IETF.Fact.Check IETF Participants that were also at ICANN Costa Rica Meeting ?

[Jim Fleming]

IETF.Fact.Check IETF Participants that were also at ICANN Costa Rica Meeting ?

https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf83/attendance.py

http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/CR43/

Registration list as of: 03/29/2012
NAMEAFFILIATION COUNTRY
AARON STEWART   CLOUD VINE  United States
Aarón Quesada MéndezIce Costa Rica
Abdoul-Akim AdjibolaBenin Telecoms  BENIN
Abel Brenes University of Cosra RicaCosta Rica
ABELARDO FONSECALA NACIÒN   Costa Rica
Abiodun Olawale Reboot& Associates Ltd  
Abraham Araya   MMSoluciones Seguridad en Informatica   Costa Rica
Abraham Djekou  AtciCote d''Ivoire
Abraham Rodriguez   Agencia Datsun Nissan   Costa Rica
Acc Va Cac  Ac Ac   CR
Adalberto López NIC Costa Rica  
Adam Eisner Tucows Inc. 
Adam Peake  Glocom  Japan
Adaobi OkekeNigerian Communications Commission  Nigeria
Adebiyi Oladipo Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NIRA)
Nigeria
Adebunmi Akinbo Young Internet Professionals (YiPS)/(NiRA) dotNG
Nigeria
Adela Elena Danciu  Fellowship  Romania
Adrian Carballo South School On Internet Governance Argentina
Adrian Garcia   ISOC Costa Rica Chapter Costa Rica
Adrian Kinderis ARI Registry Services   Australia
Adrián PérezCcssCosta Rica
Adrián Quesada RodríguezCosta Rica
Adrián Solano   Acoprot Costa Rica
ADRIANA DIAZICANN   Costa Rica
Adriana GonzálezSulá Batsú  Costa Rica
Adriana Rivero  Lacnic  Uruguay
Adriana Ulate   COSTA RICA
AGARWAL SWAPNA  .INDIA  India
Ague Alain  Ministry of agriculture Bénin
Ahsan Fahmi Pakistan
Aimee DezielMad 
Akewushola AdisaSanbak Communications CommissionNigeria
Akinori Maemura JPNIC   Japan
Alain ArteroEuropean Broadcasting Union France
Alain Berranger Centre d'étude et de coopération internationale 
Canada
Alain BidronFrance Telecom/ETNO France
Alain Patrick Aina  AFRIMIC Bénin
Alan BarrettAfriNIC / ASO-ACSouth Africa
Alan Fernández MarínUniversidad de Costa Rica   Costa Rica
Alan Fernández MarínUniversidad de Costa Rica   Costa Rica
Alan Greenberg  Alac/gnso   Canada
Alan Gutierrez  Att Bolivia
Alberto Gomez   Red.es  España
Alberto Medrano Cáceres Universidad NacionalCosta Rica
Alejandra CastroArias & Muñoz   Costa Rica
Alejandra Fernández Bonilla TV Channel 15, University of Costa Rica 
Costa Rica
Alejandra Reynoso   Fellowship  Guatemala
Alejandro Berrocal Valverde Viceministrerio Telecomunicaciones MINAET
Costa Rica
Alejandro Cruz  Ministro de CIencia y TecnologiaCosta Rica
Alejandro Esquivel RodriguezCisco Systems   Costa Rica
Alejandro GuzmanASO AC - LACNIC - GoogleColombia
Alejandro Jimenez   Ice Costa Rica
Alejandro Liz   Nic Do  Dominican Republic
Alejandro MoscolFellow  PERÚ
Alejandro Pisanty   ISOC Mexico Mexico
Alejandro Portilla Navarro  Radio Universidad de Costa Rica Costa 
Rica
Alejandro RiveraICE Costa Rica
Alejandro Solis Unimer  Costa Rica
Alex BlowersNominet United Kingdom
Alex Mwangangi  Municipal Council Of Mavoko KENYA
Alex SiffrinKey-Systems GmbH
Alex Stamos iSEC Partners   United States
Alexa Raad  Architelos  United States
Alexander Alí   Costa Rica
Alexander FloresUniversidad de Costa Rica   Costa Rica
Alexander Mora  CAMTIC  Costa Rica
Alexander Mora  Universidad de Costa Rica   Costa Rica
Alexander Otárola   Omd Costa Rica
Alexander Panov Ru-Center   Russia
Alexander Rojas Coral Technologies  Costa Rica
Alexander Salas ArceOficina Digital - CentroAmerica Hosting Costa 
Rica
Alexander Schubert  dotgay LLC  USA
Alexander SchwertnerEPAG Domainservices GmbHGermany
Alexander Seger Council of Europe   France
Alexis Coto Colegio AgropecuarioCosta Rica
Alexis Sandoval Ice Costa Rica
Alfredo Lopez Hernandez Enredo  Colombia
Alfredo PinochetLatinTLD, Inc.  Chile
Ali Asghar  Ministry of I.C.T information technology organizat  
Indonesia
Alice Huang Net-Chinese Co., Ltd.   Taiwan
Alice JansenIcann   Belgium
Alice MunyuaMinistry of Information and Communications  Kenya
Alicia Avendaño Digital Government, Costa Rica  Costa Rica
Alicia Paz  Rds-Hn  HONDURAS
Alina Syunkova  Icann   USA
Aline Valerie AssakoNATIONAL AGENCY FOR ICT's   CAMEROON
Alissa Sekulic  TANGO Registry Services ®   Germany
Allan Bermúdez Carvajal Ice Costa Rica
Allan Campos Gallo  Universidad de Costa Rica   Costa Rica
Allan Perez colegio de abogados CR  Costa Rica
Alvaro ArayaLightmaster Dev Costa Rica
Alvaro Hernandez 

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."

[Jim Fleming]

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-speed-mobility-00

"Improving HTTP starts with speed."

Improving the Inter.NET starts with speed.

"HTTP Speed+Mobility,"

Locator-ID Separation ?
Locator (60) + ID (68)
60-bit Symmetric Addressing in the IPv4 160-bit Header
68-bit Symmetric Addressing in the IPv16 320-bit Header with Data
 DNS ~ 60+68 ~ VRHL+000.T1.111+PORT12+ASN30+FRAG6 + LAN4+60+CPE4

"The proposal starts from both the Google SPDY protocol and the work
the IETF has done around WebSockets."
If you start with a HAMMER everything may look like a NAIL.

Improving the Inter.NET starts with speed.
A Comprehensive (Modern) Architecture may be better than the old
Hammer and Nails?

Removing TCP may help.
Re-Tooling UDP for Peer-2-Peer may help.
[The 12-bit Port value also rides in the old Identification Field in
the IP Header - are three copies needed?]
2 Protocol Bits frees up 6 bits for addressing
4 TTL Bits encourages less hops and frees up addressing bits
Less.is.More may result in Speed

IPv6 is not built for Speed - Yet people sure are trying to sell it -
Do consumers want it ?

They may prefer a Net.Work as opposed to a Not.Work

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check "Improving HTTP starts with speed."

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check ? 2012 State of the Art according to the ISOC ?

[Jim Fleming]

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

? 2012 State of the Art according to the ISOC ?

http://www.internetsociety.org/events/internet-society-panel-openid-and-oauth-ietf-83

Internet Society Panel on OpenID and OAuth @ IETF 83
Date:
27 March 2012 - 11:45am
Location: Le Palais des Congres, Paris, France, Room 242B
Time: 11:45 - 12:45 local time

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

IETF.FACT.CHECK ....839 new Top Level Domains or more...plus the DIRTY.BIT

[Jim Fleming]

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

The Latest Number of TLD Application System Registrants

"As of 25 March 2012 the number of registered users in the online TLD
Application System (TAS) stands at 839. However, this number does not
necessarily represent the total number of applications since each
registrant can apply for up to 50 new generic Top-Level Domains."

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics

Only the TOP 4096 TLDs will be carried in the new DNS
http://archive.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html

That used to be called Best.of.Breed.

Check out the TLDs leaked on the screens in this video from
Music.Night and the DIRTY.BIT** (aka the Evil.Bit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTEtM_SXrU&feature=player_embedded

Domainers have much better parties than the ISOC and IETF - and
Domainers have 3D and Avatars and web-cams and Peer-2-Peer

http://ZOOM.NAME

The DIRTY.BIT is set in the packet header after the Source and
Destination fields change places as the One-Way packet routes the
second half of the 60-bit path.

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM://BOX Protocol(s)

[Jim Fleming]

IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM://BOX Protocol(s)

ZOOM://Protocols

There are two dominant header sizes 160-bits and 320-bits

It takes three 160-bit headers to form a 480-bit DHT*** Key or a
160-bit header and a 320-bit header

The first 4 bits of the 160-bit header are SDSD for Source and
Destination Addressing
A VVRR view is also used for Version and Ring
A legacy value of 0100 is Version 01 and Ring 0 to Ring 0 - Source 0
Destination 0
a value of 0011 is Version 00 and Ring 1 to Ring 1 - Source 1
Destination 1 - used behind the first 10/100 firewall 100/8
...other values of the 4 bits are left as an exercise for the reader...

Your stand-alone ZOOM://BOX has all the details and documentation and
NO back-haul connection - Mules carry the messages - sometimes very
slowly and long distances...
http://WheresGeorge.com

===

***DHT - Distributed Hash Table

"The Network IS the Registry"

A Virtual Disk Drive with 480-bit Sector Addresses (KEY)

1024 Byte DATA Blocks

4 Bitt TIME Setting

(Day | Week | Month | Year)


Two Simple Operations

PUT(KEY,DATA,TIME)

GET(KEY)


The global network stores the DATA via the KEY for the period of TIME.
The DATA is returned when the proper KEY is provided via GET(KEY).
ACID - Atomic, Coherent, Isolated & Durable apply.

It all just works, like magic. Replication of DATA, KEY management,
etc. is handled via the Peer-2-Peer Network of Nodes. THERE IS NO
CLOUD. FOG would be a better description. Each user contributes part
of their server and power capacity.

The maximum TIME is one Year + one Month + one Week + one Day ().
A TIME of () specifies the default BIT Throttle - Genesis BITT
Block Chain.

Applications build on top of the DHT to provide other virtual
services, such as the DNS - Domain Name System. The 480-bit KEY can be
encoded via an 80 Symbol ZOOM.NAME. Three 160-bit BITT Addresses can
be combined to form a unique 480-bit KEY.


Operations are THROTTLED by BITTs 

(and Peer-2-Peer Stooges)

IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM:// Scheme and ZOOM://BOX Architecture and the Inter.NOT

[Jim Fleming]

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

IETF.Fact.Check on the ZOOM:// Scheme and ZOOM://BOX Architecture

ZOOM:// is a Scheme not a Protocol

The ZOOM://BOX Architecture as No Back-Haul connection to the Legacy Inter.NET

When you deploy your free open-source ZOOM://BOX and invite wireless
users they connect to the Inter.NOT

NOTE: the .NOT Top.Level.Domain is "Confusingly Similar" to the .NET
Top.Level.Domain so you are banned from using it

The ZOOM://BOX Architecture uses modern Peer-2-Peer and MULE
Technology (aka Sneaker.Net)

Users are the MULES and they carry Objects from place to place

ZOOM=15.3.3.13 or 0xF33D = P2P Port 62,269

The Official ZOOM://DNS 4-bit Alphabet
"ETAO^NRIS^HDLF^CMUZ"
"0123^4567^89AB^CDEF"

Note: The Letter "Z" is a WildCard (.-X*)
Use ZNZ for .NZ or ZOOM://NZ

ZOOM=15.3.3.13 or 0xF33D = P2P Port 62,269

ZOOM://DNS on Port 62,269

COM=12.3.13 or 0xC3D = P2P Port 3133

NET=4.0.1 or 0x401 = P2P Port 1025

ZNZ=15.4.15 or 0xF4F = P2P Port 3919

There is no "G" for .ORG or "B" for .BIZ

NO $$.IANA.$$ is needed to hand-select Ports

EXPLORE://BLOCK0
http://blockexplorer.com/b/0

===

10/100 Ethernet

10/8
100/8
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt

There are 10 kinds of people in the world those that understand binary
and those that do not
There are 100 kinds of people in the world those that see 100 as 4 and 99 others

Migrating to Binary prefixes with IPv4 addresses can be interesting.
10.9.8.7.6 it takes 2 bits to store 10
How many bits does it take to store 100 ?

IETF.Fact.Check - .COM .NET .ORG Legacy DNS vs Peer-2-Peer DNS

[Jim Fleming]

ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check

IETF.Fact.Check - .COM .NET .ORG Legacy DNS vs Peer-2-Peer DNS

1. The .COM .NET .ORG ICANN (IANA) U.S. Department of Commerce
contracts are coming up for renewal.[1]

2. The Legacy Client-Server DNS is OUT-DATED and highly monetized for
Meat.Space.Mammals

3. Netizens clearly prefer True.Internet.Technology with a Peer-2-Peer
Architecture

4. Peer-2-Peer DNS and Virtual Currency are finally gaining
market-share with BitCoin and NameCoin using Bit.Throttles.[2]

5. Migration of existing .COM and .NET owners to Peer-2-Peer DNS
negates the need for .COM and .NET contract renewals.

6. Migration of existing .ORG owners to Peer-2-Peer DNS appears to be
a waste of time.

7. Peer-2-Peer DNS begins with Digital.Wallets and many companies are
working on variations and services.[3]


ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check - It does not appear that the IETF has any
current interest in Peer-2-Peer DNS

 ZOOM://IETF.Fact.Check - The .ORG contract renewal could impact
the ISOC (IETF) and a $34,000,000 annual donation from the PIR (set up
by the ISOC). People with $600,000 annual non-profit compensation
packages may oppose any changes.


SEARCH://BITCOIN
http://bitcoin.org/
SEARCH://NAMECOIN
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin


[1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm

[2] http://bittco.yolasite.com

[3] http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/

IAB responds to ICANN questions concerning “The Interpretation of Rules in the ICANN gTLD Guidebook”

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.iab.org/2012/03/27/iab-responds-to-icann-questions-concerning-the-interpretation-of-rules-in-the-icann-gtld-guidebook/

IAB responds to ICANN questions concerning “The Interpretation of
Rules in the ICANN gTLD Guidebook”

"The IAB statement could be interpreted as a recommendation to ICANN to
revise the Applicant Guidebook, or as a warning to be cautious when
evaluating applied-for strings with certain properties."
===

http://blog.icann.org/2012/03/ten-million-dns-resolvers-on-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-26813

600 Applicants with 50 TLDs at $185,000 each is $5,550,000,000 - that
could pay for a lot of travel and parties

Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA

[Jim Fleming]

Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - 100/8 IANA

Fact Check:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt

Was the decision to cut into the (in-use) 100/8 IPv4 Address Spectrum
made because of the consumer human factors of using 10/8 on their
VPNs?

Were existing users in 100/8 advised that they will not be routable
with that change ?

Was the U.S. FCC consulted about the 100/8 Address Spectrum usage ?

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-iii
Council Meetings
3/22/12
Steve Crocker (ISOC ICANN)

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/technological-advisory-council
Vinton Cerf (ISOC ICANN ARIN)

March 20, 2012 - FCC Announces the next Technological Advisory
Committee Meeting on March 28, 2012

8 Days Notice ?

Fact.Check IETF Meeting - Paris, France - Internet Engineering

[Jim Fleming]

IETF Meeting Registration System
Attendance List
IETF 83
Paris, France
March 25-30, 2012
https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf83/attendance.py

What (current) Internet Engineering protocols, software, etc. are the
following people working on ?

What are the RFCs they are authoring ?

St AmourLynnInternet Society
Daigle  Leslie  Internet Society
Lynch   LucyInternet Society
Kummer  Markus  Internet Society
Bradner Scott   Harvard University (ARIN?)
Crocker Steve   Shinkuro, Inc.(ICANN?)
RoesslerThomas  W3C (ICANN?)
Seltzer Wendy   W3C (ICANN?)

What are the new Top Level Domains these people are discussing at IETF ?

Abley   Joseph  ICANN
Manderson   Terry   ICANN
liang   pearl   ICANN
Okubo   TomofumiICANN
Sheng   Steve   ICANN
Arias   Francisco   ICANN
Raveh   Simon   ICANN
Bird Gerich Elise   ICANN
Lee XiaodongICANN
Bachollet   Sebastien   ICANN
SadowskyGeorge  ICANN
Cotton  MichelleICANN

Fact.Check IETF Meeting - 1460 registrations:

[Jim Fleming]

IETF Meeting Registration System
Attendance List
IETF 83
Paris, France
March 25-30, 2012
Last updated Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 06:24:32 PDT
1460 registrations:
https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf83/attendance.py

Is the ISOC annual buget now $34,000,000 ?

What is the ICANN annual budget ?

How many $600,000 per year non-profit public benefit employees are now
in The.Community?

Kruse   Megan   Internet SocietyUS  Yes YES
Minton  Graham  Internet SocietyCH  No  
HoytScott   Internet SocietyUS  No  
O'Donoghue  Karen   Internet SocietyUS  Yes 
St AmourLynnInternet SocietyUS  No  YES
YorkDan Internet SocietyUS  Yes YES
Daigle  Leslie  Internet SocietyUS  Yes 
Roseman Walda   Internet SocietyUS  No  
Robachevsky Andrei  Internet SocietyNL  No  
Lynch   LucyInternet SocietyUS  Yes 
Conte   Steve   Internet SocietyUS  Yes 
Sebuck  Kathy   Internet SocietyUS  No  YES
Kummer  Markus  Internet SocietyCH  Yes 
Craemer Kevin   Internet SocietyUS  Yes 
Seidler Nicolas Internet SocietyCH  Yes 
RunnegarChristine   Internet SocietyCH  Yes 
CowiesonToral   Internet SocietyUS  No  
DvorshakAndrew  Internet SocietyUS  No  
Brigner PaulInternet SocietyUS  No  YES
Greenspan   Robin   Internet SocietyUS  No  
FordMat Internet Society (ISOC) US  No  

Abley   Joseph  ICANN   CA  Yes 
Manderson   Terry   ICANN   AU  Yes 
liang   pearl   ICANN   US  Yes 
Okubo   TomofumiICANN   US  Yes 
Sheng   Steve   ICANN   US  Yes 
Arias   Francisco   ICANN   US  Yes YES
Raveh   Simon   ICANN   US  No  
Bird Gerich Elise   ICANN   US  Yes 
Lee XiaodongICANN   US  No  
Bachollet   Sebastien   ICANN   US  Yes 
SadowskyGeorge  ICANN   US  No  YES
Cotton  MichelleICANN - IANAUS  No  

Huston  Geoff   APNIC   AU  Yes 
EllacottByron   APNIC   AU  No
Newton  Andrew  ARINUS  Yes YES
Kosters MarkARINUS  No  
Aronson Cathy   ARIN Advisory Council   US  Yes 
Servin  Arturo  LACNIC  UY  No  YES
Bruijnzeels Tim RIPE NCCNL  No  
Juhasz  Miklos  RIPE NCCNL  No  
Wijnen  BertRIPE NCCNL  Yes 
BuddhdevAnand   RIPE NCCNL  No  
Kuehne  Mirjam  RIPE NCCNL  No
AKPLOGANADIEL AYODELE   AfriNIC MU  No  
AINAAlain PATRICK   AfriNIC Ltd TG  Yes

Dupont  Francis ISC FR  Yes 
Damas   JoãoISC ES  Yes 
kaeomerike  ISC US  No  
Morris  Stephen ISC GB  Yes YES
Selkirk PaulISC US  No  
Woolf   Suzanne ISC US  Yes 
KerrShane   ISC (Internet Systems Consortium)   NL  Yes 
Woodman AListairISC.org US  Yes YES
Mrugalski   Tomek   ISC/Gdansk University of Technology PL  Yes

Re: "...they didn't hide the fact that they were representing their employers..." ?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: "...they didn't hide the fact that they were representing their 
employers..." ?


> Okay, Jim.  I'll bite.  ... Can you please identify the specific laws 
> that lead you to this assertion?  It is quite a surprize to me who 
> has spent a couple of decades as a private sector representative 
> attempting to collaborate with very visible US Governement 
> employees in the specification telecommunications protocols.
> 
> On 27 Mar 2003, at 8:58, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > 2. It is against the U.S. Federal laws for federally funded people
> > to work on telecommunication protocols. 
> 
> 
> Greg Ratta, Vice-Chairman, T1S1: Services, Architectures and Signaling
> Lucent Technologies
> Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===

Are you a U.S. Citizen ?
...keep in mind that U.S. Citizens are restricted by Federal Law from certain 
conversations...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Foreign+Espionage+Act
18 USC 90 - Economic Espionage Act of 1996
... PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS Cite as the "Economic Espionage Act of 1996 ... 
Economic espionage. ... knowing
that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign ...
www.tscm.com/USC18_90.html
NCIX - Economic Espionage Act of 1996
This Act may be cited as the "Economic Espionage Act of 1996.". ... Economic 
Espionage. ... or
knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign ...
www.ncix.gov/pubs/online/eea_96.htm
First Foreign Economic Espionage Indictment; Defendants Steal ...
... also charges a violation of The Economic Espionage Act against Okamoto ... with 
transporting,
transmitting and transferring in interstate and foreign commerce, DNA ...
www.cybercrime.gov/Okamoto_SerizawaIndict.htm
Economic Espionage Act of 1996 -- Protection of Trade Secrets -- ...
... This Act may be cited as the "Economic Espionage Act of 1996.". ... Economic 
Espionage. ... or
knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign ...
www.aurorawdc.com/espact96.htm
[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the ...
... December 13, 2001 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Diffserv] diffserv PIB: a question to the
WG > http://www.google.com/search?q=foreign+espionage+act > > THE ECONOMIC ...
www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/ 2001-December/001018.html
Espionage Law
... copied from Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial
Espionage, June 1997, and brochure The Economic Espionage Act of 1996: A ...
rf-web.tamu.edu/security/SECGUIDE/T1threat/Legal.htm
THE ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1996: THE THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS IS ...
... goods, wares or merchandise" were transported in "interstate or foreign commerce"
and ... of the primary reasons for enacting the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 ...
my.execpc.com/~mhallign/crime.html

"...handwaving arguments that "something bad might happen"..." ?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This is so typical of the modern IETF -- 102 people were persuaded
> by handwaving arguments that "something bad might happen"

Imagine how much hand-waving 418 clueless people can do...
http://register.icann.org/cgi/attendees.cgi

...fortunately, 99.9% of the rest of the world can route around them via the 
InterNAT...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

Note: .GOV employees can make **purchasing decisions** about telecommunication 
protocols, they just can not spec them and develop
them and therefore warp the free markets in the United States of America.

U.S. DOD to Select the French GSM over CDMA ?

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200303/msg00387.html
"We have learned that planners at the Department of Defense and USAID are
currently envisioning using federal appropriations to deploy a
European-based wireless technology known as GSM ('Groupe Speciale Mobile' --
this standard was developed by the French) for this new Iraqi cellphone
system," Mr. Issa wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
=============

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

"...they didn't hide the fact that they were representing their employers..." ?

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipr-wg/current/msg01004.html
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) 
"I just spent two years at W3C solving this very problem. At the table
were many of the same folks on this WG, except there they didn't hide
the fact that they were representing their employers."


You may be missing two key points...

1. Many of the I* society participants are funded directly or indirectly by the U.S. 
Government.

2. It is against the U.S. Federal laws for federally funded people to work on 
telecommunication protocols.

That forces people to lie. Once they learn to lie, it becomes a big game. They then 
move
that game to their non-profit, corporate boards, where they are "Directors" but tell 
people
that they stand in the hallway at meetings, and therefore are not involved. In 
summary, they
(the I* society liars) have spent years gaming every U.S. funded system. You are their 
prey.


Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...

[Jim Fleming]

Since the list is censored, there is no point in commenting...

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg14158.html

Jim Fleming
http://IPv8.no-ip.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter O'Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'The IETF'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...


> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:53 PM -0600 Jim Fleming 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Welcome to the InterNAT...
> >
> >
> >> If you send one message a day, I might read it. Send 10, and we
> >> start asking for your posting privileges to be suspended. Very
> >> simple. Get it?
> 
> I'm with Noel on this.  Fleming refuses to learn.
> Time to pull his posting privileges again.
> 
> Peter
> 

Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Welcome to the InterNAT...


> If you send one message a day, I might read it. Send 10, and we start asking
> for your posting privileges to be suspended. Very simple. Get it?
> 
> Noel
> 

"The RIRs do not charge for Internet Number Resources."

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-communique-to-gac.html
"The RIRs do not charge for Internet Number Resources."
==

Welcome to the InterNAT...

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A modest request: could all the people who think

Welcome to the InterNAT...where the world is routing around the I* society...

http://IPv8.VRX.net
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee

NAT traversal....????....Re: [Sip] Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and IESG use SIP for conference calls

[Jim Fleming]

NAT traversal

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html
NATs are a no-no
HEATH: I was going to say that IEEE Spectrum should make it very clear that this 
group's consensus would appear to be: let's
discourage NATs--I mean the manufacture of them at all--because there is a real need 
for IPv6.

HUITEMA: It's more than that. There is a real need for security and you can't have 
security with NATs.

CERF: NAT is a guaranteed spoofing box in effect.




- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Freedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: [Sip] Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and IESG use SIP for 
conference calls


Agreed. To enable access from behind firewalls (ie: homes, hotels,
conferences, airports, Asia, ...), we can donate a B2BUA-based NAT traversal
solution for SIP (same one that Pulver's Free World Dialup uses). It sits
near the proxy, with nothing needed on the client end.

Bottom line: In addition to helping the IESG and IAB, it will help SIP to
have more IETF participants gaining experience with it.

  -Dan





Dan Freedman, CEO, Jasomi Networks, Inc.
2033 Gateway Place, Suite 500, San Jose, CA, 95110
Phone   +1.403.680.2351
Fax +1.403.269.2993
Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SIP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web www.jasomi.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jiri
Kuthan
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:01 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich; 'Richard Shockey'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Scott Petrack; Christian Stredicke

That's great idea. We can help with our free SIP server (www.iptel.org/ser/)

and hosting the services.

-Jiri

At 03:46 PM 3/25/2003, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>There are excellent SIP voice conferencing bridges available, such as
>from snom AG and eDial. They can be used with various soft clients such
>as the Windows Messenger, HotSIP Active Contacts or the Pingtel instant
>expressa, or any SIP phone.
>
>I have taken the liberty of copying here the contacts for snom AG and
>eDial, in case this will be pursued. I wonder if snom AG or eDial would
>just give the IESG and IAB access to their conference servers?
>
>Would there be interest to have access to a WorldCom SIP conference
>bridge?
>
>Thanks, Henry
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>> Behalf Of Richard Shockey
>> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 6:04 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [Sip] Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and 
>> IESG use SIP for conference calls
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Like many of us I was moved my Harald's appeal for 
>> suggestions for helping 
>> to cut down costs in the IETF.
>> 
>> I certainly endorse the idea of considering Canada or Mexico 
>> as possible 
>> sites for future IETF meetings, but I suspect that the weekly 
>> teleconferece 
>> calls that the IAB and IESG have represent a significant line 
>> item for the 
>> Secretariat.
>> 
>> In case anyone has not heard, SIP is quite capable of 
>> handling this type of 
>> task and there are a variety of commercial as well as open 
>> source Client 
>> User Agents as well as commercial products and services that 
>> could help 
>> reduce this cost.
>> 
>> I'm sure the SIP working group could help the Secretariat 
>> identify products 
>> and services that could make this essential function more 
>> productive and 
>> operate at less cost.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  >
>> Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology 
>> Initiatives NeuStar Inc.
>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
>> Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 
>> 815.333.1237 >  or 
>> 
>
>   ; 
><
>
>___
>Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
>Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
>
>___
>Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
>This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
>Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
>Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip 

___
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip

The AM Internet or the FM InterNAT ?

[Jim Fleming]

Note, there is a 1.6 meg limit on what can go on the IPv8 GK boot floppy...
http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/
...this tool can help Windows users...
http://www.winimage.com

...the Uni* O/S Kernel of course has to have the NetFilter changes to support the AM 
and FM bit...

128-bit DNS  Record Flag Day Formats
2003:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF..]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
[YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF..]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("AM/FM") bit in Fragment Offset [S]
1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D]
2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL]
1-bit for Options Control [O]
7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFF]
4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field []
Default SDLL.OFFF.. = ...
FFF.. = GGG..
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
IPv8
0GGG[32-bits][Port]
IPv16
0GGG[32-bits][Port]
1AAA[32-bits][Port]
A...A=ASN=32769...65535


Jim Fleming
http://IPv8.no-ip.com

Three I* society Registries...and Three New Toy (Proof of Concept) TLDs ?

[Jim Fleming]

Three I* society Registries...and Three New Toy (Proof of Concept) TLDs ?

http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm

Re: Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and IESG use SIP for conference calls

[Jim Fleming]

Do you think that Americans are interested in continuing to eat the dog food fed to 
them by the I* society ?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt
S. Bradner
"The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet community
and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR holders."
=

The I* society (small s...aka The Big Lie Society) does not appear to respect anyone's 
rights.
The I* society simply takes what it wants, does not reference other people's work 
(prior art, etc.),
and attempts to do ethnic cleansing on networks to only allow economic advantage to 
flow to their insiders...
Via censorship and control of the media and the view presented to governments, the I* 
society attempts
to shape history to match their reality...which is not the truth...

Educated and enlightened people learn the truth and pass it on from one generation to 
the next...
...the I* society has yet to figure out a way to control what is in all people's 
meatspace brains...
Truth-seeking people have to protect themselves and route around the dictatorial 
regimes of the I* society...
The InterNAT is one of the first steps in setting up that protection...
===
===
===


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:12 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt


> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the 
> IETF.
> 
> Title : Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
> Author(s) : S. Bradner
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt
> Pages : 14
> Date : 2003-3-24
> 
> The IETF policies about intellectual property rights (IPR), such as
> patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
> designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
> much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
> possible.  The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet
> community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
> rights of IPR holders.  This memo details the IETF policies
> concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It
> also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.
> This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC XXXY, replaces Section 10 of
> RFC 2026. [note to RFC editor - replace XXXY with number of IETF SUB]
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt
> 
> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
> ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> "get draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt".
> 
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
> 
> Send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body type:
> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt".
> 
> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> how to manipulate these messages.
> 
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
> 

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Shockey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: Eating our own Dog Food...could the IAB and IESG use SIP for conference calls


> 
> Like many of us I was moved my Harald's appeal for suggestions for helping 
> to cut down costs in the IETF.
> 
> I certainly endorse the idea of considering Canada or Mexico as possible 
> sites for future IETF meetings, but I suspect that the weekly teleconferece 
> calls that the IAB and IESG have represent a significant line item for the 
> Secretariat.
> 
> In case anyone has not heard, SIP is quite capable of handling this type of 
> task and there are a variety of commercial as well as open source Client 
> User Agents as well as commercial produ

Re: [Enum] (no subject)

[Jim Fleming]

Thank you for your response. U.S. Federal laws require that
such discussions be held in open forums. As a individual from
the .EDU community, I am not sure what your interest would
be, but everyone is welcome to their opinion.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO


- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Massey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)


> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] dropped from this thread
>
> You posted to the ietf list so I assume you want some feedback from
> the thousands of people like me who read the list.
>
> First, you are asking for the disclosure of "widely reported"
> information.  Think about the logic of that for minute.
> I'm not sure what you mean by disclose, but my dictionary says:
>   disclose: To make known something heretofore kept secret.
>
> Second, why should I care about Tony and Dave's employment
> history?  It is true that IETF topics have commercial implications,
> but the technical merit of an idea is not related to how it impacts
> the foo.com business plan.  Stick to the technical content and
> discuss corporate agendas elsewhere.  I don't see any technical
> point here that warrants the attention of the entire IETF.
>
> Dan
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them
> > and what their real agenda is ?
> >
> > It is widely reported that you are paid by Neustar, Neulevel, ICANN,
> > and/or MCI/Worldcom (i.e. Vinton Cerf).
> >
> > Will you be disclosing who has paid you all these years to participate
> > in discussions as if you are a neutral party ?
> >

Re: [Enum] (no subject)

[Jim Fleming]

Tony,
 
Prior to your current employment with 
Verisign,
how many years were you paid by Network Solutions 
and/or Verisign
to participate in the domain name debates, without 
people being told
you were being paid ?
 
Do you think it is ethical for people to not 
disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is ?
 
 
It all boils down to fairness.Which list do you 
think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation 
Allocations ?http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-spaceThe 
Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
 
Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is 
FREE ?
 
Jim Fleminghttp://www.DOT-BIZ.comhttp://www.in-addr.info3:219 
INFO
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tony 
  Rutkowski 
  To: Richard Shockey ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 6:36 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)
  At 05:54 PM 24-10-01, Richard Shockey wrote:
  I would politely beg to 
disagree..  technical issues surrounding the needs for "privacy, 
security, validation, authentication and provisioning" seem perfectly in 
scope. We have already seen some Let's see.  NeuStar's 
  CEO per today's Interactive WeekNewsletter article ("NeuStar Wants to 
  Administer ENUM")appears at VON "laying out a game plan for ENUM 
  regulation,"indicating "'we are working very quickly with otherservice 
  providers and government agencies to get selectedas a Tier 1 ENUM 
  operator.'"A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues foran 
  IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar'sannounced 
  strategic business plan.Competitive ENUM services provider NetNumber's 
  representative in the same IETF group, notes that it is rather unusual 
  for a Working Group to be engaging in such activity, and suggests it is 
  inappropriateunder the circumstances.Who gets to decide what's 
  appropriate, and on whatbasis?
  Considering that the core of these 
issues touches the DNS it is IMHO it is perfectly reasonable for the IETF 
and this WG to continue to monitor events. The hope was that proposals from 
any source could be considered for open peer review by the general IETF 
community in this WG.Since when did it become the IETF's 
  business to "monitor"national regulatory events?
  That said the proposed charter did 
state that such documents were to be made informational and not standards 
track. The IETF quite often publishes document developed outside normal 
working groups.Again, when did it become IETF's 
  business to develop"informational" schema for national regulatory 
  implementations?Is the Working Group going to participate in the 
  potentialFCC public policy proceedings over the next 2-3 years 
  (FCCestimate) that were discussed at the VON ENUM Policy Summit last 
  week?--tonyps.  While the IETF is dealing with all this 
  regulatorybaggage, it's worth noting that real technical 
  developmentsare being now being done in the ENUM Alliance.  There 
  werefour great papers presented last week at VON at the 
  Alliancesession by Williams Communications, Webly, Voxeo, and 
  Denwa.Pending building of the Alliance website, some of them are 
  available at http://www.ngi.org/enum/alliance/index.htm

Re: [Enum] (no subject)

[Jim Fleming]

Dave,

Do you think it is ethical for people to not disclose who is paying them
and what their real agenda is ?

It is widely reported that you are paid by Neustar, Neulevel, ICANN,
and/or MCI/Worldcom (i.e. Vinton Cerf).

Will you be disclosing who has paid you all these years to participate
in discussions as if you are a neutral party ?


Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World


- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tony Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Enum] (no subject)


> At 04:36 PM 10/24/2001, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> >A NeuStar Strategic Manager introduces and argues for
> >an IETF based activity that just happens to support NeuStar's
> >announced strategic business plan.
>
> Tony,
>
> The IETF culture typically reacts poorly to efforts to slander.
>
> It also is quite comfortable with people doing things that benefit their
> companies.  One might even suspect that YOU have done the same, once or
twice.
>
> The real question in the IETF is about the merits of specific
> proposals.  You seem unconcerned with that measure, although it is the
only
> one that carries any weight in the IETF.
>
> If you have a specific concern about activities by the ENUM working group
> chair, the procedures for remedying your concerns are well
> documented.  Public ad hominems are not in the set of established, valid
> procedures.
>
> Please refer to the relevant IETF documents concerning process challenges.
>
> Please, then, follow them.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
>
>
> ___
> enum mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

The IPv6 Challenge....First Ping....Ladies and Gentleman Start Your Engines....

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kyle Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Love it or hate it, the new "majority market" is the mixed Windows/Linux
> shop.
> 

Tomorrow, you might want to take the IPv6 Challenge
...gather 12 of your friends across the net.
...have 6 buy Windows XP and 6 buy Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris etc

See who are the first to ping each other
measure the time from start of installation to First Ping...


Jim Fleming
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

Re: Re: A Stupid Ploy: Fwd: Who Is Bin Laden?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Hi -- I fully know that IETF folk do not want to clutter up the list
with political stuff, but...  I think shedding just a little more
light on this one event should be OK.
---

Stef,

Nice research. I think it is also important for the ISOC and the IETF
to take stock of who it is who are "members" of its ranks. Many people
are not aware that, in the past IETF members, sent death threats to
people and their families. Apparently, during the ICANN TLD Application
process, people and companies, became the subject of "holy jihads".
Apparently the FBI was called in and reports are that much of the material
was "absorbed". It seems to me that the ISOC and the IETF can no longer
be allowed to harbor people who quietly (and not so quietly) work their
agendas against U.S. citizens and netizens of the world. Recent comments
like "slapped down" show that the IETF, like many large organizations, can
provide the platform upon which violence is breeded. In my opinion, that
is no different from the other platforms that the U.S. is seeking to
destroy.
Organizations that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists
themselves.
I think it is time for the U.S. Government to get to the bottom of just who
is involved in the so-called "Internet Society" and the organization called
the IETF.

Jim Fleming

Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Touch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Although there are irony points for holding an off-line networking 
> meeting :-))
> 

It is humerous in 2001, to see people sitting in a meeting, all with
their lap-tops in front of them, and all saying, "let me check the net",
or, "let me send you that via the net". It is sad, when the meetings are
de-railed by people not on-line and not connected. Those people are
living in a time-warp. Some may only read e-mail once a month. They
are out-of-date before they arrive, and never catch up.

Face-to-face meetings of course are used to perform the subtle act
of "economic discrimination". Those with the money can attend and
those who can not afford to attend are excluded. The handicapped
are also excluded. Deaf people love it when people send them e-mails
saying, "Call me, let's discuss thisyet IRC, ICQ and other tools are
not considered...".

It is not surprising that the IETF does not use the Internet. The ICANN
leaders and the ICANN Board of Directors also do not use it. Their
focus is also on face-to-face meetings. In their case, it can be better
understood because lawyers run their show. Lawyers do not like to
use the Internet for meetings because people can hold them to what
they have said. They have been trained to deal in the face-to-face world
of the courtrooms, where they can say almost anything and their goal
is to convince a judge to rule in their favor. Many of their lawyer tricks
do not work on the Internet. The Internet distills the world into truth.

In my opinion, the sooner the world moves more to the Internet, the
sooner they will discover the truth about what is really going on. There
are many people who want to censor the truth. It is a shame the IETF
has apparently been infiltrated by those people. Fortunately, in a couple
of days, the world will be able to move on, deeper into cyberspace
where the air is more pure and where people respect the value of the truth.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

It all boils down to fairness.

[Jim Fleming]

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?

The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cathy Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE


> 
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> > Is APNIC part of the US or USA ?
> > 
> > http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1
> 
> Jim -
> 
> The fact that participants from the US attended the recent APNIC meeting
> has no bearing on IPv6 policy discussions, which is the purpose of this
> list.
> 
> Cathy Murphy
> 
> Speaking only for myself, that gets me in enough trouble...
> 
> 
> 

Are you saying that these people have nothing to do with setting
IPv6 Address Space policies ?

http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1

Bush Randy Network Startup Resource Center US
Caro Andrea ARIN US
Chiao Ching Vitty Inc USA
Chou Li-Fang RealNames Corporation USA
Conrad David Nominum, Inc. USA
Crain John ICANN U.S.A.
Deering Steve Cisco Systems, Inc. USA
Hamlin Susan ARIN US
Huberman David Global Crossing USA
Jacobsen Ole Cisco Systems USA
Jimmerson Richard ARIN USA
Lu Ping Cable and Wireless Global Networks USA
Manning Bill EP.NET USA
Nobile Leslie ARIN USA
O'Connell Sue-Anne ARIN U.S.A.
Plzak Raymond ARIN US
Roseman Barbara Global Crossing USA
-

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the meetings ?....Re: participation in IETF meetings

[Jim Fleming]

Why isn't the Internet and 3D technology used for the IETF meetings ?
The Next Generation IPv8 Internet has that. Why is the IPv4 Internet
stuck in the stone ages ?

All of the technology is in place and Address Space is FREE.

2047 IPv8 Blocks have been FREEly allocated to IN-ADDR. managers.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

On October 25, 2001 Microsoft will launch Windows XP which supports IPv8
Addressing. Companies like New.Net are making it possible for people to
register
IN-ADDR. names. Companies like TuCows are helping to break down
the .COM monopoly with .INFO names.
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

The .BIZ Community is growing. It is time to build a new Internet based on
fair IP allocations. The Proof-of-Concept work on the IPv4 Internet can
continue,
but true pioneers need to move on. The technology is now in place to route
around
the I* organizations, "It Seeks Overall Control".
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html

Do you use a 2002:: prefix ?
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

- Original Message -
From: "Pete Resnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: participation in IETF meetings


> On 10/23/01 at 9:49 AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> >Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively
> >participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit
> >down.
>
> I'm sorry, but I really think this is a problem with the
> person/persons chairing the meeting. If you are the chair of a
> working group whose meeting room is too small, you've got some
> choices:
>
> 1. If this happened in the past, you need to ask for a bigger meeting
> room. However, I understand this is not always possible.
>
> 2. Before your WG meeting, ask on the mailing list (which all active
> participants should be reading anyway) for all people who are
> planning on attending the meeting and actively participating to send
> you a piece of e-mail. Count. When you get to the room at the
> meeting, count off that many seats in the front rows. Add 10 for
> useful IESG/IAB members. Add a bunch if you know your WG is going to
> have cross-area interest where some people will be attending who
> don't subscribe to the WG list. Cordon off the section with some
> paper signs which read "ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ONLY". No, it won't stop
> everyone, but it will help things.
>
> 3. If people are blocking the door during the meeting, be a traffic
> cop. Go to the door and say, "If you are staying, move in to the
> opposite side of the room away from the door. Otherwise, leave." The
> area behind where the chair usually sits is a fine place to stick
> people. If it gets totally out of hand, you may have to conduct the
> meeting by standing in the door; people who are just loafing hate
> sitting right next to the chairperson anyway.
>
> 4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in
> your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present
> introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds
> of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn.
> That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW
> INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to
> the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion
> of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of
> a WG meeting should be without surprise.
>
> Personally, I think this is a fine idea for BOFs too: You're posting
> an agenda before the meeting anyway; make sure any needed information
> is written up and posted before the meeting and make sure that the
> agenda has URLs for that information. Now, I understand that BOFs are
> in a somewhat different position and sometimes there's going to have
> to be presentation of new material in BOF meetings, but that needn't
> always be the case. WGs, of course, have no excuse.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick 
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
>

Vint Cerf's ISOC

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Could the IETF mailing-list be moderated for off-topics comments ?
>
> The board of trustee of the ISOC is international.
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.shtml
>

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

I am not sure how "international" the ISOC Board of Trustees is.
It appears to be a small circle of Vint Cerf's friends to this reader.

Some of the people came directly from MCI. Some of the people
appear to be the chosen ones given TLDs by ICANN. Yes, it
appears that some of the people are not U.S. citizens, and I
suppose that makes them "international", but only with respect to
the United States, whom they all appear to be happy to use as
their Internet audience, as opposed to the people where they live.

My point was simple, I do not think the American people need to
continue to be "used" by these "international" groups. The American
people are quite capable of building their own Internet without the
influence of these people. Likewise, America should have no
obligation or right to intervene in the Internet developments in all the
other countries, unless asked. I do not believe that Americans as a
whole have asked the Internet Society to run their lives.

On October 25, 2001, all Americans will have the technology in
their hands to route around the Internet Society, ICANN and the IETF.
If the Internet Society chooses to censor that view, then they will
likely have a lot of Americans reacting to that censorship. Why Vint Cerf's
ICANN has been allowed to censor the TLD name space is beyond
comprehension. The same can be said for Jon Postel before him. Let's
hope that people empowered in the coming days, come to their collective
senses and end the censorship of the I* organizations.


Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Re: [OF] ietf Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

First some general questions

Do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to use U.S. network
facilities
for their employment, without any visa, work-permit, etc. ?
What do you think ? Do you like having the U.S. freedom to express your
opinion?

Do you think that U.S. companies should continue to employ non-U.S. citizens
while laying off U.S. citizens ?
What do you think ? Do you like having the U.S. freedom to express your
opinion?

Do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to be freely
"imported"
by large multi-national companies, to freely work on the Internet with no
identification
that they are not U.S. citizens ?
What do you think ? Do you like having the U.S. freedom to express your
opinion?

Do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to freely roam around
in
cyberspace on U.S. networks from outside of the U.S. ? Why should the U.S.
Government focus on physical immigration and ignore cyber immigration ?
...or, Do you think that all of the borders of the U.S. (both physical and
cyber)
should be opened up and anyone will be allowed to roam around as they
please?
What do you think ? Do you like having the U.S. freedom to express your
opinion?

More specific to ICANN and the IETF

What major standards has the IETF produced ?

What has ICANN accomplished ? major or minor...

Do you think that the U.S. Department of Commerce,under advice from ICANN,
should continue to support so-called ccTLDs in the legacy root name servers
with little or no knowledge of who the people are behind those TLDs ?

Do you think that the so-called ccTLDs should pay exactly the same as all
other
TLDs to be listed in the legacy root name servers ? An ASCII string is an
ASCII
string after all. By the way, A stands for American in ASCII.

What do you think ? Do you like having the U.S. freedom to express your
opinion?

Why does the IETF always focus on censorship ?

Why does ICANN censor U.S. companies from the legacy root name servers
operated largely under the direction of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Will anyone mind if the President of the United States orders that ALL of
the
legacy root name servers be operated within the U.S. and that ONLY U.S.
companies be allowed to add TLDs to those servers ?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/20011016-12.html
Executive Order
Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt


- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Dulaunoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 5:23 PM
Subject: [OF] ietf Re: in memoriam


> Dear,
>
> Could the IETF mailing-list be moderated for off-topics comments ?
>
> The board of trustee of the ISOC is international.
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.shtml
>
> The joining of the IETF is open and major standard are coming from the
> IETF and are created by people all over the world.
>
> Limiting network by boundaries is like limiting software by patents.
>
> Your opinion is your opinion, but please stop to use IETF as a media.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > 2.Stop advertising America ; the Internet has not been limited to
American
> > users for years now (*).
> >
> > In my opinion, the reverse is the case. I believe that it is time
> > for non-U.S. citizens to be identified as such on America's Internet
> > and they should not be allowed to freely use America's Internet to
> > market their protocols and other developments without the proper
> > customs clearances and work visas. Americans have let their guard
> > down, they have been far too polite. It is time to close the network
> > borders and make them as secure as the physical borders.
> >
> > The Next Generation Internet will be built in America, by Americans, for
> > Americans.
> > You are welcome to attempt to fly here and clear immigrations to see
what it
> > looks like.
> > You are also welcome to continue to play with the "toy" IPv4 technology.
> >
> > The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
> > IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
> > IPv16 is the "high-ground"
> >
> > ...here are some links...
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.unir.com
> > Mars 128n 128e
> > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
> >
>

"Security and Stability of the Internet Naming and Address Allocation Systems"

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/program.htm
"Program Committee to guide the special ICANN meeting on the "Security and
Stability of the Internet Naming and Address Allocation Systems" to be held
at Marina del Rey, November 13-15, 2001."

http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
"However, because of the special nature of the agenda for this meeting and
because of heightened security concerns, pre-registration will be required
to attend this meeting."


Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Visa Applications

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.ietf.org/meetings/visaappl.html
Visa Applications
52nd IETF Meeting - Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
9-14 December 2001
If you need to obtain an entry visa for the country in which this meeting is
being held, you will most likely need a letter of invitation first. Please
send an email request to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please include your
complete mailing address and fax number.
-

This wording seems strange.
"an entry visa for the country in which this meeting is being held"
Isn't Salt Lake City, Utah in the United States ?...as indicated by USA
Is the meeting being held in some other country ?

Does the above mean that someone in the IETF (which has no members)
"invites" anyone who asks ?to make sure they get a Visa...

Are those invitations supervised by the U.S. Government ?
Where is the public list of who is sent a letter of "invitation" to come to
the U.S.
What screening, if any, is done with these letters of invitation ?

Are the U.S. Citizens in Salt Lake City, Utah informed that a shadowy group
with no identifiable "members", openly sends invitations to apparently
anyone,
to attend a meeting for god knows what purpose, in the U.S. on a regular
basis.


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

Americans in the list below will likely understand that freedom is a special
thing.
As our leaders have said, we will defend our freedom at all costs. We are
willing
to die for our freedom. We value the freedom of speech and the freedom of
the
press.

I find it amazing that non-U.S. citizens think that they can infiltrate
networks in
the U.S. and attempt to deny U.S. citizens their basic rights. I find it
amazing that
they have the nerve to attempt to "ban" and censor American's on their own
networks and their own soil. What has this world come to?

If the so-called Internet Community or the Internet Society thinks that it
has
grown to be so pervasive that it will invade America and attempt to dictate
a
new world order, then I think that all leaders in America need to take a
very
hard look at who are the people behind this so-called "Internet Community"
or "Internet Society". It appears to be a society out of control. It appears
to
be a society that does not value the same basic ideals that all Americans
enjoy.

I am not ashamed to say that I prefer to be a free American, as opposed to
a member of the so-called Internet Community. The more I see who are the
members of the Internet Community, the happier I am to be an American.

Jim Fleming

- Original Message -
From: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Jim Fleming'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"pdeblanc@usvi. net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "@Quasar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"orobles@nic. mx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Elisabeth. Porteneuve@cetp. ipsl. fr"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "edyson@edventure. com"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric. Menge@sba. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "JandL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jay@Fenello. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "joppenheimer@icbtollfree. com"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "krose@ntia. doc. gov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"mcade@att. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mueller@syr. edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"vint cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pindar@HK. Super. NET" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"linda@icann. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "karl@cavebear. com"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "quaynor@ghana. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "junsec@wide.
ad. jp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "andy@ccc. de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "shkyong@kgsm.
kaist. ac. kr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "hans@icann. org"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mkatoh@mkatoh. net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ken.
fockler@sympatico. ca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "f. fitzsimmons@att. net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Amadeu@nominalia. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "mouhamet@sonatel. sn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"jplano@quorum. com. ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"hph@online. no" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "gvaldez@nic. mx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"cjw@remarque. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ant@hivemind. net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ellen Rony"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: in memoriam


> ??? Help !!! That guy is an insult for the whole Internet community !!!
> Isn't it really possible to ban him from this list ??? Please ?
> :o(
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> In my opinion, the reverse is the case. I believe that it is time
> for non-U.S. citizens to be identified as such on America's Internet
> and they should not be allowed to freely use America's Internet to
> market their protocols and other developments without the proper
> customs clearances and work visas. Americans have let their guard
> down, they have been far too polite. It is time to close the network
> borders and make them as secure as the physical borders.
>
> The Next Generation Internet will be built in America, by Americans, for
> Americans.
> You are welcome to attempt to fly here and clear immigrations to see what
it
> looks like.
> You are also welcome to continue to play with the "toy" IPv4 technology.
>
> The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
> IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
> IPv16 is the "high-ground"
>
> Jim Fleming
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 2.Stop advertising America ; the Internet has not been limited to
American
> users for years now (*).

Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2.Stop advertising America ; the Internet has not been limited to American
users for years now (*).

In my opinion, the reverse is the case. I believe that it is time
for non-U.S. citizens to be identified as such on America's Internet
and they should not be allowed to freely use America's Internet to
market their protocols and other developments without the proper
customs clearances and work visas. Americans have let their guard
down, they have been far too polite. It is time to close the network
borders and make them as secure as the physical borders.

The Next Generation Internet will be built in America, by Americans, for
Americans.
You are welcome to attempt to fly here and clear immigrations to see what it
looks like.
You are also welcome to continue to play with the "toy" IPv4 technology.

The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"

...here are some links...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Fw: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

[Jim Fleming]

Note, the below does not impact Americans using "IPv6 Technology" with IPv8
Addressing.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "@ Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Fw: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Thomas Narten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 11:07 AM
> Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE
>
>
> > Here is a summary of recent activity related to IPv6 addressing
> > policy. Credit goes to Richard Jimmerson for putting it together with
> > help from RIPE and APNIC.
> >
> > This will serve as background for the upcoming v6 WG meeting in Miami,
> > where these topics will be discussed.
> >
> > Thomas (with WG Chair hat in place)
> >
> > * APNIC *
> >
> > There was a joint IPv6/Policy session relating to iPv6 address policy
> > held at the last APNIC meeting.  During this session there were two
> > separate IPv6 policy proposals made.  The following day these two
> > policy proposals were merged.  There was consensus that many of the
> > principles outlined in the proposal document were sound, but there
> > was general agreement that further discussion was needed at the global
> > level -- in particular, the initial allocation size from the RIRs.
> >
> > There was consensus that the IPv6 bootstrap period should be extended
> > until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, with the understanding that
> > the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs.
> >
> > There was consensus to accept the proposal for APNIC to assign IPv6
> > address space to Internet exchanges.  The assignment size agreed upon
> > was a /64.
> >
> > * RIPE NCC *
> >
> > There were two separate sessions that covered the topic of IPv6
> > addressing policy -- 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session
> >  2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session
> >
> > 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session discussed the IPv6 policy proposal
> > language, summarized the discussions that took place at the APNIC
> > meeting, and reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Pratt.
> >
> > There were many similarities between these three offerings.  The group
> > seemed to agree on principles such as using the HD-ratio for checking
> > utilization, the fact current IPv4 utilization would be considered
> > when evaluating an initial request for IPv6 address space, and many
> > other points from the IPv6 proposal language, but objected to the
> > references to "slow start," as there was concern the minimum allocation
> > size may be too small and that LIRs would have to return to the RIR
> > too often.
> >
> > One of the main points that was left open and identified as needed
> > further discussion was the initial allocation size from the RIR.  It
> > was agreed that this point and others would be best discussed on a
> > global mailing list so the discussions of the three regions remained
> > in sync.
> >
> > It was also decided that the RIRs should continue work on an interim
> > policy document with the help of the community while these discussions
> > are going on.  It was felt that even though there are still some open
> > issues, the new proposed policies are much better than what we have now.
> >
> > 2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session discussed the proposed policy of
> > the RIPE NCC assigning IPv6 address space to exchange points.  There was
> > much discussion about what size to assign IXes (/64 or /48).  It was
> > argued some IXes may need more than a /64, so a /48 should be assigned
> > for purposes of administrative ease.  Many people supported this notion,
> > as almost every other type of "site" would receive a /48 anyway.
> >
> > It was also observed that IXes may not even need space from the RIR
> > and that they could use link-local addresses.  It was countered that
> > link-local may not work because some exchange customers may want to
> > traceroute to one another.
> >
> > The final consensus was that exchange points should receive their
> > IPv6 address space from a RIR.
> >
> >
>

3:219 INFO

[Jim Fleming]

Moving forward with the Proof-of-Concept .INFO TLD.
It does not appear that ICANN has gained 100% marketshare.
People will have to make sure that they have their INFO names
registered in all of the major TLD clusters below. The real .INFO
production-grade TLD servers will likely come from the companies
below. Everyone should work together to make .INFO work. It is
clear that ICANN is not getting the job done.

Results from VueDig: http://root-dns.org

AlterNIC : 160.79.129.192
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 0.
info. 7h36m IN NS tld1.nominum.com.
info. 7h36m IN NS tld2.nominum.com.

Australian Root Server Confederation : 203.21.205.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 1 : Additional = 0.
No records found.

Business Oriented Root Network : 213.70.103.18
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 2D IN NS ns.ripe.net.
info. 2D IN NS ns.icann.org.

Common Interest Network Information Center Society : 216.15.192.130
Result = Questionable Response!
info. 1d23h46m40s IN NS ns.icann.org.
info. 1d23h46m40s IN NS ns.ripe.net.

i-DNS.net International : 208.184.174.7
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 2D IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.
info. 2D IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.

Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 2D IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.
info. 2D IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.

Name.Space : 209.48.2.11
VueDig Results : Answer = 10 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 10.
info. 1D IN NS NS12.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS NS00.ROOT-ZONE.NET.
info. 1D IN NS ROOT8.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS NS1.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS NS11.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS ROOT3.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS C.TLD-SERVERS.NET.
info. 1D IN NS NS.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS NS10.AUTONO.NET.
info. 1D IN NS MEDIAFILTER.ORG.

New.net Inc : 206.132.100.42
VueDig Results : Answer = 0 : Authority = 2 : Additional = 2.
No records found.

North American Root Server Confederation : 216.129.136.8
Result = No Response

The OpenNIC Project : 209.21.75.51
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 2D IN NS tld2.nominum.com.
info. 2D IN NS tld1.nominum.com.

Open Root Server Confederation : 199.166.24.1
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 2D IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.
info. 2D IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.

The Internet Namespace Cooperative : 64.6.65.10
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
info. 1W IN NS TLD2.NOMINUM.COM.
info. 1W IN NS TLD1.NOMINUM.COM.

The PacificRoot : 204.107.129.2
VueDig Results : Answer = 3 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 3.
info. 2D IN NS hk.universalroot.com.
info. 2D IN NS us.universalroot.com.
info. 2D IN NS uk.universalroot.com.


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

In my opinion, all of the IETF leaders, especially those who are U.S.
citizens,
should take a long time to take a long look at what they have not helped to
accomplish with their ICANN. The world will no doubt route around you
with the Next Generation Internet, InfiniBAND, etc. You can stand firm in
your convictions to censor and to restrict access to the legacy root name
servers, which are now largely irrellevent. As our President Bush and many
of the Congressional leaders have noted, Americans stand strong and will
move forward and will innovate and compete, and show the world they are
united. New.Net and other companies stand as a shining memorial to the
spirit of the American people and American ISPs willing to stand up to the
ICANN/IETF machine. You have not defeated us.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- Original Message -
From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: in memoriam


> At 06:05 PM 10/18/2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> >What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly
> >considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel...
>
> with all due respect, would you mind if I spent a few minutes thinking
> about Jon, the good things he did and left, and the good things we can do
> and leave while standing on his shoulders?
>
> Take this other stuff somewhere else. I don't need you to ruin my day.
>

"...cast bright lights on all who would destroy freedom in the world..."

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.icdri.org/words_for_all_of_us_from_vinton_.htm
"Now, more than ever, the Internet must be wielded along with other media to
cast bright lights on all who would destroy freedom in the world.
Information is the torch of truth and its free flow is the bloodstream of
democracy."

ICANN destroys freedom by rejecting companies far more qualified
than those selected to launch new TLDs.

The IETF leaders destroy freedom by censorship.


The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....

...here are some links...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: The IETF has no members ?

[Jim Fleming]

According to the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org
"The IETF is an organized activity of the Internet Society"

Is the Internet Society a U.S. company or based in Switzerland ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- Original Message -
From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF has no members ?


> removing the spam list...
>
> At 03:38 AM 10/17/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Any contributor to
> >the IETF is effectively a member of it.
>
> In any practical sense, you're probably correct, but as I understand it
> (IANAL), not in a legal sense. The sense that an organization has
> "members", which is the context raised, that has to be defined somewhere,
> and we have no such formal definition.
>

R.I.P IPv4....Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Einar Stefferud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What I think is a real shame is that ICANN might be mistakenly
> considered by some people to to be a monument to Jon Postel...
>

In my opinion, ICANN has turned out to be exactly what Jon had intended.
You were present at the same meeting I was where he disclosed his intention
to appoint a Board of people, whom, he described as, "Not the kind of people
who would want their names on the Internet.". It is my opinion, that Jon
knew
that the IPv4 Internet was aging and needed to be handed to someone to be
carted away, and buried in a land-fill. ICANN is doing an excellent job of
that.
It will not be long and people will likely be able to say, "IPv4?...Oh, no
one
goes there any more". At best, IPv4 will be a convienant interconnect
for
private home networks, for legacy intranets, for the embedded WAN-based
networks that can not be easily changed, and for third-world countries who
traditionally lag behind the U.S. in technology. ICANN will have a ready
audience there, but not in the U.S. where companies like New.Net have
rallied the major ISPs and added 30 new TLDs to ICANN's 2 which still
do not work.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc08/msg02526.html
Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please

Michael M. Roberts
Managing Director, The Darwin Group, Inc.
DNSO/BC member

Can you state for the record whether you continue to be paid directly or
indirectly by ICANN ?
[ Yes | No ]
Please do not cite an RFC for an answer.

By the way, I have never known calls for "Peace on Earth" to be out of
order.
Can we assume that ICANN does not promote Peace on Earth ?


Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Re: QOS [was Re: Why IPv6 is a must?]

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:58 AM
Subject: QOS [was Re: Why IPv6 is a must?]


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > ... The QoS field in the header suffers from the same basic
> > issues as source-routing of packets - they try to modify the global
handling
> > of packets with insufficient knowledge of global conditions.
>
> Your text mainly refers to IntServ about which I make no comment. But the
diffserv
> header field (formerly known as TOS in IPv4, known as Traffic Class in
IPv6)
> is explicitly *not* global - it is meaningful per domain, and only makes
> sense in a domain that has been appropriately configured. See RFC 2474,
2475
> and 3086 for more.
>

The QoS field in IPv8 (formerly known as TOS in IPv4) is divided into two
4-bit fields. This expands the addressing of the existing IPv4 Internet by a
factor of 16, with no change to the existing infrastructure. Those same 4
bits
then carry over into IPv8 and IPv16 Addressing. The 2,048 address blocks
freely allocated to IPv8 as shown below, are actually each much larger than
the existing IPv4 address space, which needs to be replaced because of the
poor management of the resource and the unfair allocation policies.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Executive Order - Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/20011016-12.html
Executive Order 
Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Information Age 


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: Why IPv6 is a must?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> let's see.  everyone acknowledges that NATs are easier to deploy than
IPv6,

Deployment of IPv6 (as defined by purists) may take a long time or never
happen.
The usage of IPv6 technology to deploy more rational solutions is happening
now.
This is similar to the way Unix deployment was slowed in the late 70s by
people
("selling to the market") solutions such as DOS. There does not appear to be
much
of a market for people interested in 128-bit native IPv6 connections. There
is a
large market for people willing to divide those 128 bits into a 64-bit field
for the
existing IPv4 Internet and a 64-bit field for their new persistent
addresses. ISPs
do not want to face renumbering. ISPs also do not want to be held hostage by
the
ICANN/IETF/ARIN/RIPE/APNIC tax collectors. After all, why use a Free
Operating System like Linux or FreeBSD and then pay $25,000 every year to
rent IPv6 addresses ? IPv8 Address Space is free for the taking, to the
pioneers
that want it. This is similar to land homesteaded by early pioneers in the
U.S.

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Re: Are "FULL MEMBERS"....IETF Members ?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: Are "FULL MEMBERS"....IETF Members ?


>
>
> --On 17. oktober 2001 01:50 -0500 Jim Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Are "FULL MEMBERS"IETF Members ?
> >
> Read RFC 2850 section 1.
>

The United States has its own "codes".
Here is one example.

http://www.tscm.com/USC18_90.html
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 90 - PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS
Cite as the "Economic Espionage Act of 1996"

Jim Fleming
U.S. Citizen

IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any better...

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html
"POSTEL: It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. I thought of it in a
slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the
early days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP,
and so on. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is
filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not
necessarily any better. Every possible alternative is now being written
down. And it's not useful."

- Original Message -
From: "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: Jim Fleming, Microsoft and the american way to go...


> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > On October 25, 2001Microsoft will make it possible for any person
> > with a single IPv4 address to begin building the Next Generation
> > Internet.
> > Clearly, ICANN, the IETF, the IAB, and the IESG will not be supporting
> > that evolution and the freedom of all people to communicateAmerica
> > will...
> >
> > (...)
>
> I wonder whether such comments are worth a reply... In any case, Windows
> XP does indeed support the standard Internet protocols. It includes an
> IPv4 stack, and an IPv6 stack that is targeted at software developers,
> to help them port their Windows applications to IPv6 and test them; we
> expect to upgrade this stack in future releases as specified at
> http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/. The IPv6 stack does include transition
> tools such as 6to4 or ISATAP, which have been developed by the NGTRANS
> working group of the IETF. Misrepresenting these tools for some kind of
> alternative Internet is sheer lunacy.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>

Re: Jim Fleming, Microsoft and the american way to go...

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.
asp

Q.  What is my IPv6 address?
A.  By default, IPv6 configures link-local IPv6 addresses for each
interface that corresponds to an installed Ethernet network adapter."
-

You may not want to use it in the IETF IPv6 mode. That mode
has privacy problems.
http://www.internetwk.com/columns/frezz100499.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+privacy

In order to start your own ISP, you can use the 2002::
IPv8-style of addressing and routing.

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12524.html
RFC-2001-06-27-001 - Obtaining IPv8 Address Allocations


Jim Fleming
http://www.RepliGate.net


- Original Message -
From: "Paul Ebersman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming, Microsoft and the american way to go...


>
> jimfleming> XP will allow all people to easily become an ISP. They
> jimfleming> will not be subjected to the ICANN/ARIN scarce address
> jimfleming> resource allocation policies.
>
> Well, I'd had some technical concerns about XP but if Jim is for it, I
> guess I'll have to do a more detailed look because there must be some
> fundamental design flaw that makes it unusable.
>
> jimfleming> You are of course also free to use Linux, FreeBSD, or even
> jimfleming> your own operating systems and programming languages to
> jimfleming> help build the Next Generation Internet.
>
> Gee, would that be like the Star Trek Next Generation?
>
> Can we skip ivp8 and just use the transporter for all our packets?
>
> IPV8. It's dead, Jim.
>
> --

Re: Jim Fleming, Microsoft and the american way to go...

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "TOMSON ERIC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Maybe I didn't exactly understand your message, but...
> I don't think that XP will help "building the Next Generation Internet".

XP will allow all people to easily become an ISP. They will not
be subjected to the ICANN/ARIN scarce address resource allocation
policies. You are of course also free to use Linux, FreeBSD, or even
your own operating systems and programming languages to help build
the Next Generation Internet. Many people will help you do that, from
many diverse cultures. The ICANN and IETF leaders will attempt to
censor you from doing that. You have to route around them.

Here are some links that may help...
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv6vsIPv8/
http://www.New.Net


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info

Re: in memoriam

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Toru Takahashi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ietf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: in memoriam


> it is important to pass the culture and people on to the students.
> and those of us of later age have to think what it means to us.  
> you were in hospital, and i had my heart attack two months later.
> will we have contributed to constructive change even a fraction
> of what jon did?  some days i have hope.
> 
> randy
> 

The ICANN/IETF "culture" of having self-appointed leaders restrict
the access to scarce resources (for their personal gain) is exactly the
culture most of the world is opposing in the Middle East. The resource
there is oil, and the people are suppressed by leaders who hand down
control from one generation to the next, via a shadowy network of
insiders.

In my opinion, Americans are working hard to show the world that
their culture of democracy and capitalism is a better way to go. On
October 25, 2001, Microsoft will help to promote that "culture".

While you are of course free to promote your ICANN "culture", I
think people around the world will eventually choose freedom. If they
do not, then they have themselves to blame. They now will have a choice.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Are IESG Members also IETF "members" ?

[Jim Fleming]

Are IESG Members also IETF "members" ?

http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html#members
IESG Members
IETF Chair
Harald Alvestrand
Applications Area (app)
Patrik Faltstrom
Ned Freed
Internet Area (int)
Erik Nordmark
Thomas Narten
Operations & Management Area (ops)
Randy Bush
Bert Wijnen
Routing Area (rtg)
Rob Coltun
Abha Ahuja
Security Area (sec)
Jeff Schiller
Marcus Leech
Transport Area (tsv)
Scott Bradner
Allison Mankin
User Services Area (usv)
April Marine
Temporary Sub-IP Area (sub)
Scott Bradner
Bert Wijnen
-

On October 25, 2001Microsoft will make it possible for any person
with a single IPv4 address to begin building the Next Generation Internet.
Clearly, ICANN, the IETF, the IAB, and the IESG will not be supporting
that evolution and the freedom of all people to communicateAmerica
will...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Are "FULL MEMBERS"....IETF Members ?

[Jim Fleming]

Are "FULL MEMBERS"IETF Members ?

http://www.iab.org/iab/members.html
Internet Architecture Board
FULL MEMBERS 
Harald Alvestrand -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --> -- IETF/IESG Chair
Ran Atkinson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Austein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Fred Baker -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Brian Carpenter -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Steve Bellovin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Liaison to the IESG
 Jon Crowcroft -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Leslie Daigle -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- IAB Executive Director
 Steve Deering -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sally Floyd -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Geoff Huston -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 John Klensin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- IAB Chair
 Henning Schulzrinne -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EX OFFICIO AND LIAISON 
 Erik Nordmark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Liaison from the IESG
 Erik Huizer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- IRTF Chair
 Joyce K. Reynolds -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Liaison from the RFC Editor
 Lynn St.Amour -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Liason from ISOC
-


Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info

"Leslie has forwarded the official IETF position...Brian will take this paper to the ITU Study Group 2"

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.pso.icann.org/PSO_Minutes/PSO-Minutes-27July2001.txt

"Leslie has forwarded the official IETF position (RFC 2826) to ETSI, ITU and
W3C. The RFC 2826
   is made available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt, as "IAB
Technical Comment on the Unique
   DNS Root". Brian will take this paper to the ITU Study Group 2, ETSI will
bring it to its Technical
   Bodies SPAN and TIPHON, with the objective of gathering clear opinions on
the related technical
   aspects."

http://www.pso.icann.org/PSO_Minutes/PSO-Minutes-28Sept2001.txt
"After detailed discussion, the Protocol Council deliberated to reconfirm
this statement as
the position of Protocol Council on the Alternative Roots Issue.
It was further agreed to insert the conclusion of the ITU-T Study Group 2 on
this issue,
as well as the comments concerning this matter of ETSI, IETF and W3C if any,
and this will be
brought to the attention of ICANN."


Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

Does the PSO have "members" ?

[Jim Fleming]

Does the PSO have "members" ?

http://www.pso.icann.org/Pso_origins.htm#PSO_Members

"The members of the PSO Council are: 

 Steve Bellovin IETF Representative 
 Fabio Bigi ITU Representative  
 Leslie Daigle IETF Representative 
 Philipp Hoschka W3C Representative 
 Azucena Hernandez ETSI Representative 
 Tapio Kaijanen ETSI Representative 
 Brian Moore ITU Representative 
 Daniel Weitzner W3C Representative"
-

Is the PSO satisfied with the results that ICANN has produced ?

Are Internet resources fairly distributed to the world's population ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

Re: The IETF has no members ?

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.pso.icann.org/Pso_origins.htm
"On April 23, 1999, ICANN received a Protocol Supporting Organization
Proposal submitted by Scott Bradner on behalf of the IETF POISSON Working
Group. That proposal was posted for public comment."


- Original Message -
From: "Scott Bradner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF has no members ?


> total BS (as to be expected)
>
> ---
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Tue Oct 16 12:17:44 2001
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "James M Galvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "vint cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pindar@HK. Super. NET"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"linda@icann. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"karl@cavebear. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"edyson@edventure. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"quaynor@ghana. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"junsec@wide. ad. jp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "andy@ccc. de"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"shkyong@kgsm. kaist. ac. kr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"hans@icann. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"mkatoh@mkatoh. net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"ken. fockler@sympatico. ca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"f. fitzsimmons@att. net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Amadeu@nominalia. com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: The IETF has no members ?
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:18 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to
> > most other organisations - not having any real defined members as
> > such makes a difference.
> >
>
> If you recall, the notion that the IETF has no members changed when
> ICANN arrived on the scene. At the IETF meeting in Sweden, when,
> ICANN was recruiting followers for the PSO, the IETF, W3C and
> ETSI were considered equals. Apparently, the IETF people objected
> and noted that ETSI has a small number of members. Someone else
> apparently noted that the IETF has no members, and is therefore
> smaller than ETSI. In order to become part of ICANN, the IETF had
> to quickly talk out of the other side of its mouth and claim to have
> thousands of members.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO
>

What is the "Internet Architecture" ?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF


> > Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific
> > process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB
> > membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a
> > much more focussed discussion in the "iab99" WG with a very limited
> > charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson.
>
> Problem is, process questions are not always that specific.  If for
> example there were a growing sense that WGs take too long, that IESG
> approves too many broken documents, and that too many WGs are having
> an adverse effect on the Internet architecture - the solution to
> this problem might somehow involve IETF process, but we would not be
> likely to find a solution by chartering a WG that is centered around
> someone's draft proposal.
>
> Keith
>

What is the "Internet Architecture" ?

Is there a picture somewhere ?

The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"

...here are some links...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

The IETF has no members ?

[Jim Fleming]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to
> most other organisations - not having any real defined members as
> such makes a difference.
> 

If you recall, the notion that the IETF has no members changed when
ICANN arrived on the scene. At the IETF meeting in Sweden, when,
ICANN was recruiting followers for the PSO, the IETF, W3C and
ETSI were considered equals. Apparently, the IETF people objected
and noted that ETSI has a small number of members. Someone else
apparently noted that the IETF has no members, and is therefore
smaller than ETSI. In order to become part of ICANN, the IETF had
to quickly talk out of the other side of its mouth and claim to have
thousands of members.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO