I dont have a copy. Baptista and Fanego have it. I'll let them know you
want a peek.
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 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
>
>
