Joe and all,
Yes I posted them to the DNSO GA list for informational
purposes as Mo, was having a problem in getting on the
DNSO GA list for some odd reason. And yes, it seems that
WXW forgot to take his prozack again.... :(
!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> Well - those censored messages are now in the public domain. So here's a
> copy of the full message. Poor WXW is seeing ghosts again.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:17:01 -0700
> From: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Mo McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Roberto Gaetano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> DNSO Listadmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> General Assembly of the DNSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: ICANN/DNSO
>
> Mo and all,
>
> Thank you Mo for you insightful and interesting response to my
> original response to your concerns and interests as well and your
> idea that openness is or should be paramount in order to reach
> reasonable decisions that have a majority consensus that is
> measurable. We (you and INEGroup) are definitely in agreement here.
> It is as you most eloquently and accurately state below terrible
> that Harald, Roberto and the DNSO List admin as well as the ICANN
> Board are not in agreement with us here....
>
> Mo McKinlay wrote:
>
> > # Mo, I agree that restricting the content of a post to the DNSO
> > # GA list is a very bad thing and a terrible president to set in light
> > # of what the Internet represents, as well a forums like this one.
> > # I am glad that you re-open this sort of discussion again here,
> > # it is sorely needed.
> >
> > I find it interesting, but not suprising, that you head straight for the
> > issue closest to home, as it were - the post restriction for the GA list.
> >
> > While I believe that this is huge concern, not just for DNSO itself (and
> > obviously its members), my fears are largely based on the fact that this
> > issue will affect the general populus of Internet users.
> >
> > It saddens me to see that an organisation that is trusted by millions
> > across the globe to set out Internet policy has become almost nothing more
> > than a battleground.
> >
> > While I do not have first-hand experience of the issues that you have
> > faced (primarily the illegitimate rulings), the publically accessible
> > archives on the DNSO website do nothing short of speaking for themselves.
> >
> > Incidentally, due to a minor configuration error at my end, I have been
> > unable to subscribe to the GA list (my subscription address and the
> > address I responded to authentication from were ultimately
> > slightly different, and I am hence awaiting approval).
> >
> > In any case, whether I am subscribed to the GA list or not, I still have
> > the right to raise with you my areas of concern, as a "typical" user of
> > the Internet (if there is such a thing).
> >
> > If you'll bear with me, I'd like to share my concerns with you.
> >
> > First, there is the issue of the running and decision-making of DNSO, and
> > censorship of its members. My personal view on this issue is that reactive
> > action should be taken, not proactive. Moderated lists have thier place,
> > but not in an issue such as this. I therefore propose to the members, and
> > list admin, that moderation be removed. In light of this, however, I
> > strongly suggest that lists are managed properly.
> >
> > That is, breach of the _agreed_ rules is dealt with accordingly, *after*
> > messages have circulated throughout the list, to the responsible ADULTS
> > that populate it. If somebody becomes offended by a particular post, they
> > should say something to the list administrators, and action taken from
> > then on. However, the risks of pre-censoring posts are phenomenal - if a
> > post contains 90% of worthwhile content and 10% which *some* *may* find
> > offensive, it would be censored; thus rendering the 90% of worthwhile
> > content unheard. This helps nobody, *including* those who may have been
> > offended by a portion of the post.
> >
> > The majority of Internet mailing lists and newsgroups work in this way,
> > and do so very successfully; it seems to be a case of shooting yourself
> > in the foot to do it any other way.
> >
> > My other concerns are probably very contriversial, but this is currently
> > the only platform to make them heard. The ICANN At Large project has
> > failed before it even started, and many people believe it to be a sham -
> > there are a great number of people who are highly displeased at ICANN for
> > making an effective mockery out of them by suckering them into joining up
> > with what seems to be nothing more than a very expensive publicity
> > exercise. I sincerely hope that ICANN proves me wrong on this issue, but
> > I'm fast loosing faith.
> >
> > For a moment, I'm going to treat you like idiots. Please, don't be
> > offended, it's just necessary to illustrate my point on this coming issue
> > and to serve as a reminder to those who may have forgotten it.
> >
> > - Internet
> >
> > Global network of networks, spanning the entire globe; International;
> > interconnected (inter) networks (net); developed as a means to carry
> > research information between diverse networks (military establishments,
> > educational institutions).
> >
> > To many, this is obvious.
> >
> > [I'd like to take this opportunity to thank
> > Joe for his input, which arrived conveniently exactly as I was typing this
> > paragraph - much of his message embodied what I'm about to say.]
> >
> > However, it seems to me that the Internet has not only become
> > over-commercialised, but is also largely US-dominated where it should not
> > be anymore.
> >
> > I agree, that once upon a time the Internet was a venture of the military
> > establishment of the United States of America. This is now not so; there
> > is no *technical* reason why the control that the US currently has could
> > not be transferred to Australia, or Sweden, or Denmark; or any other
> > country with sufficient technical resources.
> >
> > Joe noted to me that the control the US exhibits is limited to the root
> > servers - and this is largely true. However, changing this is an extremely
> > difficult matter - politics are rife, and trying to take something from
> > the US that can make it money is like trying to take a pacifier from a
> > baby - it's just not worth the hassle.
> >
> > Or is it?
> >
> > It seems to me that the "pacifier" is dirty. I don't necessarily mean
> > corrupt (although that could be said by some, and I'm not making any moves
> > to counter that - I just won't be drawn into it unless I have slightly
> > stronger evidence than I do already :), but that it needs wiping clean.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it seems that the political control exhibited by the US and
> > enforced by ICANN isn't just limited to the US. For some reason I can't
> > quite fathom, UN decisions play a role in the development of the Internet.
> >
> > Surely I cannot be the only person who finds this concept alarming? While
> > I'll readily admit that the UN do some good work; I cannot see why the
> > United Nations has any particular control over the Internet - or more
> > specially - the root servers!
> >
> > I'd like to refer you all to:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/general/ps-report-22mar00.htm
> >
> > [IANA Report on Request for Delegation of the .ps TLD]
> >
> > In this report, it is stated that:
> >
> > "Because no code for Palestine was then on the ISO 3166-1 list, in May
> > 1997, the IANA declined to delegate a ccTLD to Palestine."
> >
> > And Palestine did not have a code in the ISO 3166-1 list because it was a
> > "Permanent Observer to the United Nations", and not a member.
> >
> > This, to me, seems somewhat ludicrous. Because of the *political* status
> > of a particular country, it ultimately cannot be given its own ccTLD.
> >
> > If this doesn't seem quite so odd to you, consider this:
> >
> > The UN imposes trade sanctions on country <X>. Country <X> has an ISO
> > 3166-1 country code of "xx". As part of the UN ruling, it is decided that
> > the "xx" country code should be removed from the ISO 3166-1 country code
> > list, and placed into the "reserved" section (where, until recently,
> > Palestine was placed).
> >
> > Based upon this action, IANA/ICANN decide that as Country <X> no longer
> > has a valid ISO 3166-1 country code, the ccTLD ".xx" should become
> > invalidated and removed from the ICANN root servers.
> >
> > What strengthens this issue further is the rise of e-commerce; if Country
> > <X> had a significant amount of its revenues generated by e-commerce, the
> > above outcome would not be a possibility, it would be a *certainty*.
> >
> > Let me remind you, once again, that the Internet is a *global* network of
> > networks. Not a US network of networks, not even a United Nations network
> > of networks, but a *global* one.
> >
> > The startling thing is, the more that I investigate these issues, the more
> > I find which goes against everything that Postel and others aspired to
> > create.
> >
> > My solution (?) is this, and you probably won't all agree on this :-)
> >
> > 1) All countries be assigned a two-level country code. These codes become
> > independent of ISO 3166-1, because of its obvious bias. Countries which
> > currently have an ISO 3166-1 country code continue to use this code.
> >
> > 2) A global organsation is formed to perform the job of the IANA. This
> > organisation would ideally allow every country to be represented fairly,
> > as well as giving the opportunity for individuals, educational
> > establishments, non-profit organsiations and commerical entities to have a
> > fair say in the running and control of the Internet. I will go into this
> > in more detail below (and I will refer to this organisation as GAINAN -
> > Global Authority for Internet Names and Numbers).
> >
> > 3) The gTLDs are abolished. Additionally, the naming scheme with ccTLDs is
> > standardised into a two- or three-letter dot two-letter form (co.us,
> > net.us, co.jp, and so on). The administration of the names within each
> > country is managed by the entity or entities nominated by that country,
> > under the authority of GAINAN.
> >
> > 4) Specific rules be implemented and enforced by GAINAN which prevent
> > domain hoarding and cybersquatting.
> >
> > While it may be the case that the namespace within publically-available
> > gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) is limited, creating new gTLDs cannot be a
> > long-term answer. While in the short-term it would ease the strain and
> > allow entities to register names which are not available under the
> > preexisting gTLDs, in the long term, the ultimate outcome would be exactly
> > the same as if the new gTLDs had not been created, except that there would
> > be more names to manage.
> >
> > For example, if a .home was added for personal sites, nobody can really
> > expect large commercial entities not to register their names within the
> > new gTLD. Companies such as Netscape/AOL already watch ICANN for new
> > ccTLDs and immediately register all available combinations of their names
> > as soon as registration facilities are available; the same would happen
> > within gTLDs, whatever the original intentions of the new the gTLDs.
> >
> > Secondly, there is the problem that the sub ccTLD namespace is
> > non-standardised, by and large. The structure of .us is completely
> > different to .uk, .cx, .cc, and so on. This has been one of the primary
> > reasons why .com, .org and .net were never replaced with more appropriate
> > domains within .us - the structure of .us didn't allow for it.
> >
> > While I appreciate that the Internet is global, gTLDs do not solve any
> > problems; quite the reverse. While it is *nice* to have a dot com, and
> > give the impression that your business is global, very few actually are.
> > Therefore I propose that companies wishing to conduct e-business abroad
> > register their name within the appropriate countries. If they do not wish
> > to do so, then advertising a .co.<cc> is no major hardship - especially if
> > the novelty value of gTLDs has been removed by removing gTLDs themselves.
> >
> > Now, onto GIANAN. The name is ficticious, but could easily be real. My
> > proposal, although slightly idealistic, could work if implemented
> > properly, and is this:
> >
> > - In each issue, every represented country has a single vote. No country
> > has an overriding vote or the power of veto. A majority passes a motion,
> > a hung committee causes a revote to take place at an individual
> > participant level, followed by a revote at the country level.
> >
> > - A country's vote is determined by a majority vote of all the
> > participants. Each participant may either be a representative of an
> > organisation, or an individual. In either case, a participant is allowed a
> > single vote. Again, no vote is overriding or has the power of veto.
> >
> > - Participant-level ballots are secret; this is to help prevent
> > organisations influencing employees into voting in their favour.
> >
> > - A motion is passed within a country upon a majority. A hung vote causes
> > a re-ballot to take place.
> >
> > I think that just about sums it up.
> >
> > I'm sure there's more, but I'm pretty drained right now. My opinions will
> > most like cause comment, if nothing else, and I'd be glad to hear others
> > views - what I've come up with is based largely on my own experience, and
> > my own concerns, and if there's failings or shortfallings in what I've
> > said, I'd like to know - after all, what I'd like is a peaceful (although
> > possibly heated at times :) debate, not an argument. I appreciate that
> > everybody has their own views and will most likely want to share that with
> > us and add to (and disagree with) what I've said - and that, in my opinion
> > is good. (Also, if you agree with what I've said, I'd also like to know!)
> >
> > I'm not in this game for my benefit, I want to see the Internet succeed.
> > It hasn't yet, but it just might.
> >
> > If you know of anybody else who should be involved in this discussion,
> > please let me know. Perhaps it'd be worth forming a separate mailing list?
> > After all, GA seems a little unbalanced; an independant list might serve
> > the purpose.
> >
> > I'd also like to think that I do this in the spirit of Jon Postel. He
> > built the Internet, and did the hard work for us; we've got the easy job,
> > let's not screw it up. I'd like to quote this from RFC2468, "A tribute to
> > Jonathon Postel: I Remember IANA":
> >
> > "If Jon were here, I am sure he would urge us not to mourn his passing
> > but to celebrate his life and his contributions. He would remind us
> > that there is still much work to be done and that we now have the
> > responsibility and the opportunity to do our part. I doubt that
> > anyone could possibly duplicate his record, but it stands as a
> > measure of one man's astonishing contribution to a community he knew
> > and loved."
> >
> > I think that means something to all of us.
> >
> > Thank you again for your time,
> >
> > Mo.
> >
> > --
> > Mo McKinlay Chief Software Architect inter/open Labs
> > mmckinlay (at) labs.interopen.org http://www.interopen.org
>
> 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
