the prospect of paying through every other orifice to the corporations you all seem hell bent upon installing or creating in the hell-alternative DNR scenarios you dummies dish up from time to time. Time for Bob to go into his eqaully bogus (but much more entertaining!) Oracle of the Net mode for a while. Suspension of disbelief hats on kids! This will be brief but fun, I promise you.... __________________________________________________________________ START Net to eggheads, Net to eggheads, come in Eggheads. This is an important message from the sixty million people who actually make up the Internet. Please remove your collective heads from your collective anai and listen up: We want our fucken namespace back. We liked it when it was for free, back before that heinous fifty dollar fee was shoved down our throats. Before the money hog craziness. Before all this stupid, over-blown garbage started coming from you people. We don't want "THE SYSTEM" (Insert reverb) to crash down. We don't want to fragment the damned thing either. We want as many independant, widely dispersed and differant options to choose from as TECHNICALLY (insert tunder) feasible. And we don't want them all to be big stinken lawyer infested corporate Domain Name Registries either. There's room for everyone and even for dissent, irony, humour and people who bust the idea of Trademarks to kingdom come. Now make it happen. Or else we will design code, java scripts, routing patterns and so on to obsolete the lot of you and your damned anal ideas about networking. And stop playing fucken god while you're at it with all your stupid "Black Hole" ideas and wanker hissy fits about anything/everything that even remotely offends your rather limited views of that big ole brawlen universe out there. End of message, over and out and a big 10-4 from your hugmongous everyone else out here newbie buddy which in totality make ya'll geek doinks look like so many gnats flying around so many elephants' assholes. Cheers! __________________________________________________________________ FINISH Now lets see if any of you can process that. I highly doubt it so far into even deeper bogosity have you all strayed. In fact I feel more and more assured that it is the Internet at large that will create the solution. That it's almost pointless to waste anymore time with such inconsequential diliberations. The old God Postel is wandering around, blind and senile, bellowing orders in his whisper voice. And all his pitiful dieties are scrambling around their silly cyber-olympus desparately trying to obey, hurling their ineffectual thunderbolts and crashing their tin cymbal thunderclaps to try and cow the billion people poised to occupy the net into their itsy bitsy teeny weeny vision of reality. All we have to do is sit back, smile and wait as the old world crashes down under the weight of the onrushing, all delusion crushing humanity of it all. Thank you for patiently abiding my illusions for this ephemeral and poignant moment in a wonky and getting even wonkier time-space continuum type of way. I remain... TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:33:53 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:33:13 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:33:13 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> References: <34DD8A26.78CE9EC8@ix.netcom.com> from "Jeff Williams" at Feb 8, 98 10:34:15 am Message-ID: John wrote: >Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour >guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in >the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they >mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the >same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've >always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and >running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to >"join" would be very low). *Both* concepts are flawed. There is no aknowledged role in these proposals (with the exception of Alternate Domain Registry advocates) for small, indies and charitable DNR's. Since these form the real majority of companies and individuals actually supporting the Internet this is an extremely serious oversight which *must* be corrected. "We" make the Net what it is. "We" defined as sixty million (and counting) people, each of whom has an equal right to the namespace to any other. John continued: >In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), >members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed >from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was >carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or >*any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY >type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and >came out with a document. >To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created >the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC >process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. All sides have displayed quite disturbing tendancies towards repetative error syndrome. All sides have engaged in the same flawed, behind closed doors and damn fool tactics. Please visit http://www.fcn.net for my various suggestions. However long it takes we must do it the right way. With thought of future generations at the forefront of our minds. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:34:04 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:34:23 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:34:23 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: Ivan wrote: >I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the >AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their >plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD >out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five >registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General >Electric? The solution has always been to throw the doors open to competition amoung thousands of Independant Domain Name Registries. CORE sought an artificial monopoly. The USG has explicitly stated that they're opposed to such monopolies. As for the foolish technical and fiscal requirements contained in most other proposals I can only say: do your homework people. A Domain Name Registry/registrar can easily function with off the shelf hardware, relatively simple software and basic connectivity. AND still function with repect to the Internet and it's clients. For more on my views visit http://www.fcn.net. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:38:49 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:39:57 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:39:57 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090208.SAA26108@diablo.cisco.com> References: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> from "John Charles Broomfield" at Feb 8, 98 08:01:33 pm Message-ID: Mike wrote: >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. No. If you don't like this stuff don't read it. This is as important issue and deserves more discussion not less. Even to the point of disrupting normal business. Because if you people can't solve this the rest slides into chaos. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 15:36:49 MET 1998 --------- From mcc at WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM Mon Feb 9 15:25:54 1998 From: mcc at WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:25:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Bob Allisat wrote: } Mike wrote: } >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. } } } This is as important } issue and deserves more discussion } not less. Agreed! } Because } if you people can't solve this the } rest slides into chaos. >From your choice of pronoun, I assume your intent is to rant and rave rather than participate in a solution. Merton Campbell Crockett Hasentaler InfoSysteme -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 16:29:44 MET 1998 --------- From truskows at cisco.com Mon Feb 9 16:24:07 1998 From: truskows at cisco.com (Mike Truskowski) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 07:24:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 9, 98 04:39:57 am Message-ID: <199802091524.HAA07230@diablo.cisco.com> Bob, Some people know how to play the game and others don't. Please check your group reply mailing lists. Are they all appropriate? mike > > Mike wrote: > >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. > > No. If you don't like this stuff > don't read it. This is as important > issue and deserves more discussion > not less. Even to the point of > disrupting normal business. Because > if you people can't solve this the > rest slides into chaos. > > TeleVirtually Yours, > > Bob Allisat > > http://www.wtv.net > > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 17:54:58 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 17:56:13 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:56:13 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike wrote: :Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. I replied: > No. If you don't like this stuff > don't read it. This is as important > issue and deserves more discussion > not less. Even to the point of > disrupting normal business. Because > if you people can't solve this the > rest slides into chaos. Merton commented: >From your choice of pronoun, I assume your intent is to rant and rave >rather than participate in a solution. I believe this group described as the IETF has to admit there is a problem. I do not include myself in this state of denial. And if it takes raving and ranting and protests and more to awaken this understanding so be it. Many have repeatedly attempted to participate only to be rebuffed also repeatedly. This experience is common to *all* people advocating Alternative Domain Name Registries. Include everyone, admit past error, move forward as a community. The only way to go IMHO. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:24:32 MET 1998 --------- From wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP Mon Feb 2 06:06:32 1998 From: wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP (wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:06:32 +0900 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it. Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult. Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and should not be allowed to control the Internet. Anything the US Govt. would try to do would end up placing borders on the internet within the US alone, but would have no effect elsewhere in the world. The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government. The government has no controls over whom my company's President will be and neither should they try to decide who will head up the Internet as the internet is a large conglamorate of multi-national corporations, individuals, societies, and consortiums, similar to my own company. If the Govt. doesn't like what they see, then they should not use the Internet and instead, fund their own private project without the assistance of the Internet members/staff/corporations If they so desire. If you like it, use it; if not, then get the hell out; but don't try to control it. Sincerely, Walter Benton ___________________________________ ?? _______________________________________ ??: Re: KIS ASS ???: Bob Allisat at &NWS-Internet ??: 98/02/02 12:32 Tony wrote: >Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what >he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the >respect of those operators. Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:30:11 MET 1998 --------- From sabine at denic.de Fri Feb 6 13:08:21 1998 From: sabine at denic.de (Sabine Dolderer) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:08:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: RIPE CENTR Project Message-ID: Hello, just to keep you informed an to start things moving. Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the project. I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. Regards Sabine ----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Sabine Dolderer | eMail : Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de DENIC eG | Fon : +49 69 27235 0 Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 | Fax : +49 69 27235 235 D-60329 Frankfurt | ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:32:04 MET 1998 --------- From Jay at Iperdome.com Fri Feb 6 22:37:15 1998 From: Jay at Iperdome.com (Jay at Iperdome.com) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 16:37:15 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> Walter, Thank you for your perspective on this issue. While anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom, it too has problems. When it comes to the Internet, there are some things that *someone* has to decide. Top Level Domain administration is one of those things. Competition at the registry level is another. In the past, these types of questions were addressed through a kind of rough consensus process. Due to many reasons, that process has broken down. So we now face a choice: Do we want the new decision making body for the Internet to be the POC, or do we want it to be something else. Most of us who are familiar with the details of the MoU, as well as the behaviour of its leadership, are more comfortable with something else. With that as background, more comments follow: At 02:06 PM 2/2/98 +0900, wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP wrote: > >The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What >the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, > the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their >monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it. I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. Some even suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the world, resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in this area. >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be >difficult. I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces government to live up to our highest ideals. Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government. That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas and opinions are welcome. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:32:50 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net Sun Feb 8 00:53:45 1998 From: jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:53:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [apologies for the size of the CC list, but I did cut it by 50% !] On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at > least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom > industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the > evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from > some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this > tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US > Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. This is highly misleading. Telecoms charges in Europe are generally high; charges between European countries are often ridiculously high. BT's tariff for a 2M line between say London and Birmingham is about the same as the charge for a DS3 over the same distance in the US. That is, bit for bit, we are charged more than 20x as much. Over international borders charges are surreal: we are quoted 20% more for a London-Paris circuit than for a London-New York circuit. The cheaper one is carried over fibre that crosses thousands of miles of open sea; the more expensive one follows the rail line between the UK and France. EuroISPA is lobbying to get telecoms charges across European borders reduced to sensible rates. The most effective argument we have is a simple comparison of European and American telecoms rates. Certainly no "internal process of the Telecom industry" has led to deregulation in Europe. Quite the contrary. The telcos are fighting tooth and nail to retain their monopolies and monopolistic price structures. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council President 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 -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:33:34 MET 1998 --------- From ivan at netnames.com Sat Feb 7 12:56:59 1998 From: ivan at netnames.com (Ivan Pope) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:56:59 +0100 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> References: <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: Jay Fenello wrote: >I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute >to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department >that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. >Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with >this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some >extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with >this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces >government to live up to our highest ideals. > >Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. >We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution >possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General Electric? Ivan Ivan Pope ivan at netnames.co.uk NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY Global Domain Name Registrar - gTLD Registrar http://www.netnames.com - http://www.gtld.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 -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:34:20 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net Sun Feb 8 00:53:45 1998 From: jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:53:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [apologies for the size of the CC list, but I did cut it by 50% !] On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at > least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom > industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the > evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from > some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this > tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US > Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. This is highly misleading. Telecoms charges in Europe are generally high; charges between European countries are often ridiculously high. BT's tariff for a 2M line between say London and Birmingham is about the same as the charge for a DS3 over the same distance in the US. That is, bit for bit, we are charged more than 20x as much. Over international borders charges are surreal: we are quoted 20% more for a London-Paris circuit than for a London-New York circuit. The cheaper one is carried over fibre that crosses thousands of miles of open sea; the more expensive one follows the rail line between the UK and France. EuroISPA is lobbying to get telecoms charges across European borders reduced to sensible rates. The most effective argument we have is a simple comparison of European and American telecoms rates. Certainly no "internal process of the Telecom industry" has led to deregulation in Europe. Quite the contrary. The telcos are fighting tooth and nail to retain their monopolies and monopolistic price structures. -- Jim Dixon Managing Director VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of Council President 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 -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:35:44 MET 1998 --------- From Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr Sat Feb 7 02:27:25 1998 From: Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr (Roberto Gaetano) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:27:25 -0000 Subject: KIS ASS Message-ID: Jay, May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language. This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive government interference. Any government interference. I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, enforced by an external authority. This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your message. You wrote: > I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you > attribute > to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce > Department > that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. > Some even > suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the > world, > resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. > > As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in > this area. > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the weaker part of the globe. IMHO. > >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world > to come up > > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way > to enforce > >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses > numerous > >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will > be > >difficult. > > I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. > Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians. > >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing > the press > >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that > in...) and > > Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with > this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some > extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with > this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces > government to live up to our highest ideals. > > Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. > We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution > possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. > I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG process has been a good one, you may be right. I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad in itself, independently of which side they are on. What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, instead of praising the intervention of external powers? > >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If > anybody is to > >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the > users, for > > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any > government. > > That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of > the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas > and opinions are welcome. > You are absolutely right. Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him instead of building something with you? Roberto -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:36:26 MET 1998 --------- From truskows at cisco.com Mon Feb 9 03:08:12 1998 From: truskows at cisco.com (Mike Truskowski) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 18:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> from "John Charles Broomfield" at Feb 8, 98 08:01:33 pm Message-ID: <199802090208.SAA26108@diablo.cisco.com> Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. mike > > > > > Jay, > > > > > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > > > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > > > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > > > messages. > > > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > > > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > > > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > > > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > > > > > The rest is being part of the Net. > > > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > > > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > > > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > > > network that unites people of different culture and language. > > > > I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in > > perspective. > > The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not > > a government > > intervention of any kind as I read it. > > Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's > NOTHING about international cooperation there. > > > The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to > > carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and > > planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without > > the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to > > become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like > > joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the > > Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, > > and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. > > Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour > guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in > the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they > mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the > same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've > always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and > running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to > "join" would be very low). > Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars > equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar > of mine you will pay me $20K) > The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse > bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. > And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are > coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd > say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about > all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is > *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it > takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, > WIPO, -you all know the rest-). > The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals > with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most > from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD > and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few > different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than > one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. > Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be > able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as > registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. > CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. > And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish > period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that > proposal. > > > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > > > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > > > to be made. > > > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > > > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > > > The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of > > gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully > > evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around > > the > > world and company's and orginizations as well. > > May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small > thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...) > > > And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU > > does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the > > use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the > > MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). > > Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced > it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : > USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came > out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. > For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took > notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those > that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 > responses to the RFC. > In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), > members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed > from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was > carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or > *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY > type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and > came out with a document. > To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created > the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC > process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. > > Yours, John Broomfield > > -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:38:04 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 8 11:34:15 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:34:15 +0000 Subject: KIS ASS References: Message-ID: <34DD8A26.78CE9EC8@ix.netcom.com> Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Jay, > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > messages. > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > The rest is being part of the Net. > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > network that unites people of different culture and language. I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in perspective. The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not a government intervention of any kind as I read it. The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. > > > This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human > beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed > at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that > can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive > government interference. Any government interference. What you term as government interferance is mearly government assistance. There is a big diffrence between the two. If the MoU process would have been open, the need for requestin Government assistance would not have been needed. This was discussed at length and eluded to as possibly happening some months ago. The GP is the first tangable results of that precieved need by the majority of the Internet citizens disgruntalment with the MoU. > > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > to be made. > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around the world and company's and orginizations as well. > > > I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of > the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we > start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let > me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet > governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but > I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, > enforced by an external authority. And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). > > > This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I > feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your > message. I for one am glad you did. I hope now, that with my response and the GP, you will inable yourself to see a clearer picture with the flaw in the diffrences in the MoU and the GP form a openess standpoint. > > > You wrote: > > I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you > > attribute > > to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce > > Department > > that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. > > Some even > > suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the > > world, > > resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. > > > > As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in > > this area. > > > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at > least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom > industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the > evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from > some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this > tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US > Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. > > It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the > subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry > Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important > in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and > ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was > not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards > deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the > weaker part of the globe. IMHO. > > > >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world > > to come up > > > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way > > to enforce > > >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses > > numerous > > >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will > > be > > >difficult. > > > > I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. > > > Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other > Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization > outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians. > > > >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing > > the press > > >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that > > in...) and > > > > Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with > > this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some > > extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with > > this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces > > government to live up to our highest ideals. > > > > Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. > > We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution > > possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. > > > I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG > process has been a good one, you may be right. > I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad > in itself, independently of which side they are on. > What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen > Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political > fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, > ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the > Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the > world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our > Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. > > Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, > instead of praising the intervention of external powers? > > > >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If > > anybody is to > > >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the > > users, for > > > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any > > government. > > > > That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of > > the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas > > and opinions are welcome. > > > You are absolutely right. > Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing > you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira > Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him > instead of building something with you? > > Roberto Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:40:25 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 17:56:13 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:56:13 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike wrote: :Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. I replied: > No. If you don't like this stuff > don't read it. This is as important > issue and deserves more discussion > not less. Even to the point of > disrupting normal business. Because > if you people can't solve this the > rest slides into chaos. Merton commented: >rather than participate in a solution. I believe this group described as the IETF has to admit there is a problem. I do not include myself in this state of denial. And if it takes raving and ranting and protests and more to awaken this understanding so be it. Many have repeatedly attempted to participate only to be rebuffed also repeatedly. This experience is common to *all* people advocating Alternative Domain Name Registries. Include everyone, admit past error, move forward as a community. The only way to go IMHO. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:40:27 MET 1998 --------- From truskows at cisco.com Mon Feb 9 16:24:07 1998 From: truskows at cisco.com (Mike Truskowski) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 07:24:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: from "Bob Allisat" at Feb 9, 98 04:39:57 am Message-ID: <199802091524.HAA07230@diablo.cisco.com> Bob, Some people know how to play the game and others don't. Please check your group reply mailing lists. Are they all appropriate? mike > > Mike wrote: > >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. > > No. If you don't like this stuff > don't read it. This is as important > issue and deserves more discussion > not less. Even to the point of > disrupting normal business. Because > if you people can't solve this the > rest slides into chaos. > > TeleVirtually Yours, > > Bob Allisat > > http://www.wtv.net > > > -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:40:58 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:33:13 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:33:13 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> References: <34DD8A26.78CE9EC8@ix.netcom.com> from "Jeff Williams" at Feb 8, 98 10:34:15 am Message-ID: John wrote: >Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour >guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in >the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they >mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the >same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've >always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and >running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to >"join" would be very low). *Both* concepts are flawed. There is no aknowledged role in these proposals (with the exception of Alternate Domain Registry advocates) for small, indies and charitable DNR's. Since these form the real majority of companies and individuals actually supporting the Internet this is an extremely serious oversight which *must* be corrected. "We" make the Net what it is. "We" defined as sixty million (and counting) people, each of whom has an equal right to the namespace to any other. John continued: >In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), >members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed >from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was >carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or >*any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY >type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and >came out with a document. >To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created >the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC >process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. All sides have displayed quite disturbing tendancies towards repetative error syndrome. All sides have engaged in the same flawed, behind closed doors and damn fool tactics. Please visit http://www.fcn.net for my various suggestions. However long it takes we must do it the right way. With thought of future generations at the forefront of our minds. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:41:00 MET 1998 --------- From mcc at WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM Mon Feb 9 15:25:54 1998 From: mcc at WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:25:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Bob Allisat wrote: } Mike wrote: } >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. } } } This is as important } issue and deserves more discussion } not less. Agreed! } Because } if you people can't solve this the } rest slides into chaos. than participate in a solution. Merton Campbell Crockett Hasentaler InfoSysteme -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:42:48 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:20:57 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:20:57 -0500 Subject: Netizen's Message Message-ID: As the alleged technical master brains of the Internet drift further and further into error by never actually discussing the issues, we the people of the Internet grow ever more restless. No-one has dared to answered the quite basic questions. We say the current system could easily handle anywhere from ten to thirty thousand new Top Level Domains. We say the equipment necessary to operate a Domain Name Registrar/Registry (DNR) can easily reside on any standard WWW server like any other mildly interactive homepage on Earth. We even put up various demo version DNRs for one and all to see how damn simple it can be. No response except denial or silence from the super-brains. These forums are slowly bogging down on tangential concerns. Instead of addressing and clearly stating the facts the great "engineering" minds of the Earth, phucked and wandering, drift out of their area expertise and into the deep and dark shite minefield of political games. In the words of the immortal Robot: "Danger Will Robinson, DANGER"... The Internet routes around censorship. That's the way you silly people designed it to operate. And right about now the IETF/ISOC/IAB/IANA/IAHC/CORE/POC is looking more and more like a rather pathetic form of censorship of the diletante political newbie variety. To be routed around by every little motherphucker who wants to run a simple Domain Name Service like our own http://www.fcn.net (click on the blinking icon). To be routed around by every hacker pissed off at paying through the nose to Internic and facing the prospect of paying through every other orifice to the corporations you all seem hell bent upon installing or creating in the hell-alternative DNR scenarios you dummies dish up from time to time. Time for Bob to go into his eqaully bogus (but much more entertaining!) Oracle of the Net mode for a while. Suspension of disbelief hats on kids! This will be brief but fun, I promise you.... __________________________________________________________________ START Net to eggheads, Net to eggheads, come in Eggheads. This is an important message from the sixty million people who actually make up the Internet. Please remove your collective heads from your collective anai and listen up: We want our fucken namespace back. We liked it when it was for free, back before that heinous fifty dollar fee was shoved down our throats. Before the money hog craziness. Before all this stupid, over-blown garbage started coming from you people. We don't want "THE SYSTEM" (Insert reverb) to crash down. We don't want to fragment the damned thing either. We want as many independant, widely dispersed and differant options to choose from as TECHNICALLY (insert tunder) feasible. And we don't want them all to be big stinken lawyer infested corporate Domain Name Registries either. There's room for everyone and even for dissent, irony, humour and people who bust the idea of Trademarks to kingdom come. Now make it happen. Or else we will design code, java scripts, routing patterns and so on to obsolete the lot of you and your damned anal ideas about networking. And stop playing fucken god while you're at it with all your stupid "Black Hole" ideas and wanker hissy fits about anything/everything that even remotely offends your rather limited views of that big ole brawlen universe out there. End of message, over and out and a big 10-4 from your hugmongous everyone else out here newbie buddy which in totality make ya'll geek doinks look like so many gnats flying around so many elephants' assholes. Cheers! __________________________________________________________________ FINISH Now lets see if any of you can process that. I highly doubt it so far into even deeper bogosity have you all strayed. In fact I feel more and more assured that it is the Internet at large that will create the solution. That it's almost pointless to waste anymore time with such inconsequential diliberations. The old God Postel is wandering around, blind and senile, bellowing orders in his whisper voice. And all his pitiful dieties are scrambling around their silly cyber-olympus desparately trying to obey, hurling their ineffectual thunderbolts and crashing their tin cymbal thunderclaps to try and cow the billion people poised to occupy the net into their itsy bitsy teeny weeny vision of reality. All we have to do is sit back, smile and wait as the old world crashes down under the weight of the onrushing, all delusion crushing humanity of it all. Thank you for patiently abiding my illusions for this ephemeral and poignant moment in a wonky and getting even wonkier time-space continuum type of way. I remain... TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:43:35 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:34:23 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:34:23 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19980206163715.02fd599c@mindspring.com> <9802068867.AA886733568@nws.memorex.co.jp> Message-ID: Ivan wrote: >I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the >AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their >plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD >out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five >registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General >Electric? The solution has always been to throw the doors open to competition amoung thousands of Independant Domain Name Registries. CORE sought an artificial monopoly. The USG has explicitly stated that they're opposed to such monopolies. As for the foolish technical and fiscal requirements contained in most other proposals I can only say: do your homework people. A Domain Name Registry/registrar can easily function with off the shelf hardware, relatively simple software and basic connectivity. AND still function with repect to the Internet and it's clients. For more on my views visit http://www.fcn.net. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 10:45:39 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Mon Feb 9 10:39:57 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:39:57 -0500 Subject: KIS ASS In-Reply-To: <199802090208.SAA26108@diablo.cisco.com> References: <199802090001.UAA16602@manta.outremer.com> from "John Charles Broomfield" at Feb 8, 98 08:01:33 pm Message-ID: Mike wrote: >Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. No. If you don't like this stuff don't read it. This is as important issue and deserves more discussion not less. Even to the point of disrupting normal business. Because if you people can't solve this the rest slides into chaos. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 12:44:54 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Tue Feb 10 12:44:34 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:44:34 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR Project In-Reply-To: Message from Sabine Dolderer of "Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:08:21 +0100." References: Message-ID: <9802101144.AA11351@ncc.ripe.net> On Friday, 6 Feb 1998, Sabine Dolderer writes: > Hello, > just to keep you informed an to start things moving. > Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will > strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. > The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the > project. > I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. Me too. Boudewijn Nederkoorn has promised to organize that meeting and we are all looking forward to do it :). > Regards Sabine > ----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > Sabine Dolderer | eMail : Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de > DENIC eG | Fon : +49 69 27235 0 > Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 | Fax : +49 69 27235 235 > D-60329 Frankfurt | > ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 15:17:50 MET 1998 --------- From Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl Tue Feb 10 15:17:06 1998 From: Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl (Boudewijn Nederkoorn) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:17:06 +0100 Subject: Meeting RIPE nTLD registries Message-ID: <15745.887120226@surfnet.nl> As a result of the wg-TLD meeting in Amsterdam, I have asked Paul Ridley tot prepare a meeting of nTLD registries in the RIPE area on short notice. The meeting is now scheduled for Monday, 2 March 1998 from 10.30 until 17.00. Venue; Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, Hilton Hotel. This mail goes only to the TLD-wg list. The formal invitation with the proposed agenda and further information will be sent to all registries as mentioned in Paul's mail, forwarded below. In the same mail Paul told me that he will resign from RIPE/NCC in the second half of March. I will contact Daniel Karrenberg to discuss other ways of getting support from RIPE/NCC. Boudewijn Nederkoorn -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 15:26:36 MET 1998 --------- From Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl Tue Feb 10 15:26:15 1998 From: Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl (Boudewijn Nederkoorn) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:26:15 +0100 Subject: List of nTLD registries in the RIPE area Message-ID: <16511.887120775@surfnet.nl> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 23:09:53 +0100 From: Paul Ridley To: Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl Subject: nTLD meeting at Schiphol Hello Boudewijn, Underneath you can find the list of RIPE area nTLDs and the e-mail addresses of their contact persons. I have tried to find out who the 'decision making' person is and put thm as the contact person, but for the majority it is never 100% certain. However as long as you make it clear that it should be passed on to the appropriate person this will not matter so much. Before I go into the rest of the meeting details I want to bring you up to date with my own situation, as this may have some bearing on a few practical aspects of RIPE CENTR. As you may have already heard from Kees, I resigned from my job at RIPE NCC last Friday. Taking into account holidays etc this means that my last working day at RIPE NCC will be 17 March 1998, less than 6 weeks away. I find it very difficult to now draft an agenda for the ntld meeting since this was going to be based on the 4 goals/activities of RIPE CENTR that were in my proposal. However I will send you in a seperate mail a draft agenda assuming that thesame points need to be discussed although the who does what and when may now be changed. I have had requests from 2 parties as to when the meeting should be scheduled. .se and .no asked that the meeting not be held on Tuesday 24 FEB since there is a Scandinavian backbone meeting (or something like that) on that day. The second comment is from RIPE NCC. If you require admin support from us then this cannot be provided on Thursday 26 or Friday 27 FEB since we have internal management meetings for 2 whole days. Please let me know what admin support if any you will need for this meeting. Regards Paul Here is a list of contacts e-mail addresses for the RIPE area nTLDs. Where possible the contact is a 'decision making' person of that organisation. If this person was not known the admin contact as stated in the Internic Domain object is quoted. 1.ALBANIA .al Serzh, Qesteri QS15 inima at INIMA.AL 2.ALGERIA .dz Tafat, Mohand MT35 Mohand at ALGERIA.EU.NET 3.ANDORRA .ad Salvat, Jaume JS2216 Postmaster at DINIS.AD 4.ARMENIA .am Danielyan, Edgar ET22 edd at ACM.ORG 5.AUSTRIA .at Rastl, Peter PR67 Peter.Rastl at cc.univie.ac.at 6.AZERBAIJAN .az Degtyarev, Eugene ED678 root at DEM.BAKU.AZ 7.BAHRAIN .bh Araj, Ali AA288 ali at BATELCO.COM 8.BELARUS .by Andrey, Ivanov IA12 ivanov at OK.MINSK.BY 9.BELGIUM .be Verbaeten, Pierre PV19 admin at DNS.BE 10.BENIN .bj Agbaholou, Louis LA214 agbaholou at INTNET.BJ 11.BOSNIA AND HERZEGOWIN .ba Haris, Hadzialic HH475 haris at UTIC.NET.BA 12.BULGARIA .bg Slavov, Dragomir DS642 dhs at digsys.bg 13.BURKINA FASO .bf Tankoano, Joachim JT5 tankoano at DELGI.BF 14.CAMEROON .cm NTOKO, Alexander AN591 ntoko at ITU.INT 15.CAPE VERDE .cv Varela, Antonio AV358 varela at ISECMAR.CV 16.CHAD .td NDOUMANBE, TAROUSS TN1206 tit at FCR.FRANCE-TELEC OM.FR 17.COTE D'IVOIRE .ci Nakounou, Bobouo BN48 bobouo at INSET.CI 18.CROATIA .hr Pale, Predrag PP48 ppale at ETF.HR 19.CYPRUS .cy Stylianou, Agathoclis AS183 agatho at CYEARN.BIT NET 20.CZECH REPUBLIC .cz Rosendorf, Pavel PR131 prf at CZ.NET 21.DENMARK .dk No name DH188-ORG dk-tld-admin at DK-HOSTMASTER.DK 22.DJIBOUTI .dj Ramirez, Henri HR247 ramirez at RVA.FCR.FRANCE-T ELECOM.FR 23.EGYPT .eg Ghonaimy, Adeeb [EUN Director] AG233 adeeb at FR CU.EUN.EG 24.ERITREA .er Abraham, Zerai ZA41 sysop at EISA.GN.APC.ORG 25.ESTONIA .ee Lippmaa, Endel EL34 elippmaa at KBFI.EE 26.ETHIOPIA .et Gashaw, Abebe AG961 agashaw at TELECOM.NET.ET 27.FAROE ISLANDS .fo Hansen, Lis LH7 Lis.Hansen at NSAVN.FO 28.FINLAND .fi Helsingius, Johan JH188 fi-domain-admin at EUNET .FI 29.FRANCE .fr Renard, Annie AR41 Annie.Renard at INRIA.FR 30.GAMBIA .gm Grotnes, Jorn JG4240 jgr at COMMIT.GM 31.GEORGIA .ge Kashia, George GK52 kisho at SANET.GE 32.GERMANY .de Dolderer, Sabine SD24 dolderer at NIC.DE 33.GHANA .gh Quaynor, Nii Narku [Dr.] NNQ quaynor at NCS.COM. GH 34.GIBRALTAR .gi Linares, Gustave Anthony GAL6 nic at GIBNET.GI 35.GREECE .gr Vassilis, Spitadakis SV1033 spitad at ICS.FORTH. GR 36.GREENLAND .gl Greenland Administrative Contact GAC2-ORG nic @GH.GL 37.GUINEA .gn Kourouma, Moussa MK119 moussa at PADES.AC.GN 38.GUINEA-BISSAU .gw Embalo, Mario ME1004 cherno at SOL.UNDPBI.TELEPA C.NET 39.HOLY SEE (VATICAN) .va Zoebelein, Judith [Sister] JZ146 sjz at VATICAN. VA 40.HUNGARY .hu Martos, Balazs BM238 martos at SZTAKI.HU 41.ICELAND .is Jonsson, Helgi HJ18 hjons at ISGATE.IS 42.IRAN(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF).ir Fazlollahi, Farshad FF179 fazl at ARCHWAY.NET 43.IRAQ .iq Alani, Saud SA1955 alani at MYNET.NET 44.IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly NO8 noreilly at ucd.ie 45.ISRAEL .il Nussbacher, Hank HN7 hank at ISOC.ORG.IL 46.ITALY .it Trumpy, Stefano ST43-RIPE S.Trumpy at CNUCE.CNR. IT 47.JORDAN .jo Nusseir, Yousef [Dr.] YN14 ynusseir at NIC.GOV.JO 48.KAZAKHSTAN .kz Gusev, Pavel PG134 pasha at RELCOM.KZ 49.KENYA .ke Ochuodho, Shem J. SJO2 shem at ARCC.OR.KE 50.KUWAIT .kw Al-Roumi, Salman [Undersecretary] SA81 sroumi @NCCDNS.MOC.KW 51.KYRGYZSTAN .kg Piryazev, Sergey SP312 adm at INFOTEL.BISHKEK.SU 52.LATVIA .lv Barzdins, Guntis GB2 guntis at LATNET.LV 53.LEBANON .lb Bukhalid, Nabil NB9 nabil at AUB.EDU.LB 00043289 20 at MCIMAIL.COM 54.LIBERIA .lr Urey, Mai Bright MU120 murey at LIBERIA.NET 55.LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA .ly Registrar REG20-ORG fastnet at SAQNET.CO.UK 56.LIECHTENSTEIN .li Schneider, Marcel MS2220 schneider at SWITCH.CH 57.LITHUANIA .lt Tamulioniene, Daiva DT78 daiva at SC-UNI.KTU.LT 58.LUXEMBOURG .lu Duhautpas, Theo TD187 duhautpas at RESTENA.LU 59.MACEDONIA .mk Belcev, Dimitar DB53 Dimitar at E5.IJS.SI 60.MALI .ml Maiga, Tiemoko Mahamane TMM24 hostmaster at SOTE LMA.ML 61.MALTA .mt Nezval, Victor VN6 vnez at CIS.UM.EDU.MT 62.MAURITANIA .mr Haouba, Ahmedou Ould AOH2 haouba at UNIV-NKC.MR 63.MOLDOVA .md Chirev, Pavel PC63 CRI at ROEARN.ICI.RO 64.MONACO .mc Gall, Thierry TG1787 tgall at RAIN.FR 65.MOROCCO .ma unknown 66.NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn nederkoorn at surfnet.nl 67.NIGER .ne Hennessee, Sean SH4919 sxh at NE800.COM 68.NIGERIA .ng Odusote, Iyabo [Mrs.] IO12 iyabo at YABA.CNUCE.C NR.IT 69.NORWAY .no Eidnes, Havard HE15 Havard.Eidnes at RUNIT.SINTE F.NO 70.OMAN .om Abduwani, Ali AA1036 abduwani at GTO.NET 71.POLAND .pl Krzanowski, Wiktor WK856 wiktor at NASK.PL 72.PORTUGAL .pt Veiga, Pedro PV542 Pedro.Veiga at FCCN.PT 73.QATAR .qa Marafih, Nasser NM379 nasser at DOHA.NET 74.ROMANIA .ro Tanase, Iustin IT190 ita at INFO.CNI.RO 75.RUSSIAN FEDERATION .ru Platonov, Alexey P. AP22 plat at KIAE.SU 76. old .su domain. Existing sub-domains managed by .ru 77.SAN MARINO .sm Gabellini, Andrea AG89-RIPE staff at OMNIWAY.SM 78.SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE .st Da Cruz Lima, Manuel Quaresma MQD2 lima at NAC.N ET 79.SAUDI ARABIA .sa Al-Musa, Abdullah Othman AOA2 aaic20 at KACST.ED U.SA 80.SENEGAL .sn Corenthin, Alex AC4 corenthin at UCAD.SN 81.SIERRA LEONE .sl Pratt, Reginald RP2972 pratt at SIERRATEL.SL 82.SLOVAKIA .sk Buechler, Gejza GB224 gejza at UNIBA.CS gejza at UN IBA.CS 84.SPAIN .es Sanz, Miguel A. MAS122 miguel.sanz at REDIRIS.ES 85.SUDAN .sd Osman, Ihab I IIO3 iiosman at AOL.COM 86.SVALBARD AND JAN MAYEN ISLANDS .sj Eidnes, Havard HE15 Havard.Eidnes at RUNIT .SINTEF.NO 87.SWEDEN .se administrator info at nic-se.se 88.SWITZERLAND .ch Schneider, Marcel MS2220 schneider at SWITCH.CH 89.SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC .sy Obied, Makram MO1837 STE-GM at SYRIATEL.NET 90.TAJIKISTAN .tj Tursoon-Zadeh, Irage M IMT13 irage at NIC.TJ 91.TOGO .tg YAWO, NAOGBODJI NY61 togo at NCS.COM.GH 92.TUNISIA .tn Mhiri, Dhafrallah DM2530 mhiri at TOUNES.ATI.TN 93.TURKEY .tr Ozgit, Attila AO14 ozgit at KNIDOS.CC.METU.EDU.T R 94.TURKMENISTAN .tm Karryev, Batyr BK3264 batyr at TM.SYNAPSE.RU 96.UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 95.UKRAINE .ua Kohmanyuk, Dmitry DK379 dk+ at UA.NET 96.UNITED ARAB EMIRATES .ae Rashid, Walid WR102 postmaster at EMIRATES.NET.A E 97.UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black (Dr) wblack at nominet.org.uk 98. old .gb domain. Existing sub-domains maintained by .uk 99.UZBEKISTAN .uz Vostrikov, Alex AV48 alex at FREENET.UZ 100.WESTERN SAHARA .eh Not assigned 101.YEMEN .ye DMCOM DMC-ORG telyemen at BATELCO.COM.BH 102.YUGOSLAVIA .yu Tasic, Mirjana TM109 tasic at TIES.ITU.CH k ------- End of Forwarded Message -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 18:08:14 MET 1998 --------- From Annie.Renard at nic.fr Tue Feb 10 18:04:50 1998 From: Annie.Renard at nic.fr (Annie Renard) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:04:50 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR Project In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:08:21 +0100. Message-ID: <199802101704.SAA11463@gaillac.inria.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Hello, just to keep you informed an to start things moving. Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base . The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the project. I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. AFNIC agrees to support the RIPE CENTR project. We will come to the next meeting in Amsterdam. Yours, Annie --- Annie Renard [nic at nic.fr] AFNIC/NIC France c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France http://www.nic.fr/ Personal Email: Annie.Renard at nic.fr Pour verifier une installation de DNS: http://www.nic.fr/ZoneCheck -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 07:21:25 MET 1998 --------- From V.Casarosa at cnuce.cnr.it Wed Feb 11 07:17:09 1998 From: V.Casarosa at cnuce.cnr.it (Vittore Casarosa) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:17:09 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR Project Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980211071709.006dcd18@pop.cnuce.cnr.it> Italy also strongly supports the ideas contained in the RIPE CENTR proposal. Looking forward to meet you soon. Vittore Casarosa ----------------------------------------------------------- >Return-path: >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:44:34 +0100 >From: Marcel Schneider >Subject: Re: RIPE CENTR Project >Sender: owner-tld-wg at ripe.net >To: tld-wg at ripe.net >Content-id: <757.887111074.1 at limmat.switch.ch> >Delivered-to: lists-tld-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > >On Friday, 6 Feb 1998, Sabine Dolderer writes: >> Hello, > >> just to keep you informed an to start things moving. > >> Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will >> strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. >> The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the >> project. > >> I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. > >Me too. Boudewijn Nederkoorn has promised to organize that meeting >and we are all looking forward to do it :). > > >> Regards Sabine > >> ----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- >> Sabine Dolderer | eMail : Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de >> DENIC eG | Fon : +49 69 27235 0 >> Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 | Fax : +49 69 27235 235 >> D-60329 Frankfurt | >> ----------------------------------+----------------------------------------- --- > > >Marcel > -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vittore Casarosa E-mail: V.Casarosa at cnuce.cnr.it CNR - IAT Phone : +39-50-593 325 36 Via Santa Maria Fax : +39-50-904 052 56126 PISA - ITALY Home : +39-50-554 928 -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 09:55:05 MET 1998 --------- From Annie.Renard at nic.fr Tue Feb 10 18:04:50 1998 From: Annie.Renard at nic.fr (Annie Renard) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:04:50 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR Project In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:08:21 +0100. Message-ID: <199802101704.SAA11463@gaillac.inria.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Hello, just to keep you informed an to start things moving. Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base . The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the project. I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. AFNIC agrees to support the RIPE CENTR project. We will come to the next meeting in Amsterdam. Yours, Annie --- Annie Renard [nic at nic.fr] AFNIC/NIC France c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France http://www.nic.fr/ Personal Email: Annie.Renard at nic.fr Pour verifier une installation de DNS: http://www.nic.fr/ZoneCheck -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 15:26:53 MET 1998 --------- From W.Black at nominet.org.uk Wed Feb 11 15:26:41 1998 From: W.Black at nominet.org.uk (Dr W Black) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:26:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Meeting RIPE nTLD registries In-Reply-To: <15745.887120226@surfnet.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Boudewijn Nederkoorn wrote: > As a result of the wg-TLD meeting in Amsterdam, I have asked Paul Ridley tot > prepare a meeting of nTLD registries in the RIPE area on short notice. > > The meeting is now scheduled for Monday, 2 March 1998 from 10.30 until 17.00. > Venue; Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, Hilton Hotel. OK - noted in my diary. Unless something unavoidable happens Nominet will be there (probably me). W.B. -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 17:11:35 MET 1998 --------- From W.Black at nominet.org.uk Wed Feb 11 15:26:41 1998 From: W.Black at nominet.org.uk (Dr W Black) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:26:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Meeting RIPE nTLD registries In-Reply-To: <15745.887120226@surfnet.nl> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Boudewijn Nederkoorn wrote: > As a result of the wg-TLD meeting in Amsterdam, I have asked Paul Ridley tot > prepare a meeting of nTLD registries in the RIPE area on short notice. > > The meeting is now scheduled for Monday, 2 March 1998 from 10.30 until 17.00. > Venue; Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, Hilton Hotel. OK - noted in my diary. Unless something unavoidable happens Nominet will be there (probably me). W.B. -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 17:34:19 MET 1998 --------- From plat at ripn.net Wed Feb 11 17:35:48 1998 From: plat at ripn.net (Alexei Platonov) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:35:48 +0300 (MSK/MSD) Subject: RIPE CENTR Project In-Reply-To: <199802101704.SAA11463@gaillac.inria.fr> from "Annie Renard" at "Feb 10, 98 06:04:50 pm" Message-ID: <199802111635.TAA00222@argo.ripn.net> Hi, RosNIIROS/RU-NIC supports the RIPE CENTR project. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I'll be able to come to Amsterdam. But I'll do my best. Regards, Alexei Platonov According to Annie Renard: > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > Hello, > > just to keep you informed an to start things moving. > > Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will > strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base > . > The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the > project. > > I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. > > AFNIC agrees to support the RIPE CENTR project. > We will come to the next meeting in Amsterdam. > Yours, > > Annie > --- > Annie Renard [nic at nic.fr] > AFNIC/NIC France > c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France > http://www.nic.fr/ > Personal Email: Annie.Renard at nic.fr > > Pour verifier une installation de DNS: http://www.nic.fr/ZoneCheck > > -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 17:55:14 MET 1998 --------- From Christopher.WILKINSON at BXL.DG13.cec.be Wed Feb 11 17:46:10 1998 From: Christopher.WILKINSON at BXL.DG13.cec.be (Christopher.WILKINSON at BXL.DG13.cec.be) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:46:10 +0100 Subject: Re(2): Meeting RIPE nTLD registries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Nederkoorn Bourdewijn: I am planning to come to the RIPE meeting at Schiphol. (Please let me know if there are any last minute changes in the schedule!) Christopher Wilkinson. -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 02:29:36 MET 1998 --------- From JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net Thu Feb 12 02:24:29 1998 From: JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:24:29 -0600 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <01BD3722.ACBE2480@pc.unir.net> On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @Jay, @ @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. @ Roberto, Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the decisions for you. The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people and companies that are strong enough to stand on their own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month to lobby for them. One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in real-time. People at those round tables have already grown up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and their voices are heard. Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 11:38:02 MET 1998 --------- From guntis at latnet.lv Thu Feb 12 11:27:07 1998 From: guntis at latnet.lv (Guntis Barzdins) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:27:07 +0200 Subject: Meeting RIPE nTLD registries In-Reply-To: <65.887233220@surfnet.nl> References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980212122707.00814c20@sisenis.com.latnet.lv> At 22:40 11/02/98 +0100, Boudewijn Nederkoorn wrote: >I understand fully your problems to go to Amsterdam, just for one meeting. >Let me explain what the objectives are. >First: we want to generate support for the RIPE-CENTR project in order to >carry out the wg-TLD workprogramme. It would be nice if you would send a >mail to the wg-TLD list with your support for the RIPE-CENTR project. In the name of LV-NIC (nTLD of Latvia, .lv) I would like to express our support for RIPE-CENTR project and we are looking forward to participate in RIPE-CENTR activities. Best regards, -- Guntis Barzdins, LV-NIC -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 12:27:22 MET 1998 --------- From guntis at latnet.lv Thu Feb 12 11:27:07 1998 From: guntis at latnet.lv (Guntis Barzdins) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:27:07 +0200 Subject: Meeting RIPE nTLD registries In-Reply-To: <65.887233220@surfnet.nl> References: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980212122707.00814c20@sisenis.com.latnet.lv> At 22:40 11/02/98 +0100, Boudewijn Nederkoorn wrote: >I understand fully your problems to go to Amsterdam, just for one meeting. >Let me explain what the objectives are. >First: we want to generate support for the RIPE-CENTR project in order to >carry out the wg-TLD workprogramme. It would be nice if you would send a >mail to the wg-TLD list with your support for the RIPE-CENTR project. In the name of LV-NIC (nTLD of Latvia, .lv) I would like to express our support for RIPE-CENTR project and we are looking forward to participate in RIPE-CENTR activities. Best regards, -- Guntis Barzdins, LV-NIC -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 12:28:00 MET 1998 --------- From JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net Thu Feb 12 02:24:29 1998 From: JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:24:29 -0600 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <01BD3722.ACBE2480@pc.unir.net> On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @Jay, @ @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. @ Roberto, Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the decisions for you. The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people and companies that are strong enough to stand on their own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month to lobby for them. One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in real-time. People at those round tables have already grown up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and their voices are heard. Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 13:32:54 MET 1998 --------- From daiva at sc-uni.ktu.lt Thu Feb 12 13:29:53 1998 From: daiva at sc-uni.ktu.lt (Daiva Tamulioniene) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:29:53 +0200 (EET) Subject: RIPE CENTR project Message-ID: Hi, TLD .lt supports the RIPE CENTR project. Regards, ========================================================================= Daiva Tamulioniene Kaunas University of Technology LT hostmaster LITNET NOC Studentu 48a-101, Kaunas, Lithuania tel. 370-7-762896/ 370-98-36652 fax. 370-7-799925 ========================================================================= -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 14:30:08 MET 1998 --------- From BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu Thu Feb 12 13:47:00 1998 From: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:47 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR project ... Message-ID: <453D779CDE029282@etf.bg.ac.yu> Hello, The YU TLD fully supports the RIPE CENTR project, since it is certainly a way of better coordination among nTLDs. Due to some organizational problems and other hostmasters' duties in that time, we won't be able to participate at the Amsterdam meeting. However, we'll be willing to participate in all actions of the RIPE CENTR. Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 14:53:51 MET 1998 --------- From Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr Thu Feb 12 14:50:36 1998 From: Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr (Roberto Gaetano) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:50:36 -0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: Hi, Jim. You wrote: > On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto > Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: > @Jay, > @ > @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, > > @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and > those > @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > @ > > Roberto, > > Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well > as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the > decisions for you. > Let me disagree. I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, and participate. I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. The process has been always open and democratic. This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the hope that the comment will be taken into account. There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. > The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people > and companies that are strong enough to stand on their > own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month > to lobby for them. > The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the purpose of all associations of any sort. We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the needs for the management of the Domain Names? We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free to decide. Which we did. Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation). > One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows > many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions > are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and > mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in > real-time. People at those round tables have already grown > up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not > have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others > making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and > their voices are heard. > > Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... > Thank you. I appreciate this. I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from this open round table. And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. Best regards Roberto -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 15:27:46 MET 1998 --------- From BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu Thu Feb 12 13:47:00 1998 From: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:47 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR project ... Message-ID: <453D779CDE029282@etf.bg.ac.yu> Hello, The YU TLD fully supports the RIPE CENTR project, since it is certainly a way of better coordination among nTLDs. Due to some organizational problems and other hostmasters' duties in that time, we won't be able to participate at the Amsterdam meeting. However, we'll be willing to participate in all actions of the RIPE CENTR. Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 15:47:15 MET 1998 --------- From BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu Thu Feb 12 13:47:00 1998 From: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:47 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR project ... Message-ID: <453D779CDE029282@etf.bg.ac.yu> Hello, The YU TLD fully supports the RIPE CENTR project, since it is certainly a way of better coordination among nTLDs. Due to some organizational problems and other hostmasters' duties in that time, we won't be able to participate at the Amsterdam meeting. However, we'll be willing to participate in all actions of the RIPE CENTR. Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 15:54:18 MET 1998 --------- From Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr Thu Feb 12 14:50:36 1998 From: Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr (Roberto Gaetano) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:50:36 -0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: Hi, Jim. You wrote: > On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto > Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: > @Jay, > @ > @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, > > @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and > those > @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > @ > > Roberto, > > Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well > as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the > decisions for you. > Let me disagree. I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, and participate. I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. The process has been always open and democratic. This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the hope that the comment will be taken into account. There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. > The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people > and companies that are strong enough to stand on their > own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month > to lobby for them. > The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the purpose of all associations of any sort. We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the needs for the management of the Domain Names? We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free to decide. Which we did. Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation). > One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows > many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions > are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and > mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in > real-time. People at those round tables have already grown > up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not > have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others > making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and > their voices are heard. > > Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... > Thank you. I appreciate this. I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from this open round table. And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. Best regards Roberto -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 16:18:27 MET 1998 --------- From JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net Thu Feb 12 16:15:18 1998 From: JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:15:18 -0600 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <01BD3796.BD20AFE0@pc.unir.net> On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:50 AM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @> @> Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... @> @Thank you. @I appreciate this. @I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common @effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the @process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from @this open round table. @And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. @ I hope that people understand that I do NOT support the U.S. Government's Green Paper for any IPv8 related matters. IPv8 does not need this type of government intervention because proper planning has been done. With IPv4 (and IPv6) the picture is much different. Significant U.S. Government leadership will be required because there is no benevolent leadership from the academic or private sectors. Therefore, the U.S. Government must provide that leadership. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 17:32:46 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 12 10:52:41 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:52:41 +0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? References: Message-ID: <34E2C667.938212E2@ix.netcom.com> Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Hi, Jim. > > You wrote: > > On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto > > Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: > > @Jay, > > @ > > @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, > > > > @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and > > those > > @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > @ > > > > Roberto, > > > > Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well > > as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the > > decisions for you. > > > Let me disagree. > I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. > This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always > had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, > and participate. > I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get > other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, > and it doesn't matter. > The process has been always open and democratic. If as you say here the IAHC/MoU process has been open and democratic, than how come the RSC's were not allowed to participate as CORE/POC/PAB members. Also any one else whom did not wish to sign the MoU or put up $10k to join CORE? This is NOT a open democratic process at all. > > > This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon > the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the > hope that the comment will be taken into account. > There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other > Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. It is true that there has been no voting, yet. This is part of what must be done as of yet. I know for a fact becouse I have consulted with other companies and governments with respect to what ecame the GP. so you statment here is without basis of fact on that score. > > > > The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people > > and companies that are strong enough to stand on their > > own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month > > to lobby for them. > > > The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of > the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. > CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, > are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually > stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any > size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the > purpose of all associations of any sort. I agree with you here compleatly coordination is a necessity of course. However, inclusion of ANY and ALL stakeholders is paramount if you are to have any kind of success or consensus. Setting restrictions for participation such as signing th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the Stakeholders either. And with these restrictions you never will. > We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members > in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the > association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI > has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, > Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. > > I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be > removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised > the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly > believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the > needs for the management of the Domain Names? If you review the archives I and several others suggested many diffrent ways to raise infrastructure or start-up monies. Donations was one way. Myself and my company offered to donate a sizeable sum. It of course was refused. As to why I do not know. So this excuse for having a $10k fee to join CORE was not necessary. > We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would > have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for > $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter > of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. > The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free > to decide. Which we did. The monies that I offered had no strings of this type at all. And it would not have been necessary for there to be any strings baised on donations if you specified what donations would or could have been excepted to begin with. > Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the > "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer > needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation). These "Bareers" are and have been restrictive to making the MoU a success from the beginning. They shall remain so. > > > > One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows > > many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions > > are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and > > mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in > > real-time. People at those round tables have already grown > > up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not > > have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others > > making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and > > their voices are heard. > > > > Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... > > > Thank you. > I appreciate this. > I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common > effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the > process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from > this open round table. > And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. I think you miss Jim's point here. The "Round Tables" helped fram part of the GP and will continue to help in the future as well. IF those of the MoU wish to participate in this process, they are of course welcome. > > > Best regards > Roberto Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 17:39:33 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 12 10:52:41 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:52:41 +0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? References: Message-ID: <34E2C667.938212E2@ix.netcom.com> Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Hi, Jim. > > You wrote: > > On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto > > Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: > > @Jay, > > @ > > @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, > > > > @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and > > those > > @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > @ > > > > Roberto, > > > > Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well > > as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the > > decisions for you. > > > Let me disagree. > I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. > This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always > had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, > and participate. > I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get > other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, > and it doesn't matter. > The process has been always open and democratic. If as you say here the IAHC/MoU process has been open and democratic, than how come the RSC's were not allowed to participate as CORE/POC/PAB members. Also any one else whom did not wish to sign the MoU or put up $10k to join CORE? This is NOT a open democratic process at all. > > > This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon > the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the > hope that the comment will be taken into account. > There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other > Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. It is true that there has been no voting, yet. This is part of what must be done as of yet. I know for a fact becouse I have consulted with other companies and governments with respect to what ecame the GP. so you statment here is without basis of fact on that score. > > > > The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people > > and companies that are strong enough to stand on their > > own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month > > to lobby for them. > > > The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of > the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. > CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, > are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually > stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any > size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the > purpose of all associations of any sort. I agree with you here compleatly coordination is a necessity of course. However, inclusion of ANY and ALL stakeholders is paramount if you are to have any kind of success or consensus. Setting restrictions for participation such as signing th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the Stakeholders either. And with these restrictions you never will. > We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members > in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the > association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI > has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, > Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. > > I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be > removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised > the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly > believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the > needs for the management of the Domain Names? If you review the archives I and several others suggested many diffrent ways to raise infrastructure or start-up monies. Donations was one way. Myself and my company offered to donate a sizeable sum. It of course was refused. As to why I do not know. So this excuse for having a $10k fee to join CORE was not necessary. > We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would > have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for > $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter > of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. > The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free > to decide. Which we did. The monies that I offered had no strings of this type at all. And it would not have been necessary for there to be any strings baised on donations if you specified what donations would or could have been excepted to begin with. > Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the > "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer > needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation). These "Bareers" are and have been restrictive to making the MoU a success from the beginning. They shall remain so. > > > > One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows > > many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions > > are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and > > mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in > > real-time. People at those round tables have already grown > > up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not > > have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others > > making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and > > their voices are heard. > > > > Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... > > > Thank you. > I appreciate this. > I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common > effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the > process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from > this open round table. > And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. I think you miss Jim's point here. The "Round Tables" helped fram part of the GP and will continue to help in the future as well. IF those of the MoU wish to participate in this process, they are of course welcome. > > > Best regards > Roberto Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 17:40:11 MET 1998 --------- From JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net Thu Feb 12 16:15:18 1998 From: JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:15:18 -0600 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <01BD3796.BD20AFE0@pc.unir.net> On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:50 AM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @> @> Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... @> @Thank you. @I appreciate this. @I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common @effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the @process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from @this open round table. @And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. @ I hope that people understand that I do NOT support the U.S. Government's Green Paper for any IPv8 related matters. IPv8 does not need this type of government intervention because proper planning has been done. With IPv4 (and IPv6) the picture is much different. Significant U.S. Government leadership will be required because there is no benevolent leadership from the academic or private sectors. Therefore, the U.S. Government must provide that leadership. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 18:12:57 MET 1998 --------- From CirqueFan at aol.com Thu Feb 12 18:07:27 1998 From: CirqueFan at aol.com (CirqueFan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:07:27 EST Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <52efb299.34e32c51@aol.com> In a message dated 98-02-12 11:41:14 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: << Setting restrictions for participation such as signing th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the Stakeholders >> YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. How many times must this be said before you get it???? -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 18:39:50 MET 1998 --------- From JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net Thu Feb 12 18:18:21 1998 From: JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:18:21 -0600 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: <01BD37A7.EDDB99E0@pc.unir.net> On Thursday, February 12, 1998 11:07 AM, CirqueFan at aol.com wrote: @In a message dated 98-02-12 11:41:14 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: @ @<< Setting restrictions for participation such @ as signing @ th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing @ close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the @ Stakeholders >> @ @YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. @ @How many times must this be said before you get it???? @ @ Yes....and you do not have to become a member of CORE to participate in the commercial expansion of the Registry Industry. The U.S. Government has made it clear that they intend to allow many participants to have their TLD delegations placed in the legacy Root Name Server Confederation that the U.S. Government has funded and therefore controls. Unfortunately, the IAHC/CORE crowd made a strategic mistake. They claim that there is only ONE valid Root Name Server Confederation and the one they follow is the legacy RSC controlled by the U.S. Government. They were unable to understand the difference in one true root name space and one true root server confederation. NOW, they do not want to allow the U.S. Government to have say over their own legacy Root Name Server Confederation. This is typical of the IAHC/CORE crowd. They do not want people to have a choice. They want to dictate the rules and to have everyone blindly follow. Some people have followed and some people have not. Some have paid $$$ to follow. Some will continue to pay $$$ to follow. That will drive UP the price of their services. Other companies have chosen to respect the rights of the U.S. Government to control the destiny of its Root Name Server Confederation. This same respect has been extended to large and small companies that operate their own Root Name Server Confederations. CORE seems to lack the basic need to respect other people's and government's rights. This seems to be an attitude problem that was inherited from the people that organized CORE. Here is an old posting that might help to paint the picture... ==== === If the IAHC Discovered America....the following may have occurred... Scene 1: Landing on the Beach Columbus: "You men go scout around for some food." Scout #1: "Boss, there might be some dangerous animals out there, should we take some weapons from the ship?" Columbus: "Of course not, if you have any problems just call 911 on your cellular phone and report it to the Police" Scout #2: "Boss, I am not sure they have cellular phones here, if you recall, we did not even see any street lights when we sailed into the harbor last night." Columbus: "Details, details, keep in mind I am an executive, don't trouble me with the details, just get me some food." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 2: In a Clearing Scout #1: "Did you hear something?" Scout #2: "I think so, and I think I saw a human" Scout #1: "Yes, so did I, is that possible ?" Scout #2: "No, we are the only people on Earth" Scout #1: "There it is again, I am sure I saw a person run behind that tree." Scout #2: "Could you tell if that person was a member of one of our working groups?" Scout #1: "I don't know, maybe we better go back to the ship and tell the boss, and see if we can find out if there are people living here, and where they would have come from. The boss has an answer for tough questions like that." Scout #2: "Well if there are people here, it does not matter because our charter is to discover the New World and we are the only ones allowed to do that." Scout #1: "That is true, but keep in mind the boss wants food and we need to find some and if we can find some people here maybe they can give us a hand getting food for the boss." Scout #2: "Let's go back first and ask the boss what to do, I am not sure he knows that there are people here." Scene 3: Back on the Ship Scout #1: "Sir, we have not yet found your food, but we did see some people running around in the forest, we would like to know what to do." Columbus: "People ? Nonsense ! We are the first people here. Haven't you noticed, there are no other ships in the harbor and we have not even heard any planes taking off or landing." Scout #2: "Sir, maybe they do not have ships or planes." Columbus: "Impossible, how would they go site seeing in Switzerland if they did not have planes? Besides, this is the New World and we have been chartered to discover it. If we do meet up with any people, we should just ignore them, because no one back in Europe will know they are here and we will not mention them in any of our reports....Now, what about food? " Scout #1: "OK, what do you suggest that we do if we do meet up with some people? Should we ask them for some food if they have it?" Columbus: "Ask? Why ask? just take anything that you see. We are in charge. You keep forgetting I am an executive, if you run into any problems just tell these people I authorized everything." Scout #2: "Boss, they may not even know who we are. They may want to discuss this." Columbus: "What are you talking about, our domain name is painted on our ship. If they want to know who we are, they can look it up. I don't have time to deal with details, if there are people out there, tell them to give us their food and not to ask any questions." Scout #1: "What if they do not speak English?" Columbus: "Nonsense, everyone speaks English and if they don't, then they better have enough money to hire an interpretor because we do not have time to delay, we have to discover the New World soon and get ready for our trips to Hong Kong and Malaysia next year. Those are going to be significant events after we get this New World discovery mission wrapped up here on the East Coast....now, please find us some food, before we starve..." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 4: Back on shore Scout #1: "I'm not sure what we should do. I thought that he would send more help with us. He does not seem to be concerned about the people we saw." Scout #2: "He told me that others volunteered to come with us, and that they are also searching for food, but I have not seen them. Maybe they went fishing?" Scout #1: "I have an idea, let's put up a big sign and place all of our demands on it. Then we can hide and see if anyone comes to read it. If they do, then we know they can read English, they will know that we want food, and we can watch them to see if they are friendly." Scout #2: "Good idea, where should we put it?" Scout #1: "How about up on that hill over there, then we can watch from the ship." Scout #2: "Hmmm, how big should it be?" Scout #1: "How about 10 feet high and 20 feet wide?" Scout #2: "I don't know, that may be too small, how about 21 feet wide?" Scout #1: "That throws off the ratio, maybe we should first decide what to write on the sign, and then decide how much space we need." Scout #2: "I think that we should write, WE ARE HERE TO DISCOVER THE NEW WORLD, WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS, PLEASE GIVE US 20,000 BUSHELS OF CORN OR OTHER FOOD SO THAT WE CAN FINISH OUR MISSION AND GO SAILING AROUND THE WORLD" Scout #1: "Why should we tell them that we are going to use the food to go sailing? Maybe, we should leave that last part off ?" Scout #2: "If we do that, then they will not clearly see what the food is for and may not bring it." Scout #1: "We don't even know if there are people here, whether they have any food, whether they can read English, or whether they understand what sailing around the world is all about. It seems like we are assuming too much." Scout #2: "Maybe we should go back to the ship and ask the boss." Scout #1: "OK" Scene 5: Back on the Ship Scout #1: "Boss, we have an idea and we need your help. We want to post a sign on that hill above the shore and use it to explain to people why we need food." Scout $2: "Yes, and we can also watch to see who looks at it and find out if there are people here and if they can read English." Columbus: "What do you need from me? I am a busy executive I have been busy scanning the horizon for other ships and watching the weather. What is it ?" Scout #1: "We need you to help us decide how big to make the sign." Scout #2: "Yes, and we need you to decide what words to put on the sign." Columbus: "It does not matter to me, I sent some other scouts out fishing and they are catching fish. So, do what you like with the sign. If there are people on shore, it might help to keep them busy while we fish here in the harbor. We have plenty of food, it is swimming right under the boat. At last count, there were 7 million fish in this harbor." Scout #1: "If that is the case, then maybe we should catch fish and give them to people on shore. This would be a way to make friends." Scout #2: "Or, we could put up a sign on shore that says, "FRESH FISH FOR SALE", and then we could sell the fish to the people who wander by." Columbus: "Our mission is to discover the New World, we do not have time to sell fish and we certainly are not going to give them away. We will stock up here and then set sail for our other adventures. You can return to shore if you like, but be careful, don't let anyone on shore know about the fish out here. And also, make sure they understand that we have discovered this land they are on." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 6: Back in the Clearing Scout #1: "This is a great sign we made. I bet people will really respond to this. How does it look ?" Scout #2: "Great, I think it is just the right size, this will work." Scout #1: "Let me read it out loud, to see how it sounds... WARNING: THIS AREA OFF LIMITS AND RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. NO FISHING OR SWIMMING ALLOWED. BY THE ORDER OF THE NEW WORLD DISCOVERY TEAM WHICH IS SAILING AROUND THE WORLD HELPING OTHER PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Scout #2: "Yes, that will do the trick. The next time we come here there will be plenty of fish and plenty of land to build houses. This will keep anyone away that has any ideas. Now, back to the ship for some of that fish." Closing Scene: At the Dinner Table below Deck Columbus: "Well maties, we have accomplished our mission. We have discovered the New World and we are ready to set sail for new advantures. We have left a sign on shore to make sure that no one goes near this harbor which has filled our boat with more fish than we can carry." Scout #1: "Sir, I was just up on deck and I have news to report." Columbus: "What is it ? We are busy, can't you see that ?" Scout #1: "Well sir, the sign is gone, some people took it and cut it into firewood. Then they made a fire, grilled some fish, and had a feast. Now they are singing and dancing." Columbus: "They have a lot of nerve, they must have watched us catching fish and are copying our techniques. We need to sail out of here, before they try to tell us they have rights to that land. The next thing you know, they will be asking us to give them a ride to Hong Kong and Malaysia. They have a lot of nerve." Scout #1: "But sir, they burned the sign, it no longer says that we reserved the land. They just ignored it." Columbus: "I am a busy executive, details like that sign do not matter, the next time we come here, we will explain to them that the sign was there for 60 days and therefore they have to move on.This will not be a problem, because we will authorize it." Scout #2: "But sir, the sign was only there a short time, not 60 days." Scout #1: "Yes, but those people do not know how long it was there and besides, our intentions were to have it there for 60 days, it is not our fault that they could not read the sign and used it for firewood." Columbus: "Yes, that is right, we are doing the right thing, we always do, just because people can not read our signs, that does not diminish our claims. Tomorrow we sail for new adventures. Our mission here is accomplished. We have discovered the New World, just like we were told to do. Now, when we get back to Europe not a word to anyone about those people on shore. As far as we know we left the sign and it is still there and there are still 6 million fish in the harbor. That is 2 million for each of us. Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" ....and they sailed on... ====== Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 18:55:16 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Thu Feb 12 18:44:19 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:44:19 -0500 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? In-Reply-To: <52efb299.34e32c51@aol.com> Message-ID: CirqueFan at aol.com wrote: >YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. > >How many times must this be said before you get it???? Maybe not but you have to dish out US$10,000 and more, with a US$300,000 line of credit etc. And they're not taking any more applications and I won't a penny to any damn group like this especially since they're selling what has amounted to VAPOUR and will in all probablity continue to be VAPOUR. How many times do you people have to hear that before it sinks in? Enduring, I remain... TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net http://www.fcn.net -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 19:38:14 MET 1998 --------- From CirqueFan at aol.com Thu Feb 12 19:30:33 1998 From: CirqueFan at aol.com (CirqueFan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:30:33 EST Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: In a message dated 98-02-12 12:48:15 EST, bob at wtv.net writes: << And they're not taking any more applications >> Anyone could have become a register in the time frame first introduced. The fact that they are not at this time taking registrations has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Talk is underway right now to reopen the application process and allow more registrars to enter. You might not want to believe it but a significant number of persons have expressed interest in joining the process. I fail to understand the big deal about a $300,000 line of credit...Most 3 bedroom homes in the Northeast United States are worth more than that. What is wrong with wanting businesses associated with you to have some legitimacy? You go on and on about the closed society...it doesn't float. The anarchy you propose would do more damage in a millisecond of operation than the all the other propositions in the world. Face it, you are two hundred and twenty-two years to late to make the changes you would propose. The Europian community WAS not asked for input by Magaziner prior to the release of the greenpaper...the proof of that is now appearing in their formal statements of opposition to the GP. Magaziner treated this as an American decision then and continues to do so. This is a much bigger issue than all the CORE Associations in the world. What is happening right in front of your eyes is the most disturbing. In several meetings and in several statements to the press Magaziner has basically said he really doesn't care what the world community has to say, this is a United States Commerce issue and will be treated as such...be careful...The Big Brother you are speaking of is the sheep in wolves clothing. There are many "good" people at NSI and SAIC that would love for you to believe this is being done in the interest of the Internet. I am one of Magaziner's true experiments...forced in to managed health care. So far nothing the man has set out to accomplish has done anything but cause grief for the very people he claims to want to help. Look at his track record..No good can come of the USGP as no one in the commerce department even has a grasp of the realities. Read the technical specs..it is there in black and white..you would think they would have to understand the system wouldn't you? I am not saying the CORE way is the only way....what I am saying is that if in an attempt to derail whom you perceive as the enemy you side with the USG you will have handed the rope to the executioner. I am not saying join the Gtld- Mou...I am not even saying to stop all your negative attacks on it...what I am saying is don't look to the United States Government to be your savior..because if you do you may end up with a sack full of promises and bits of shells...our history speaks for itself. Audrey -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 20:29:57 MET 1998 --------- From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 12 14:01:10 1998 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:01:10 +0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? References: <52efb299.34e32c51@aol.com> Message-ID: <34E2F295.3C9E99EF@ix.netcom.com> All and whomever sent this E-Mail response, CirqueFan at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-02-12 11:41:14 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: > > << Setting restrictions for participation such > as signing > th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing > close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the > Stakeholders >> > > YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. That is not what the MoU says. > > > How many times must this be said before you get it???? Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 20:31:20 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Thu Feb 12 20:12:51 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:12:51 -0500 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was quoted and wrote: >... they're not taking any more applications CirqueFan at aol.com replied: >Anyone could have become a register in the time frame first introduced. The >fact that they are not at this time taking registrations has no bearing >whatsoever on this discussion. Talk is underway right now to reopen the >application process and allow more registrars to enter. You might not want to >believe it but a significant number of persons have expressed interest in >joining the process. > >I fail to understand the big deal about a $300,000 line of credit...Most 3 >bedroom homes in the Northeast United States are worth more than that. What is >wrong with wanting businesses associated with you to have some legitimacy? > >You go on and on about the closed society...it doesn't float. The anarchy you >propose would do more damage in a millisecond of operation than the all the >other propositions in the world. Face it, you are two hundred and twenty-two >years to late to make the changes you would propose. > >The Europian community WAS not asked for input by Magaziner prior to the >release of the greenpaper...the proof of that is now appearing in their formal >statements of opposition to the GP. Magaziner treated this as an American >decision then and continues to do so. > >This is a much bigger issue than all the CORE Associations in the world. What >is happening right in front of your eyes is the most disturbing. In several >meetings and in several statements to the press Magaziner has basically said >he really doesn't care what the world community has to say, this is a United >States Commerce issue and will be treated as such...be careful...The Big >Brother you are speaking of is the sheep in wolves clothing. There are many >"good" people at NSI and SAIC that would love for you to believe this is being >done in the interest of the Internet. I am one of Magaziner's true >experiments...forced in to managed health care. So far nothing the man has set >out to accomplish has done anything but cause grief for the very people he >claims to want to help. Look at his track record..No good can come of the USGP >as no one in the commerce department even has a grasp of the realities. Read >the technical specs..it is there in black and white..you would think they >would have to understand the system wouldn't you? > >I am not saying the CORE way is the only way....what I am saying is that if in >an attempt to derail whom you perceive as the enemy you side with the USG you >will have handed the rope to the executioner. I am not saying join the Gtld- >Mou...I am not even saying to stop all your negative attacks on it...what I am >saying is don't look to the United States Government to be your >savior..because if you do you may end up with a sack full of promises and bits >of shells...our history speaks for itself. The USG has been burned repeatedly and in full, humiliating public on Internet related issues again and again. The moment we collectively start acting as one is the moment they will *run* (not walk) from this debate. The last thing elected officials want is to tangle with this medium, believe me. The White House was forced into action by the continuing and maddening obstructionism of Postel and his cadre of supporters. The endless loop of delay and avoidance tactics has allienated myself and other supporters of Alternate Internet Governance infrastructures. And now it appears to have even hit the White House, major Internet Corporations and, quite possibley, the average and long suffering netizen. That's a whole whack full of people I'd be pretty careful about annoying. As for your assertions that CORE is about to open up the application process no-one is convinced of this. Furthermore, the current technical and fiscal requirements CORE places as the minimum are wildly exagerated. The USG Green Paper makes the same error. By setting standards so high just about every individual or not for profit group and most of the so called Third or Under-Developed World is shut *out* of the picture forever. US$10,000 and a US$300,000 line of credit are unattainable. Not when one will make pennies per domain in profits or funds raised. A Pentium or Power PC, using standard software and average connectivity run by a handful of dedicated people for next to no money is all that is required for a Domain Name Registry/Registrar. A full blown NIC may need some more but it's all off-the-shelf technically speaking. No half million dollars, armed guards or silly secret handshakes. And by my estimation we can handle 10,000 new TLDs today and millions more if we put our minds to it. There in a TeleVirtual nutshell (pun and self deprecating humour intended) you have it. I resist... TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net http://www.fcn.net -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 20:59:22 MET 1998 --------- From CirqueFan at aol.com Thu Feb 12 20:52:20 1998 From: CirqueFan at aol.com (CirqueFan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:52:20 EST Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: In a message dated 98-02-12 14:26:18 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: << That is not what the MoU says. >> Maybe an 8th grade reading level is necessary at this point. MANY of the registrars in CORE have NOT signed the Gtld-Mou. IT IS NOT NOW nor has it ever been a requirement of being a CORE member. Read it again....or ask someone to translate it for you! Audrey -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 22:34:45 MET 1998 --------- From Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr Thu Feb 12 22:31:39 1998 From: Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr (Roberto Gaetano) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:31:39 -0000 Subject: CORE == Big Brother ?? Message-ID: Hi, Jeff. About my sentence: > Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other > > Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. > You answered: > It is true that there has been no voting, yet. This is part of what > must > be done > And later: ... so you statment here is > without > basis of fact on that score. > Is it true, or is it without basis of fact that there has been no voting? If USG will organize a vote, extended to the Internet community, on the Green Paper I'll buy you a beer (or the drink of your choice) Roberto P.S.: In case you win (which I doubt ;>)), don't ask for some Barolo, Domaine Cavallotto, year 1994, because 1994 was such a bad year that they decided not to make Barolo, but to use all their production for the plain Nebbiolo brand (which I wholeheartedly recommend, by the way). -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 22:49:07 MET 1998 --------- From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Thu Feb 12 22:56:38 1998 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:56:38 -0400 (AST) Subject: Misleading AGAIN about 3rd world... (was: Re: CORE == Big Brother ??) Message-ID: <199802122156.RAA11895@manta.outremer.com> > As for your assertions that CORE > is about to open up the application > process no-one is convinced of this. > Furthermore, the current technical > and fiscal requirements CORE places > as the minimum are wildly exagerated. > The USG Green Paper makes the same > error. By setting standards so high > just about every individual or not > for profit group and most of the so > called Third or Under-Developed World > is shut *out* of the picture forever. > US$10,000 and a US$300,000 line of > credit are unattainable. Not when > one will make pennies per domain in > profits or funds raised. This is *again* one of those arguments that gets beaten into the dust, people seem to accept that it's a fallacy, and after a few months it comes up again. -sigh-. For the umpteenth time, connectivity in itself is INCREDIBLY expensive in 3rd world countries. There seems to be some sort of economic law which imposes that the more technologically backward a country is, the more expensive the links are (in REAL money, which means that relative to the average income, the prices rocket). Here in Guadeloupe we have a 256K link at the ISP where I work, for this we pay ~80,000ff (around $13,000) PER MONTH (just think of the link you can get in the U.S. for that price). Btw, that price INCLUDES "generous" discounts from the Telco... And Guadeloupe is a French province (albeit in the Caribbean). Go somewhere deep in Africa or even a place like India, and LINK prices soar. What I'm trying to say is that if the 3rd world company is large enough to be able to afford a link, it CERTAINLY has assets way beyond $300K, and $10K is more or less peanuts for them. If anything, this hurts the wanabees who think that because they can afford their 64K link they are ready to take on the world (yes Bob, I mean you), which are -of course- mostly located in U.S. & Canada, because nowhere else can you get permanent 64K links to the 'net for $100/month or less... You can continue to complain that it shuts out companies like yours, but leave out the 3rd world because *this* is not what is shutting them out. Apart from that... Probably it's going to be hard to recover cash through registrar operation, which is exactly as it should be, because something that you're nearly OBLIGED to get (a domain name) should not be open to someone who wants to bleed you for it. Name registration should be a service that companies have in addition to something else and rarely just as a service in itself (because of the low margins). It's natural that a contractor can sell you (amongst other things) a brick, but you wouldn't expect a building contractor to base a business on solely selling bricks. The NATURAL registrar is going to be an ISP, and only rarely will you have other types of companies (the other types which I can envision are the NetNames type or IDnames, or vi.net... a purely niche market). Look at the UK market to see what I mean. Yours, John Broomfield. -------- Logged at Mon Feb 16 13:01:22 MET 1998 --------- From gerhard.winkler at univie.ac.at Mon Feb 16 13:01:11 1998 From: gerhard.winkler at univie.ac.at (gerhard.winkler at univie.ac.at) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:01:11 +0100 (NFT) Subject: RIPE CENTR Project In-Reply-To: <9802101144.AA11351@ncc.ripe.net> from "Marcel Schneider" at Feb 10, 98 12:44:34 pm Message-ID: <199802161201.NAA11302@snoopy.cc.univie.ac.at> According to Marcel Schneider: > > On Friday, 6 Feb 1998, Sabine Dolderer writes: > > Hello, > > > just to keep you informed an to start things moving. > > > Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will > > strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. > > The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the > > project. > > > I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. > > Me too. Boudewijn Nederkoorn has promised to organize that meeting > and we are all looking forward to do it :). I will attend that meeting too. Gerhard -- Gerhard Winkler | E-Mail: gerhard.winkler at univie.ac.at Vienna University Computer Center | Universitaetsstrasse 7 | Tel: +43 1 4277 14035 A-1010 Vienna, Austria | Fax: +43 1 4277 9140 -------- Logged at Tue Feb 17 21:16:28 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Tue Feb 17 21:35:45 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:35:45 +0100 Subject: nTLD meeting 2 March 1998 Message-ID: <199802172035.VAA15933@kantoor.ripe.net> This evening an invitation has been sent to all RIPE area nTLD registires, inviting then to the nTLD meeting being held at Schiphol on 2 March 1998. As will already be known to this list the aim of the meeting is to discuss RIPE CENTR and get initial commitment from those registries willing to support and fund RIPE CENTR. This invitation was sent ot the contact person as listed in the mail sent by Boudewijn Nederkoorn on 10 Feb (the correction for .sk has been incorporated). This list will be repeated at the end of this mail. If you are managing an nTLD registry within the RIPE area and have not yet received the invitation then please obtain from the contact person for your registry, or if this data is incorrect mail me and I will forward you an invitation asap. This list will be kept informed as to how many registries will be attending the meeting and of course will be informed of any outcome of the meeting. Regards Paul Ridley -------- Logged at Thu Feb 19 16:29:49 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Feb 19 16:03:16 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:03:16 +0000 Subject: IMPORTANT nTLD meeting 2 March 1998 In-Reply-To: <199802172027.VAA15770@kantoor.ripe.net> Message-ID: <0EOM0058LSHHWY@hermes.ucd.ie> I am in principle willing to support the RIPE CENTR project. Name: Niall O'Reilly nTLD represented: IE Function within the nTLD: Registry Manager I will attend the meeting on March 2, 1998 (y/n) Yes I am in principle willing to commit funds in 1998 (y/n) Yes (the level of funding to be decided) -------- Logged at Fri Feb 20 21:45:23 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Fri Feb 20 21:45:10 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:45:10 +0100 Subject: Update on nTLD meeting 2 March Message-ID: <199802202045.VAA27732@kantoor.ripe.net> Dear all, As promised a quick mail to inform you as to which nTLD will be coming to the meeting on 2 March. As you will see there has been an encouraging response in a short time period. Those nTLD registries who still intend to come but have not yet replied should notify me asap. Those nTLD registries who are unable to come to the meeting but support the principles of RIPE CENTR should also mail me so that the true feelings within the nTLD community can be guaged. All the reponses I have received so far are listed below. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 2. FRANCE .fr Annie Renard 3. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 4. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 5. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 6. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 7. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 8. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 9. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 10. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 11. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 12. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 13. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 4. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Mon Feb 23 20:54:04 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Mon Feb 23 20:53:53 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 20:53:53 +0100 Subject: Update on nTLD meeting 2 march Message-ID: <199802231953.UAA27145@kantoor.ripe.net> UPDATE NUMBER 2 DATED 23-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 15 people representing 16 nTLDs will be attending the meeting. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 2. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 3. FRANCE .fr Annie Renard 4. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 5. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 6. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 7. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 8. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 9. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 10. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 11. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 12. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 13. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 14. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 15. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 4. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 11:14:58 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Feb 24 11:14:03 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:14:03 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper Message-ID: <0EOV00NFQOFI7V@hermes.ucd.ie> For information, in case you haven't seen it already. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:43:44 +0000 From: John Martin (by way of Michael Walsh) Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper To: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie For info, Michael. >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:41:39 +0000 >From: Brian E Carpenter >Organization: IBM Internet Division >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: ietf at ns.ietf.org >Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper > >Note to the IETF from the IAB: > >The IAB has carefully studied the US Government Green Paper >at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm >and has considered the opinions expressed on the >IETF and other mailing lists. We have sent the attached note >to Ira Magaziner in response to the Green Paper. > >The IAB will not comment on who should or should not >be entitled to operate a gTLD registry. There is clearly no >consensus on this in the IETF. It is also a question >affecting business practices, which is not a legitimate subject >of debate for a standards organization under anti-trust law. >The IAB was happy to nominate technical representatives to >the IAHC, and to the gTLD-MOU POC, and within reason would do >the same for any IANA-approved gTLD registry requesting technical >advice. > >> Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:33:41 +0000 >> From: Brian E Carpenter >> To: Ira Magaziner >> CC: iab at iab.org >> >> >> To: Ira C Magaziner >> From: Internet Architecture Board >> >> Ira, >> >> 1. The IAB generally welcomes the proposal to replace US >> Government funding of the central technical administration >> of the Internet by a new non-governmental body with widely >> based, international participation. The IAB, as a technical >> group, will not take a position on details of the public policy >> aspects of the proposal. >> >> 2. There appears to be considerable confusion in the community >> about the definition of 'registry' as presented in this paper. >> It is our understanding that this is meant to identify a shared >> database for registrations in a TLD. There are no technical >> limitations to management of such a database by multiple parties, >> even if the database is physically unique for technical reasons. >> The discussion concerning 'lock-in' reinforces the viewpoint that >> a single entity would control a database and therefore a gTLD. We >> do not believe this is required by database technology. As >> this issue is one of the most contentious, clarification of the >> text is required. >> >> Assuming we have correctly interpreted the word 'registry', >> the IAB wishes to point out that there is no technical reason >> for the proposed limit of one gTLD per such registry. >> >> On the other hand, a very large increase in the total number of gTLDs >> (say to thousands) would lead us into technically unknown territory. >> >> We note that the green paper attempts to define specifics and >> details concerning the number of gTLDs, the number of registries, >> and the number of gTLDs per registry. In keeping with the >> principles that have allowed the Internet to flourish, that is, >> bottom-up consensus-building and self-determination, we >> encourage the US government to avoid specific detail and, instead, >> allow self governance the opportunity to determine the details. >> We also note that considerable progress has been made over the >> last 12 months in developing gTLD criteria and dispute resolution >> procedures, and this progress is not adequately recognized in >> the green paper. >> >> 3. The IAB is a committee of the IETF, the open international >> voluntary standards organization for basic Internet protocols. >> We are therefore concerned that the proposed responsibility >> of the new corporation to >> >> >> coordinate the development of other >> >> technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain universal >> >> connectivity on the Internet. >> >> might be misread in such a way as to undermine the autonomy of the >> IETF. We propose that the word "development" should be replaced by >> the word "assignment". This would be consistent with the existing >> relationship between the IANA and the IETF, which has proved >> beneficial to all parties. >> >> 4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over >> the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very >> happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair) brian at hursley.ibm.com >> IBM United Kingdom Laboratories http://www.hursley.ibm.com/~bc/ >> MP 185 phone: +44 1962 816833 >> Hursley Park fax: +44 1962 818101 >> Winchester >> Hampshire SO21 2JN, UK >> > John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 12:42:31 MET 1998 --------- From martin at terena.nl Tue Feb 24 12:25:51 1998 From: martin at terena.nl (John Martin) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:25:51 +0100 Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper In-Reply-To: <0EOV00NFQOFI7V@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: Niall & tld-wg, [Thanks for forwarding the message - not sure why my own attempt didn't work..] I am under the impression that late comments to the Green Paper might not have much impact but there is now also a proposed "rule" which the Dept. of Commerce have published. Being ignorant of US governmental procedures, I dont know what the exact process nor its implications are, and there seems to have been some doubt expressed (on the IETF list - so it could be nonsense) as to the legality of this move. I dont know. (Actually, if someone here knows the definitive ruling on this, I'm sure the tld-wg would be interested in knowing.) However, it appears that this is gathering momentum. The proposed "rule" can be found at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.txt and I understand that there is about a month left on which to comment on this. I dont propose to start a parallel discussion here but my question to you guys is whether or not you think it might be useful to formulate a combined response from the European TLD administrators community / ISP community? I know some of you have met with Magaziner privately - do you believe he took your comments on board? (Again, I admit ignorance.) Do you think they will listen to comments from outside the US? Is the proposed rule a Bad Thing or a Good Thing, in your opinion? Does it affect us at all (since most of use country-level TLDs)? Do we care? John John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 13:07:52 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at vbc.net Tue Feb 24 13:07:21 1998 From: jdd at vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:07:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [CCs clipped a bit] > I am under the impression that late comments to the Green Paper might not > have much impact but there is now also a proposed "rule" which the Dept. of > Commerce have published. Being ignorant of US governmental procedures, I > dont know what the exact process nor its implications are, and there seems > to have been some doubt expressed (on the IETF list - so it could be > nonsense) as to the legality of this move. I dont know. I think that it is more sensible to see the references to US law as defensive measures. Ira Magaziner cannot move unilaterally; he has to have some justification for his actions. Given the context in Washington, in which special prosecutors are appointed at a moment's notice, this is understandable. > and I understand that there is about a month left on which to comment on this. The comment period ends on 23 March. Then there is talk of another proposal being issued in June. > I dont propose to start a parallel discussion here but my question to you > guys is whether or not you think it might be useful to formulate a combined > response from the European TLD administrators community / ISP community? I > know some of you have met with Magaziner privately - do you believe he took > your comments on board? (Again, I admit ignorance.) Do you think they will > listen to comments from outside the US? Is the proposed rule a Bad Thing or > a Good Thing, in your opinion? Does it affect us at all (since most of use > country-level TLDs)? It certainly has bad elements in it. While I can understand why Magaziner is citing a legal basis for his actions, they would seem to act as a precedent for claiming that large and important parts of the global Internet are subject to US law. Specifically there is a suggestion that this includes the nTLDs: if the root is subject to US law, then US law can determine who controls the nTLDs. For openers, the registry requirements in Appendix A really ought to be applied to the nTLD registries, shouldn't they? Also, Network Solutions is being allowed to keep its monopoly control over the existing gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) and monopolies aren't good for anyone. > Do we care? We certainly should. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Wed Feb 25 15:40:57 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Wed Feb 25 15:40:45 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:40:45 +0100 Subject: Update on nTLD meeting 2 march Message-ID: <199802251440.PAA14495@x28.ripe.net> UPDATE NUMBER 3 DATED 25-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 17 people representing 18 nTLDs will be attending the meeting. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 2. BELGIUM .be Pierre Verbaeten 3. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 4. FRANCE .fr Herve Cosquer (note changed from Annie Renard) 5. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 6. HUNGARY .hu Balazs Martos 7. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 8. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 9. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 10. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 11. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 12. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 13. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 14. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 15. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 16. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 17. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. MALTA .mt Victor Nezval 4. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 5. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Wed Feb 25 23:56:15 MET 1998 --------- From martin at terena.nl Wed Feb 25 23:36:48 1998 From: martin at terena.nl (John Martin) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:36:48 +0100 Subject: EC slams domain proposal, By Reuters (fwd) Message-ID: FYI: (For those not on the very noisy related lists. Forwarded without comment.) http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,19450,00.html EC slams domain proposal By Reuters Special to CNET NEWS.COM February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the Internet's naming and address system, saying it would give Americans too much control over the global computer network. "The current U.S. proposals would...seem to consolidate permanent U.S. jurisdiction over the Internet as a whole, including dispute resolution and trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft reply to the initiative. The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges Washington to adopt a more international approach and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before proceeding. The U.S. government formally published a proposal last week for phasing out its management of the address system for Internet locations--such as email and Web sites--and turning it over to a U.S.-based nonprofit corporation. It would also end the monopoly of U.S. company Network Solutions (NSI), which registers the most popular Internet addresses, including those ending in ".com," ".org," and ".net." Known as generic top-level domains (TLDs), they signify commercial users, not-for-profit organizations, and network service providers. The plan would create up to five new generic TLDs, each with a registry to manage a database of addresses. Other companies would compete to register the addresses. The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies and organizations. IAHC proposed last year setting up seven new generic domains--such as ".store" for shops and ".arts" for culture--along with an international council of registrars. The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper" for seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction over all conflicts over trademarks in Internet addresses and failing to mention efforts to set up Internet dispute-resolution procedures within the World Intellectual Property Organization. The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal. A U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other parties would be taken into account. "There have been consultations going on and there will be further consultations going on before we put the plan into action," the official added, noting that the proposal built on previous work on the issue. The EU telecommunications ministers are likely to direct their ambassadors in Brussels Thursday to finalize an EU response, diplomats said. Story Copyright ? 1998 Reuters Limited All rights reserved. --end John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note new telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 12:04:41 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Feb 26 12:03:56 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:03:56 +0000 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19980225193105.0080f100@mail.isoc.bg> References: <199802251440.PAA14495@x28.ripe.net> Message-ID: <0EOZ00E61G2LHD@hermes.ucd.ie> Veni, In Ireland, legislative interest in the Internet has appeared only in relation to the distribution of pornography and the protection of minors. It is not clear what will come of this. I understand that relevant state agencies and ISP's are co-operating to address this area. Domain registry has not been involved, and would not wish to be. I expect that in the long term, legislation to regulate Internet communication will arrive in Ireland. Until now, and for the foreseeable future, state agencies are taking a non-interventionist approach. I expect the intent of any future legislation to be in support of industry needs rather than regulation for regulation's sake. I do not expect anything unwelcome. To my knowledge, some other countries also have quiet support of their TLD registry from state agencies, with a more developed relationship than we have in Ireland. In at least one case, a state agency is (or is becoming) involved directly in the TLD registry. All of this without problem. If your legislators are inclined to regulate the Internet, the challenge is to persuade them to do "the right thing", and to keep their intervention at a helpful, rather than intrusive, level. At the end of the day, your legislators are in charge in your country. You have to recognise this, and restrict your own efforts to area where you can make a difference. Courage and good luck! Niall O'Reilly > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:31:05 +0200 > From: veni markovski > Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria > To: Paul Ridley > Cc: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie, burack at isoc.org, Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net, > heath at isoc.org, vcerf at mci.net, brian at hursley.ibm.com, martin at terena.nl > Paul, friends, colleagues > very urgent matter: > > A member of the Bulgarian parlament called me today, asking to > provide him with information about possible legislature in European > countries and the US about ISP licensing, Internet laws, etc. > > Could you: > a) point me to web sites where I can find this > b) briefly inform me what's the current status in your country or in > any other that you are familiar with? > > The Bulgarian government has proposed a draft decree to license > Internet services and regulate information spread over the net in > Bulgaria. > > Please, advise. Your help will be more than jus appreciated. > > Sincerely, > > > Veni Markovski, > Chairmain, the Internet Society - Bulgaria, > http://www.isoc.bg, http://www.bulgaria.com/isoc/, > http://www.bol.bg/isoc/ phone: (+359-2) 9809666, phone/fax (+359-2) > 805012 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria > *** > Because e-mail can be altered electronically, > the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 12:20:14 MET 1998 --------- From veni at mail.uucp Thu Feb 26 12:19:22 1998 From: veni at mail.uucp (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:19:22 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <0EOZ00E61G2LHD@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: > area. Domain registry has not been involved, and would not wish to > be. it's not a problem here, too. The registry is a subject to other discussion (recent views are published at http://www.ibm.com/OtherVoices/Levine/February1398155624.phtml > agency is (or is becoming) involved directly in the TLD registry. > All of this without problem. > > If your legislators are inclined to regulate the Internet, the > challenge is to persuade them to do "the right thing", and to keep > their intervention at a helpful, rather than intrusive, level. I am afraid I haven't made it clear or you have misunderstood. The Bulgarian government wants to licens the Internet usage and services. They also intend to regulate the content of the information being placed in the web. > At the end of the day, your legislators are in charge in your > country. You have to recognise this, and restrict your own efforts > to area where you can make a difference. it's a question of legislature, yes, but the government wants to regulate it through the local Committee for post and telecommunications, and not through the law. That's the dangerous part of it. The question of the domain registry is not an issue here. regards, veni -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 18:06:13 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Thu Feb 26 18:05:08 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:05:08 +0100 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:03:56 GMT." <0EOZ00E61G2LHD@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9802261706.AA13518@ncc.ripe.net> Veni > A member of the Bulgarian parlament called me today, asking to > provide him with information about possible legislature in European > countries and the US about ISP licensing, Internet laws, etc. > > Could you: > a) point me to web sites where I can find this > b) briefly inform me what's the current status in your country or in > any other that you are familiar with? You may check http://www.wia.org/ http://www.patents.com/ http://www.inet.de/ (German) http://www.widmerpartners-lawyers.ch/itlaw.htm (German, our lawyers) For CH and LI there is no activity by federal institutions although they watch closely what we (a foundation of the Swiss government and the cantons hosting universities) are doing. We at SWITCH have the feeling that the government should not become involved and does not need to be involved. Everything gets more cumbersume with having the status of a sovereign body: your data base needs to comply to strict data protection rules (at least here in Switzerland) pricing and policy issues will probably be handled by several committees and then forced upon you, your status will be that of an official employee of the government etc. Arghh ;-). But the debate around domain names has woken up many governments and they now see a need for them to regulate anything. Does the situation in BG justify such an involvent ? Marcel -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 20:14:00 MET 1998 --------- From demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua Thu Feb 26 20:11:45 1998 From: demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua (Yuri Demchenko) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:11:45 +0200 Subject: RIPE CENTR Project Message-ID: <34F5BE71.4A78@cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I have mission to pass text of Letter of Support of RIPE CENTR Project from ISPs Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) also indicating Yuri Demchenko as contact person for activity of Project Working Group. The letter itself will be sent upon request. Unfortunately, nobody will be able to attend meeting in Amsterdam on February 2, 1998. Sincerely, Yuri Demchenko - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- To: RIPE CENTR Project Working Group From: ISPs Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) Subject: Letter of Support of RIPE CENTR Project Intending to improving coordination and cooperation in Internet development in Ukraine, Internet Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) plans to initiate establishing effective regulatory basis for National TLD of Ukraine in conditions of current International changes in this area. This document intends to declare TELASs support of establishing RIPE Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (RIPE CENTR) and willing to participate in an activity of RIPE CENTR Project Working Group. TELAS ISPs Section will coordinate interaction between RIPE CENTR Project Working Group and Ukrainian ISPs for the transition period till the moment when independent Association of Ukrainian ISPs will be founded. Contact person for activity of RIPE CENTR Project Working Group reporting to TELAS ISPs Section is Yuri Demchenko (Kiev Polytechnic Institute, demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua). Chairman of the Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) O.Prozhivalsky February 25, 1998 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNPWhWzxadMss24xyEQLn+QCfbvkWQXn4xsVIZFB6XhQ/e8LOIU0AoL02 p1fRz8Si6bORsKqeS1fRF1vI =XuJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 20:34:05 MET 1998 --------- From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Feb 26 20:25:25 1998 From: daniel at digsys.bg (daniel at digsys.bg) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:25:25 +0200 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:05:08 +0100." <9802261706.AA13518@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199802261925.VAA00702@dcave.digsys.bg> >>>Marcel Schneider said: > But the debate around domain names has woken up many governments > and they now see a need for them to regulate anything. Does the > situation in BG justify such an involvent ? There are rumors that the Comitte of Posts and Telecommunications, which is the regulatory body in Bulgaria that deals with telecommunications licensing, the frequency specter etc. is considering some form of licensing for companies providing ISP services. It seems that there may be three causes for this: 1. The government wants control over this business, as they suspect it's in the hands of 'mafia' (to validate this concern, one has to consider the ongoing "anti-MULTIGROUP" fight the current government is leading for about a year now). 2. Someone at the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company is worried that the Internet infrastructure in Bulgaria is developing in such a way, that it bypasses BTC. For example, most of the new ISP companies rely on satellite links for connectivity. Which is practically illegal in Bulgaria - the current law does not permit any transmission by commercial entities. A subsidiary of BTC and a joint venture are actively involved in ISP business. Considering the very close ties that still exist between BTC and CPT (which until very recently were one and the same entity) this is the most likely reason. 3. This may be an attempt of a specific power group to monopolize this business in Bulgaria. Some years ago, there were similar attempts to pass a law that would require grant of concession rights to operate an Internet infrastructure in Bulgaria. It may be the same group. Unfortunately, the CPT plans and procedures are not made public in any way, so that a more specific comment can be made. Regards, Daniel -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 22:02:42 MET 1998 --------- From veni at isoc.bg Thu Feb 26 22:02:16 1998 From: veni at isoc.bg (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:02:16 +0200 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <199802261925.VAA00702@dcave.digsys.bg> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980226230216.007f9770@mail.isoc.bg> daniel at digsys.bg wrote: >>>>Marcel Schneider said: > > But the debate around domain names has woken up many governments > > and they now see a need for them to regulate anything. Does the > > situation in BG justify such an involvent ? > >There are rumors that the Comitte of Posts and Telecommunications, which is >the regulatory body in Bulgaria that deals with telecommunications licensing, >the frequency specter etc. is considering some form of licensing for companies >providing ISP services. I am afraid these are not rumours. I have the draft with me. It's awful. What I did was the following: 1. asked in a public meeting the minister of state administration if the government approves this act. 2. after his positive answer, I've sent a fax to all parties, represented in the Bulgarian parlament. 3. I already have response from some MPs. And today I've made a research about current laws and regulations. I am supposed to provide all interested parties with laws that exist. So far it's Germany, Singapore (and perhaps Thailand). China also has a law. >1. The government wants control over this business, as they suspect it's in >the hands of 'mafia' (to validate this concern, one has to consider the >ongoing "anti-MULTIGROUP" fight the current government is leading for about a >year now). I don't think this is relevant to the issue. >2. Someone at the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company is worried that the >Internet infrastructure in Bulgaria is developing in such a way, that it >bypasses BTC. For example, most of the new ISP companies rely on satellite >links for connectivity. Which is practically illegal in Bulgaria - the current >law does not permit any transmission by commercial entities. well, as you perhaps know, there are lots of commercial entities, hiding behind universitites, which also use VSATs (practically ALL major ISPs are doing this, and there are no exceptions!) But that's not bad. Everything that brings the world at your keyboard at lower prices than the local PTT is welcome:-) >3. This may be an attempt of a specific power group to monopolize this >business in Bulgaria. Some years ago, there were similar attempts to pass a >law that would require grant of concession rights to operate an Internet >infrastructure in Bulgaria. It may be the same group. could you provide more details? perhaps in a private e-mail? >Unfortunately, the CPT plans and procedures are not made public in any way, so >that a more specific comment can be made. well, we'll force them go public. Even if that means to go into politics. I hate bureaucracy, and I hate Bulgarian bureaucracy even more. regards, Veni Markovski, Chairmain, the Internet Society - Bulgaria, http://www.isoc.bg, http://www.bulgaria.com/isoc/, http://www.bol.bg/isoc/ phone: (+359-2) 9809666, phone/fax (+359-2) 805012 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria *** Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 09:34:00 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Fri Feb 27 09:33:44 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:33:44 +0100 Subject: Update on nTLD meeting 2 march Message-ID: <199802270833.JAA19602@x28.ripe.net> UPDATE NUMBER 4 DATED 27-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 20 people representing 21 nTLDs will be attending the meeting in addition to a few observers listed below. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know *very* asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. ANDORRA .ad Jaume Salvat 2. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 3. BELGIUM .be Pierre Verbaeten 4. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 5. FRANCE .fr Herve Cosquer (note changed from Annie Renard) 6. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 7. HUNGARY .hu Balazs Martos 8. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 9. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 10. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 11. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 12. NORWAY .no Havard Eidnes 13. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 14. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 15. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 16. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 17. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 18. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 19. TURKMENISTAN .tm Mark Henderson-Thynne 20. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black In addition to those mentioned above and myself + 1 for admin support, the following people will be attending at the invitation of the meeting host. To give a presentation and further stay in an observing role: 1. Christopher Wilkinson - European Commission 2. Daniel Karrenberg - RIPE NCC To attend in an observing role: 1. Rob Blokzijl - RIPE chair 2. Paul Kane - representing two British Dependent Territories nTLDs BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY .io and ACENSION ISLAND Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. MALTA .mt Victor Nezval 4. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 5. UKRAINE .ua Yuri Demchenko 6. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 17:09:14 MET 1998 --------- From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Feb 26 20:25:25 1998 From: daniel at digsys.bg (daniel at digsys.bg) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:25:25 +0200 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:05:08 +0100." <9802261706.AA13518@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199802261925.VAA00702@dcave.digsys.bg> >>>Marcel Schneider said: > But the debate around domain names has woken up many governments > and they now see a need for them to regulate anything. Does the > situation in BG justify such an involvent ? There are rumors that the Comitte of Posts and Telecommunications, which is the regulatory body in Bulgaria that deals with telecommunications licensing, the frequency specter etc. is considering some form of licensing for companies providing ISP services. It seems that there may be three causes for this: 1. The government wants control over this business, as they suspect it's in the hands of 'mafia' (to validate this concern, one has to consider the ongoing "anti-MULTIGROUP" fight the current government is leading for about a year now). 2. Someone at the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company is worried that the Internet infrastructure in Bulgaria is developing in such a way, that it bypasses BTC. For example, most of the new ISP companies rely on satellite links for connectivity. Which is practically illegal in Bulgaria - the current law does not permit any transmission by commercial entities. A subsidiary of BTC and a joint venture are actively involved in ISP business. Considering the very close ties that still exist between BTC and CPT (which until very recently were one and the same entity) this is the most likely reason. 3. This may be an attempt of a specific power group to monopolize this business in Bulgaria. Some years ago, there were similar attempts to pass a law that would require grant of concession rights to operate an Internet infrastructure in Bulgaria. It may be the same group. Unfortunately, the CPT plans and procedures are not made public in any way, so that a more specific comment can be made. Regards, Daniel -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 17:09:54 MET 1998 --------- From mail!veni at ripe.net Thu Feb 26 12:19:22 1998 From: mail!veni at ripe.net (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:19:22 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <0EOZ00E61G2LHD@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: > area. Domain registry has not been involved, and would not wish to > be. it's not a problem here, too. The registry is a subject to other discussion (recent views are published at http://www.ibm.com/OtherVoices/Levine/February1398155624.phtml > agency is (or is becoming) involved directly in the TLD registry. > All of this without problem. > > If your legislators are inclined to regulate the Internet, the > challenge is to persuade them to do "the right thing", and to keep > their intervention at a helpful, rather than intrusive, level. I am afraid I haven't made it clear or you have misunderstood. The Bulgarian government wants to licens the Internet usage and services. They also intend to regulate the content of the information being placed in the web. > At the end of the day, your legislators are in charge in your > country. You have to recognise this, and restrict your own efforts > to area where you can make a difference. it's a question of legislature, yes, but the government wants to regulate it through the local Committee for post and telecommunications, and not through the law. That's the dangerous part of it. The question of the domain registry is not an issue here. regards, veni -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 17:46:18 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Fri Feb 27 17:46:03 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:46:03 +0100 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:19:22 +0200." Message-ID: <9802271646.AA27387@ncc.ripe.net> ... > it's a question of legislature, yes, but the government wants to regulate > it through the local Committee for post and telecommunications, and not > through the law. That's the dangerous part of it. The question of the > domain registry is not an issue here. Other countries I know of where governments try to regulate their respecive Internets: China North-Korea Vietnam They probably all do it through an appropriate local authority. With growing number of PC's they will have a hard time. Looks to me like the Germans allowing nobody to listen to foreign stations on their radios during WW II. Marcel -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 17:53:48 MET 1998 --------- From demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua Fri Feb 27 17:51:42 1998 From: demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua (Yuri Demchenko) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:51:42 +0200 Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria References: Message-ID: <34F6EF1E.568F@cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> Veni Markovski wrote: > > > area. Domain registry has not been involved, and would not wish to > > be. > > it's not a problem here, too. The registry is a subject to other > discussion (recent views are published at > http://www.ibm.com/OtherVoices/Levine/February1398155624.phtml > > > I am afraid I haven't made it clear or you have misunderstood. The > Bulgarian government wants to licens the Internet usage and services. > They also intend to regulate the content of the information being placed > in the web. > I can tell you a story about situation in Ukraine. Internet and all possible data communication services were subject for license in Ukraine. And surely all major ISPs in Ukraine were forced to obtain/pay for such license. The same situation was expected with Internet telephony. But good news came from Europe and from Ukrainian Government at the same time. The European Commission defined that Internet telephony is not a subject for licensing. Begining this year in Ukraine licensing for all communication services (including data communication, Satellite, etc.) except voice telephony was canceled. I haven't time to investigate the reason for such positive shift but think that it's not even forthcoming Parlamentary election in March. But it was principal demand for Ukraine's entering into EC in liberalisation and harminisation of regulatory basis in Telecommunications. Next steps are expected in canceling State monopoly in Communications area. >> LEGISLATION AND POLICIES >> The European Commission has adopted a notice defining its policy >> on voice telephony in respect of telephony over the Internet. >> The notice considers that Internet telephony is not subject to >> the regulation applying to voice telephony until certain >> conditions are met. The provision of Internet telephony may >> therefore not be subject to European Union Member States >> individual licensing procedures but at the most to declaration >> procedures >> (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg04/lawliber/en/voice.htm) > > At the end of the day, your legislators are in charge in your > > country. You have to recognise this, and restrict your own efforts > > to area where you can make a difference. > > it's a question of legislature, yes, but the government wants to regulate > it through the local Committee for post and telecommunications, and not > through the law. That's the dangerous part of it. The question of the > domain registry is not an issue here. > In European experience and documents you can find arguments why it is wrong but in countries' like Ukraine experience you can find why it's senseless and definetely will be canceled in the future. Regard, Yuri Demchenko. > regards, > veni -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 18:48:32 MET 1998 --------- From veni at isoc.bg Fri Feb 27 18:48:30 1998 From: veni at isoc.bg (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:48:30 +0200 Subject: Internet laws in Germany, Bulgaria, China, Singapore In-Reply-To: <9802271646.AA27387@ncc.ripe.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980227194830.00823180@mail.isoc.bg> At 17:46 27.2.1998 '?.' +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >Other countries I know of where governments try to regulate their >respecive Internets: > >China >North-Korea >Vietnam I've found some interesting documents: 1) China for sure 2) GERMANY! - on June 13, 1997 "Federal act Establishing the General conditions for information and communication services - Information and communication services act"... HOWEVER: "the result was the guarantee of license-free access enshrined in the law" 3) Singapore - in 1996. 4) Thailand - pending regulation... Do you have more information? regards, Veni Markovski, Chairmain, the Internet Society - Bulgaria, http://www.isoc.bg, http://www.bulgaria.com/isoc/, http://www.bol.bg/isoc/ phone: (+359-2) 9809666, phone/fax (+359-2) 805012 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria *** Because e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -------- Logged at Sun Mar 15 08:34:45 MET 1998 ---------