JeffM and all, JeffM, I would be very interested is seeing the rest. If you could please forward it to me privately. However I would likely not be surprised. Jeff Mason wrote: > That's not the half of it Jeff W. You should see what this twit said > about you and our beloved pccf. Shame. This is not the full > communication. Essentially we have been called NSI family spi's by the > ITU internet head. > > On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote: > > > jay and all, > > > > Jay, thank you for sharing this with us all. It is interesting to say the > > least that some of the recent and older history of this ICANN dictatorial > > and unrepresentative process very much parallels the gTLD-MoU/CORE > > fiasco so closely it is difficult to tell the difference. I guess a rose > > by any other name smells the same, as long as you recognize that it > > is a rose indeed! > > > > Jay Fenello wrote: > > > > > FYI: > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You! > > > Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:23:18 -0400 > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: Robert Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom > > > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Robert Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > > > > > I'm somewhat disappointed to see TELECOM Digest also become a platform > > > > for ICANN bashing. Having participated in the Internet Ad Hoc > > > > Committee (IAHC) in 1996/1997, I was once (and thankfully am no more) > > > > at ground zero of the three-ring circus that attempted to overhaul the > > > > administration of the Internet generic top level domains. How this > > > > has turned into a bizarre discussion of "Internet governance" is > > > > beyond me. > > > > > > > > When the IAHC started its work in 1996, I doubt that any of us had > > > > ever heard of the term Internet governance. In fact, we were very > > > > careful to limit the scope of our activity and would have been accused > > > > of absurd hubris to equate this work with the much grander sounding > > > > "Internet governance". > > > > > > > > Someone once said "trying to govern the Internet is like trying to > > > > herd cats: it just doesn't work". And as someone else noted -- "cats > > > > are clearly much smarter than dogs: the proof is that you could never > > > > tie eight cats together and get them to pull a sled in one > > > > direction". One could argue that what we need is a few dogs pulling in > > > > the same direction. > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > How do you reconcile your comments above, > > > with those of your boss in the ITU's own > > > magazine: > > > > > > I am pleased that the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary > > > Conference held in October-November 1998, gave ITU > > > a very clear mandate for a role in questions of > > > Internet governance (see ITU News, No. 10/98, > > > pages 17-18). The need for an impartial international > > > organization to be involved in Internet governance > > > was clear nearly four years ago. I recall underlining > > > this need at the Internet Days event, which we > > > organized in April 1995. > > > > > > The IS Department has participated very actively, > > > on ITU's behalf, in key Internet governance forums, > > > notably the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) > > > for domain name issues and the Memorandum of > > > Understanding on Internet generic Top Level Domain > > > names (gTLD-MoU), for which ITU is the depositary. > > > > > > --Lucio Goelzer > > > > > > http://www.itu.int/journal/199901/E/html/n0199E.htm > > > at bottom > > > > > > More comments below . . . > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, on the Internet, no one knows if you're a dog. I, > > > > along with another rotating group of committee members who worked on > > > > this problem, experienced enough bizarre characters, self-proclaimed > > > > representatives of organizations that are nothing more than a few web > > > > pages, anonymous people hiding behind fake identities, and conspiracy > > > > theories to last a lifetime. > > > > > > > > The IAHC was sued, attacked in thousands of emails on mailing lists, > > > > compared to communists against free enterprise, claimed to be lackeys > > > > of foreign powers, part of a secret plot to move the Internet to > > > > Switzerland, ad nauseum (all copiously fanned by Gordon Cook's > > > > writings). No motive that we could possibly have had was too base. No > > > > possible accusation has been left unsaid. I read enough false press > > > > reports about our work to forever distrust quasi-real-time web > > > > journalism. Getting seriously involved in this topic is the best way > > > > to become intimately familiar with your email filters -- and a thick > > > > skin. > > > > > > > > And with ICANN, it is deja-vu all over again. In any endeavour, there > > > > are always going to be people who disagree with you. What is different > > > > is that the Internet allows those who have endless energy and access > > > > to email (and large distribution lists) wonderful opportunities to > > > > attack with whatever dirt they can dream up. Some are very clever in > > > > how they do it. I put Mr. Fenello into that category. > > > > > > On this we agree, it *is* deja-vu all over again. > > > > > > Rather than debate issues of substance, you would > > > > > > rather resort to personal attacks and inuendo. > > > It's the IAHC all over again :-( > > > > > > I'm just happy that Pat is willing to put all > > > sides in this debate online for public discussion, > > > even though his future funding may lie in the > > > balance. > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > Jay Fenello > > > President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480 > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com > > > > > > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is > > > ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, > > > it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) > > > > > > > So it is especially strange to see TELECOM Digest falling into > > > > this same trap and being used for this platform of ICANN bashing > > > > by these supposed "experts". The warning bells go immediately off > > > > when one of your postings on this topic starts with an email from > > > > Jeff Williams, a one-man (?) argument against anonymity on the > > > > Internet. As your message from Mr. Williams shows, he claims to speak > > > > for a group called the INEGroup which represents over 95,000 members. > > > > This claim pales next to other assertions about himself: for a > > > > sampler, see http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08018.html. > > > > > > > > Some folks got so fed up with his claims that they created a web site > > > > at http://www.inegroup.net/ to debunk him. He has another identity, > > > > Brian C. Hollingsworth, who supposedly works for some Internet > > > > commission of the European Union, but who has to post from the same > > > > ISP in Texas as Mr. Williams. :-) Of course, when confronted with > > > > this, Mr. Williams says he forwards on Mr. Hollingsworth's messages > > > > using his Nextel mobile phone in Europe to post his messages (or some > > > > silly stuff like that). I guess Mr. Williams' expertise does not > > > > include spectrum allocation or radio transmission technologies. > > > > > > > > Now Patrick, let's move down in your same posting where you have a mail > > > > from a supposed 'Jeff Mason' at Planet Communications Computing Facility > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - this mail can be found at the archives > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Archives/msg00590.html. The mail is > > > > sent to a "Sr. Francis Fanego" at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Amazing coincidence > > > > that both use the same name 'pccf', isn't it? Well, let's go to > > > > www.samspade.org and find out who pccf.net is. Samspade says pccf.net > > > > belongs to the same person the mail is supposedly being sent from. > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > And the billing contact is shown as who the mail is send to (Fanego). > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > > > Another coincidence? Note the primary name server is vrx.net. > > > > O.K., so now we have another address, bigbird.earth-net.net. Who's that? > > > > Again we use Samspade to look it up and lo and behold, this is clearly > > > > somebody who wants to hide. Note no telephone or fax numbers, a public > > > > email service address at 'altavista', and another fake name "John Hunt" > > > > I recognize from the IAHC days. Again the name servers are at vrx.net. > > > > > > > > Who's vrx.net? It's a service run by Richard Sexton, one of the people > > > > that Network Solutions, Inc., the current provider of .com, .net, > > > > and .org services, tried to appoint to the ICANN Domain Name Supporting > > > > Organization (DNSO). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that NSI > > > > has much to gain by delaying ICANN; as ICANN and the US Department of > > > > Commerce have pointed out repeatedly. Is there a connection? You judge. > > > > > > > > The lesson here is that you should be careful what you believe and > > > > where it is coming from. There is no doubt that there are good people > > > > who disagree with what ICANN is doing (and that includes me > > > > sometimes). However, moving from the platitudes in the USG White > > > > Paper to specific decisions on how to fairly introduce competition in > > > > the domain name system is undoubtedly going to leave lots of people > > > > unhappy for economic or other reasons. Giving them a platform here (in > > > > many cases when you cannot even ascertain their true identity or who > > > > they're working for) distorts the ICANN process to no good end. > > > > > > > > Robert Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor > > > > International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> > > > > Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland > > > > > > > > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your very informative and > > > > helpful note. My one main objection to ICANN and its cliquish friends > > > > at the Internet Society are the degree of secrecy they have maintained > > > > since the beginning. I certainly do not have any love lost for the > > > > folks at NSI either, but I believe where ICANN/ISOC has raised so much > > > > hostility on the net has been because of their stubborn refusal to say > > > > any more than they absolutely have to say, and then, they distort it > > > > also. If any of these folks, NSI or ICANN are going to have > > > > considerable power and sway over the net, its websites and news > > > > groups, they have simply got to be more open, forthright, direct and > > > > to the point about what is happening. ICANN has adopted procedures > > > > where *not a single netizen or small website* will have any say-so at > > > > all. Their policy thus far has been to place everything regarding the > > > > 'rules and regulations' into the hands of large, multinational companies > > > > and a small group of their own advisors, most of whom are venture- > > > > capitalists like Esther Dyson. > > > > > > > > Have you seen the contract webmasters will be required to sign in order > > > > to get or keep their domain names when they come up for renewal, and > > > > how the sole judge of your right and mine to be on the net (because > > > > without a domain name you do not exist) is going to be in the hands of > > > > Esther Dyson and a handful of her friends, all of whom at this point > > > > are deeply in debt to companies like MCI-Worldcom, Cisco and others who > > > > have given them loads of money? You don't think those large companies > > > > are going to want to get paid back eventually, one way or another? > > > > > > > > Your point about 'Jeff Williams' is well-taken. You are not the first > > > > person to write to me since I printed his thing. In fact, many of the > > > > anti-ICANN people have said to me not to listen to him at all. I am > > > > about finished printing that stuff; I have one more planned in a day > > > > or two, but frankly I have a lot better stuff to do with my time also > > > > than allow this forum to be a constant anti-ICANN medium. But my problem > > > > is, I am finding relatively few netizens these days who had even heard > > > > of Internet Society or ICANN before I mentioned it; a couple thought > > > > it was some sort of 'social organization' for people who had computers > > > > on line, and a couple who had heard of it thought it was 'a group that > > > > advocates free-speech for people on the web' ... when in fact nothing > > > > could be further from the truth. I've printed letters here from people > > > > who hastened to assure me that, 'they have every right to be here, why > > > > they are not going to harm you old-timers, etc ... they have a right > > > > to do things according to their own customs, etc ...' > > > > > > > > Well, Mr. Shaw, maybe all the stories going around the net about ICANN > > > > are just vicious lies being spread by NSI to discredit them. Maybe > > > > they have nothing but the most benevolent plans for everyone, and all > > > > that stuff in their contract that web sites and ISPs will be required > > > > to sign to keep their domain names is just there 'because the lawyers > > > > made them do it' and all that. Maybe when they all flew off to Santiago > > > > for a meeting which they kept secret even though they promised the > > > > Commerce Department that their meetings would all be open in the > > > > future it was just a clerical error that they forgot to print the > > > > minutes of the meeting at their website until large numbers of netizens > > > > were banging on their door asking for answers. They promised to elect > > > > a new board when Commerce demanded it, and now they say the present > > > > board will stick around for another year instead. Why? Couldn't > > > > they get any netizens to volunteer to be part of the board? They > > > > have not complied with a single demand made of them by Commerce; they > > > > remain secret, and the occassional thing we find out about them is > > > > > > > when a piece of email from Vint Cerf makes the rounds where Vint is > > > > saying he can spin a yarn to scare all the big companies into obeying > > > > ICANN/ISOC demands by telling them how their internet stocks will > > > > all go bad if they do not cooperate. I'll openly admit I no longer > > > > know what to believe, but Mr. Shaw, if you maintained a newsgroup and > > > > web site with lots of newcomers passing through every day, wouldn't > > > > you feel remiss if you did not tell them there are some things going > > > > on in the background that may cause a very profound change in their > > > > net/virtual life in the near future and they had better see about it > > > > and decide for themselves? > > > > > > > > Even though I do not know what to believe, I will tell you who I > > > > would believe, or would like to believe: Mister Vint Cerf. If *he* > > > > asked for space to explain their position, I would give him all > > > > the space he wanted. I'll bet there are a lot of moderators and > > > > webmasters who would gladly pre-empt their own agendas for the day > > > > and host his message. It would be an important message and one that > > > > we all need to hear. We need the TRUTH, and we need it fast. But > > > > somehow I just don't think we are going to have any broadcast messages > > > > to the net anytime soon from anyone at ICANN/ISOC about the 'state > > > > of the net' which forces me to draw the conclusion maybe the other > > > > side isn't wrong after all, despite their three-ring circuses with > > > > Jeff Williams as ringmaster and their other cast of all-star clowns. > > > > Even losers get things right once in a while. Would you like to see > > > > President Clinton, or other world leaders going around secretly like > > > > that, whispering among themselves and responding to their detractors > > > > not by answering the questions raised, but simply calling the other > > > > side 'a bunch of losers'? Then why should the net have to endure it? > > > > > > > > Please give my regards to Corazon and others on the staff there in > > > > Geneva with whom I've had conversations in the past, and relay my > > > > sincere thanks for ITU's continued support of this Digest. Without > > > > ITU, the past few years would have been quite difficult, if not > > > > entirely impossible. Thank you for writing, and for ITU's continued > > > > financial contributions to the Digest. PAT] > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > > > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
