>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Meeks, Brock"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From MSNBC.COM!Brock.Meeks Tue Apr 27 02:47:42 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from mail.msnbc.com([207.46.169.46]) (22864 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: by MSNBCIMC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
> id <JXDV76LC>; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:36:23 -0700
>Message-ID: <E7951A633926D211900F00805FBE764B4305B7@MSNBCSEC02>
>From: "Meeks, Brock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Dave Crocker' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], wipo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet Governance
>Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:34:29 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Give it up, Dave... Your revisionist thinking is dumbfounding. I'd go
>through your insane rambling point by point, but frankly, I did with two
>years ago with Don Heath and it's a god damn waste of time. You're pissing
>in the wind and have been for two years.
>
>On just your first "errors" message, IANA had DNS authority, that's true,
>but Postel had NO authority to take matters in his own hands and start this
>whole sordid process.
>
>I defy to show me the legal standing Postel had to wrench what was a fairly
>simple mandate into creating a global goverance for the Internet. He had
>none.
>
>Fact is, Postel, at the end, was beyond his means. His ability to ride herd
>over the DNS was rapidly going to hell and he was grasping at straws. And
>yet he refused to give up the power and instead tried to craft a future for
>himself a select group of cronies where there was no future.
>
>And your fucking little pissant "error of fact No. 6" about how .mil and
>.edu weren't a part of the scheme-and I never said they were, but merely
>said the IHAC wanted to control how new domains were added to the those
>currently existing, which include .mil and .edu among the others.
>
>Oh, don't feed me this shit about how the closed meetings were preceeded by
>a grand "open process." Big fucking deal. That was all smoke and mirrors,
>window dressing for the god damn masses. Those meeting behind closed doors
>ignored whatever they wanted to in the "open process" and rammed ahead with
>their own "best plans."
>
>Oh... did I offend with a bit of profanity? Deal with it, frankly I could
>give a rat's ass. You attack my credibilty as a reporter with clueless
>diatribe and it ticks me off.
>
>Bah. You want to indulge in a point by point pissing match, fine, you piss
>alone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 7:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; wipo; Becky Burr; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther Dyson; Mike
>Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Meeks, Brock
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Brock Meeks on Internet
>Governance
>
> At 11:52 PM 4/25/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> >This is fun ;-)
>
> As always, it's unfortunate that you treat it as a game.
>
> >While you are busy re-writing history,
> >why don't you explain this interesting
> >story from the Wall Street Journal.
>
> And, of course, it is not in the least surprising that you
>choose to
> respond to a detailed analysis by a) making a blanket
>dismissal, and b)
> pointing elsewhere.
>
> Bob-and-weave deception has been a tool in trade for those
>trying to create
> a pattern of delays through misinformation.
>
>
>
> At 12:06 AM 4/26/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > crocker squirting clouds of ink to cover up and distort
>
> Thank you for the respectful and professional tone. It aids
>your cause
> enormously.
>
> > >Fact error 3 and 4: The IAHC committee operated under
>the auspices of IANA
> > >and ISOC. IANA had responsibility for DNS operations
>from its inception,
> > >more than 10 years earlier, and ISOC provides the legal
>base for IETF
> > >standards work.
> >
> >yeah but ISOC has not yet done this for ten years and all
>hands were not
> >entirely comfortable with its doing it
>
> sigh. I should have known that totally precise language was
>going to be
> needed, since anything less gives an opportunity to take
> exception. Indeed, ISOC has not existed for 10 years; I'm
>not sure but it
> is around 7 or 8, I think.
>
> Gosh. That really alters the nature of the distortions I
>was responding to
> a lot, doesn't it?
>
> > >>has simply rushed in to fill the power vacuum on the
>Internet, which has,
> > >>since inception, operated in a spirit of consensus and
>community.
> > >
> > >Fact error 5: I've no idea what "power vacuum" is being
>cited. The
> > >committee operated under the authority of an existing
>'power' structure and
> > >at all times acknowledged that structure's authority,
>claiming none for
> > >itself, except as was delegated to it.
> > >
> > >I suppose that Brock might find a way to clarify his
>statement to make the
> > >'fact' at least plausible.
> >
> >i'll tell you exactly what....the power vacuum was that the
>IANA powers had
> >never been institutionalized....but they were carried
>around on the
> >shoulders of jon postel whom some apparently thought
>immortal......
> >certainmly no one DARED criticize jon for not sharing some
>of his power or
> >even doing much thinking about the issue until it was too
>late
> "institutionalized"? not entirely sure what that means,
>since the
> negotiations between the IESG and IANA sure looked
>institutional (i.e.,
> formal and process oriented) to me when I was an area
>director.
>
> And that is the point: To those developing and operating
>the Internet,
> things were plenty institutionalized. To those outside it
>didn't. Yes,
> that permitted a wedge for politicians to use to destabilize
>IANA's
> otherwise solid position.
>
> > >>This cabal intends to control how and when new domain
>names will be added
> > >>to the current list of .com, .org, .edu, .gov and .mil,
>and who gets the
> > >>rights to act as a registry of those domain names.
> > >
> > >Fact error 6: A small point, but it shows the continuing
>pattern of
> > >carelessness. .gov and .mil were not part of this topic.
> >
> >wrong....you misread what meeks writes.....gov and mil were
>in the name
> >servers....he has what will be ADDED to the collection of
>names in the
> >servers
>
> IN that case, he left out the 100+ country code TLDs, and a
>few
> others. Again, the gTLD effort pertained only to a subset
>of top-level
> domain names, and that includes a subset of NEW names.
>
> > >Fact error 7: The term cabal is an example of hyperbole
>that mostly shows
> > >a failure to understand the process which took place.
> >
> >an error of hyperbole at best...fact no and one that many
>who are not apart
> >of the MOUvement as you who have been its most faithful
>footsoldier for so
> >long would willingly from their point of view agree....
> >
> >the MOUvement was a clique, a small group with a
>pledge....to play you had
> >to sign the pledge....a grand total of three major american
>corps signed
> >the pledge...
>
> You say hyperbole error. I said hyperbole error. Sonds
>like we agree.
>
> But, no, we can't have that, so...
>
> Then you support the inflammatory term cabal by using
>another one,
> clique. I don't have a dictionary around, but I suspect
>that the word is
> also applied incorrectly. Most participants in the IAHC had
>never worked
> together before and many had never met before. All were
>appointed by
> different organizations and needed to have the support of
>those
> organizations. And it got that, in particular, from the
>signing by IANA
> and ISOC and INTA and WIPO and ITU (and please don't
>nit-pick about the
> nature of the ITU signing.) Along with 220 additional
>organizations around
> the word.
>
> That hardly counts as a "clique".
>
> >Fact error 8: Only one closed meeting was held in Geneva.
>The other was
> > >open. Another closed meeting was in San Jose and another
>in
> > >D.C. Obviously, that isn't the sort of error to worry
>about.
> > >
> > >The serious error is the failure to cite the extensive
>open discussions
> > >held online during the entire process and the
>modifications to the proposal
> > >that came directly from that process.
> >
> >of horseshit....yeah just like ican holds extensive open
>discussions with
> >all their bullshit open committees after the power has been
>divided up in
> >the smoke filled room with esther, mike and joe
>
> sounds like the sour grapes of someone who is unhappy they
>aren't in that
> room, particularly since it is so dismissive of the very
>extensive public
> discussions that were held.
>
> Of course, participation in the style that you are using to
>respond to me
> is rarely constructive...
>
> > >>The group set up a U.N.-style international tribunal
>that operates under
> > >
> > >Fact error 9: Perhaps there is a definition of
>"U.N.-style international
> > >tribunal" that can be made to fit the POC/CORE structure
>that was
> > >developed, but I doubt it. At the least, the structure
>was not "between
> > >nations" and that is what "international" means. In
>other words, it was
> > >quite pointedly not a treaty organization.
> > >
> >
> >wrong again as tony rutkowskii has pointed out to you time
>and time again,
> >but as any true believer you will never get it dave
>
> Tony has made many false assertions of technical (and legal)
>fact, like
> this. He never responds to serious challenges of his
>assertions, instead
> choosing to call such challenges "attacks". Further, his
>assessments
> always run directly contrary to the opinions of other expert
>legal counsel
> that I and others talk with. In fact, it is extremely rare
>to find a
> lawyer that agrees with him.
>
> Nonetheless, I said that he is free to provide substantive
>explanation for
> the claim.
>
> Rather than attack me why don't you do a little reportorial
>digging and
> produce that substance for his claim?
>
> > >>the auspices of the International Telecommunications
>Union, which has
> > >
> > >Fact error 10: Again, we could probably find that the
>usage of "auspices"
> > >has some sort of plausible application, but it would only
>be a
> > >technicality. The ITU was very much a secondary issue to
>the development
> > >and implementation of the POC/CORE structure. Had the
>ITU chosen to be
> > >uninvolved, it would not have affected any of the
>significant details one
> > >bit, except that we would have held the two Geneva
>meetings elsewhere, I
> > >suppose.
> >
> >yeah sure dave....itu just provided a mail box...nothing
>more
> >guess that is why the secretray of ste got involved just to
>put ITU out of
> >the mailbox business
> She didn't. You continue to ignore what precisely took
>place from the U.S.
> government and what precisely took place afterwards.
>
> To repeat: The U.S. government called for and participated
>in an ITU
> member review. The member review UNANIMOUSLY supported the
>work that had
> been done. The U.S. was part of the UNANIMOUS support.
>
> Pesky things, facts. They really do get in the way of a
>good conspiracy
> theory.
>
> > >>But the group has garnered no consensus in the Internet
>community. During a
> > >
> > >Fact error 11: As cited above, quite a few organizations
>formally
> > >supported this activity. In fact, the opponents were
>very few in number,
> > >but very damn effective at lobbying the White House.
> > >
> >
> >less see vint cerf got MCI to sign
> >
> >mike odell brought UUNET on boar d and strong rumor had
>it that MCI
> >threatened DEC with cessation of all internet business if
>it didn't sign
> >....those were the three american corporations among the
>fortune 500 who
> >signed
>
> Let's see. I said that roughly 220 organizations signed and
>you do a bit
> of rumor-mongering about two or three of them. Yes, that
>certainly does
> show a lack of support, Gordon...
>
> > >>Anticipating the end of that monopoly, two influential
>groups decided that
> > >
> > >Fact error 12: The effort was to CREATE the end of the
>monopoly, not
> > >anticipate it. The difference is significant.
> > >
> >
> >wronmg.....it has always been about putting its opposing
>monopoly in place
> NSI is an unregulated, for-profit monopoly. CORE is a
>highly regulated,
> not-for-profit. Those are not usually called monopolies,
>but in any event,
> the latter stages of discussion included the realization
>that multiple
> core-like groups were not unreasonable.
>
> Pesky things, facts...
>
> > >>The IANA operates under a loose charter from the U.S.
>government to act as
> > >
> > >Fact error 13: Funding was from the US government;
>authority was from the
> > >Internet technical and operations community.
> >
> >word of mouth solely
>
> Well mostly, but even that isn't entirely true, since there
>is a bit of
> formal text, concerning its relationship with the IAB, as
>well as long
> history of "formal" interactions with the IETF.
>
> But, gosh, no there is no congressional record of those
>interactions.
>
> > >>These two groups put together the Internet International
>Ad Hoc Committee,
> > >>which hunkered down for eight weeks with members of the
>ITU and World
> > >>Intellectual Property Organization and hammered out the
>memo of
> > >>understanding, a document that essentially sets up a
>global governance
> > >>scheme for the future of the Internet.
> > >
> > >Fact error 13: Something which explicitly acknowledges
>the established
> > >authority of IANA over it and which is thoroughly
>constrained to gTLDs (not
> > >even all TLDs) is hardly something that is setting up a
>global governance
> > >scheme for the future of the Intenret.
> >
> >oh bullshit...the daer iana was effectively taking orders
>from heath hoping
> >against hope at the time to get ISOC leability insurance to
>take cover under
>
> Ahhh. I see that you never really dealt with Postel,
>Gordon, or you would
> not be making such a silly claim. For that matter, it is
>equally clear
> you've never really dealt with Heath...
>
> But then, that's why you make the claim but don't
>substantiate it.
>
> > >>However, those signatories come with a huge caveat: not
>a single
> > >>government, save Albania, has signed on.
> > >
> > >Fact error 14: It was originally thought that having
>governments sign
> > >would be a good thing. It was eventually realized that
>it would create
> > >problems as was dropped as a goal.
> > >
> > dates times places dave.....expost fact excuse
>here....chjange of plans to
> >avoid huge embarrassment...meeks is dead right
>
> I hope folks notice the nature of the dilemma this line of
>attack
> creates. If the original proposal is put forward unchanged,
>then the
> effort is unresponsive. If the proposal is changed
>according to feedback,
> then the changes are really to avoid huge embarrassment, or
>the like. It
> couldn't possibly e that a constructive process took place,
>intending to,
> and making, changes according to public feedback. Nope,
>can't have that.
>
> Gosh, why would anyone be disinclined to participate in a
>public exchange
> conducted with this sort of attacking as its base? I can't
>imagine how
> anyone interested in constructive dialogue would lose heart,
>and quickly.
>
> > >>This process has drawn the ire of virtually everyone
>outside the small
> > >>cabal of organizations that had a hand in drafting the
>document. The memo,
> > >
> > >Fact error 15: The ire came from only a tiny group.
>Acceptance was quite
> > >broad. Take a look at the list of signatories.
> >
> >bulllshit 3 of the fortune 500 I am SOOOOOO impressed
>
> Just a tad ethnocentric, Gordon. Rather more dismissive of
>non-U.S.
> countries that is good form, these days. And, speaking of
>ex post-facto,
> on-the-fly revisionism, where DID you get the Fortune 500 as
>a definitive
> criterion?
>
> > >>Alas, none of us appreciated just how effectively a few,
>well-funded people
> > >could lobby the White House, or how ignorant the White
>House was of actual
> > >Internet operations, in spite of considerable effort to
>educate them.
> >
> >who was well funded???? you are getting sleazy here dave
>
> NSI is well funded and hired damn good lobbyists. So are a
>couple of large
> multi-national companies (they are part of that much vaunted
>Fortune 500)
> whose lobbyists were quite active in discussions with the
>White House. I'm
> not documenting it further because THEY didn't document it
>further. Given
> the rumor-mongering that Gordon is willing to indulge in, my
>relying on
> second-hand and undocumented, but consistent, reports,
>hardly counts as
> unusual.
>
> > >>"although without the stature of a treaty because it can
>be signed by
> > >>parties other than sovereign states, is clearly an
>intergovernmental
> > >>agreement that possesses significant binding force and
>effect... as public
> > >>international law," writes Tony Rutkowski, former
>executive director of
> > ISOC.
> > >
> > >Fact error 16: As usual, Tony's pronouncements about
>such things are just
> > >plain wrong. There is nothing about the MoU which is
> > >intergovernmental. Tony is welcome to provide details to
>substantiate his
> > >claim, but it is worth noting that he is consistent in
>failing to do so.
> >
> >you are a liar....... I have watched him do time and time
>and time
> >again....tell the big lie often enough and people will
>believe
>
> Right. That's exactly what I said. Tony repeats big lies
>and people have
> come to believe them. Hold those lies up to any detailed
>analysis and they
> don't survive.
>
> So, rather than calling me a liar, Gordon, do the
>reportorial work that is
> supposed to be your job, and obtain all that substantive
>supporting
> information you feel is readily available. Others have
>tried to get it
> from Tony, without success.
>
> > >>Remember, IANA and ISOC have absolutely no formal
>authority to proceed with
> > >
> > >Fact error 3 and 4, repeated: Remember, IANA had 10
>years of operational
> > >precedence and ISOC has formal arrangements with the
>IETF, under which IANA
> > >operates.
> > >
> > >>this process -- they just decided to "do it."
> >
> >but no specific authority I suppose because jon postrel was
>the one person
> >in the net who didn't need it
>
> Nicely ignores that a number of additional organizations
>participated. So
> much easier just to make a personal attack.
>
> In any event, "specific authority"? What does that mean?
>IANA
> administered the DNS and always had. It pursued further
>administration, as
> it always had.
>
> > >Fact error 17: The cable called for a review of the
>process; it formally
> > >and explicitly took no stand. The U.S. government
>repeated that statement
> > >of "no position" during the open Geneva meeting.
> > >
> >
> >wrong....did it or did it not >>upbraiding the ITU
>secretary general for
> >calling such a meeting "without
> > >>authorization of the member governments."
>
> It questioned it and called for a review. The U.S.
>government then
> participated in the review and the UNANIMOUS vote of
>support. I notice
> that you chose to ignore that portion of my previous note.
>
> So, Gordon, NOT wrong.
>
> > >Fact error 18: Technical experts are in agreement that
>we don't know what
> > >the limit is but that things are probably safe up to
>about 2,000 top-level
> > >domains and very possibly might be unsafe above that.
> >
> >2000 versus unlimited.....evenb garin only asked for 500
>picky picky
>
> The primary technical lesson from the Internet is about
>"scaling". That
> is, attending to questions about growing an effort. It is
>easy to say that
> 2,000 is a large number so what the heck, let's just dive in
>and not
> worry. That isn't the way professional operations efforts
>work.
>
> You also chose to ignore my statement that some experts are
>concerned about
> operational impact at 500. That doesn't mean it won't work,
>but that we
> need to approach it carefully.
>
> It is always easy to conduct a paper exercise that results
>in a feeling of
> comfort with charging ahead without concern for real impact.
>It is another
> thing to take a responsible approach to such changes.
>
> Again, I note that your response ignored that detail I
>supplied in my
> previous note.
>
> > >>Further, "During the challenge period, your Internet
>address can be
> > >>suspended," Sernovitz says. "If you lose a case - you
>will have lost your
> > >>rights forever. There is no appeals process and there is
>no one to sue."
> > >
> > >Fact error 25: preemptive suspension (like an
>injunction) was a very, very
> > >constrained tool, not nearly as available as the
>quotation implies.
> >
> >an we are supposed to belive hoset abe, uuh I mean honest
>dave just cause
> >he says so.
>
> No, you are supposed to look at source material, carefully,
>and believe
> it. But I suppose that is too much work to do.
>
> > >>The cabal is moving this process forward on a fast
>track, claiming that
> > >>action must be taken quickly to keep the Internet from
>folding in on
> > >>itself. This hurry-up stance goes against the entire
>culture of the
> > >>Internet and is yet another reason why critics claim the
>memo is simply a
> > >>power grab.
> > >
> > >Fact error 26: The activity came after two years of
>community discussion
> > >and was pursued under pressure from the community that
>held those
> > >discussions. It was perceived as "sudden" only by those
>who had no
> > >awareness of the prior work.
> >
> >no it was a work by a group that never succeeded in gaining
>consensus and
> >heath recently admited as much
>
> The topic was about urgency and history. Is there some
>reason you are
> ignoring them and choosing to introduce a different line of
>attack?
>
> > >So, the detailed review suggests that I should have
>qualified my statement
> > >to say that all of the "significant" assertions of fact
>were incorrect. Of
> > >a total of 30, or so, a few minor assertions were
>correct.
> > >
> > >That's not a reporting record to be proud of, or even to
>defend, much less
> > >to get offensive about.
> >
> >spoken like a true ICANN propaganda minister d ave
>
> Spoken like a true creator of personal attacks, Gordon. I
>didn't think
> that was what you claimed to do as a professional, but then
>that's why I
> suggest people read your interviews, not your analyses.
>
> d/
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker Tel: +1
>408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1
>408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive
><http://www.brandenburg.com>
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
