vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with governance
To further your point, an area completely outside of ICANN's purview,
At 8:39 -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with governance
To further your point, an area
At 8:39 AM -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with governance
To further your point, an
Stephen Kent wrote:
At 8:39 -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the
only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with governance
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:39 AM -0800 12/12/03, Tony Hain wrote:
vinton g. cerf wrote:
...
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the
only
really visible example of an organization attempting to develop policy
(which is being treated as synonymous with
Tony Hain writes:
FWIW: I specifically left out the business community because they always
find a way to make money in whatever context the politicians create (even if
it takes influencing the politicians to create a favorable context).
You should leave out politicians, too, then, since they
Paul Hoffman / IMC writes:
Absolutely agree with this sentiment. Anyone who starts an anti-spam
proposal with All we need to do is digitally sign the {messages|SMTP
transmissions}... is completely unclear on how little governance
there is in this area.
I agree, but isn't this what Yahoo
Ole J Jacobsen writes:
Yep, works fine for me, Stef. Time to switch providers?
:-)
Time to disable ECN?
$ telnet www.isoc.org 80
Trying 206.131.249.182...
^C
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; su
Password:
# ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_ecn_permitted 0
# telnet www.isoc.org 80
The real issue is whether an ECN bit is reserved, or not reserved.
it's not reserved -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
i.e. ECN is a proposed standard and the bits that it uses in the IP header
are fully assigned
Scott
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:47:03 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner) said:
The real issue is whether an ECN bit is reserved, or not reserved.
it's not reserved -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
i.e. ECN is a proposed standard and the bits that it uses in the IP header
are fully
Yes, but if you're a firewall that stepped into a temporal stasis box
before 3168 was published, you're still thinking that the bits are
reserved,
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
Scott
I cannot believe it !
I raised this thing to ISOC more than a year ago!!! I told them in person at INET in Washington too...
They haven't done a dam thing since...
If you look on the Internet there is a list of organisations not ECN compliant, you will find ISOC entry.
How can such a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Yes, but if you're a firewall that stepped into a temporal stasis box
before 3168 was published, you're still thinking that the bits are
reserved,
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
Yes, such junk no doubt has worse defects than
Scott Bradner writes:
woe be to new applications through such a firewall
It's important to understand that the Internet is not monolithic, and no
matter what the latest and greatest standards may be, there will always
be parts of the Net that run older software. Expecting the entire Net
to
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:22:16AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
I cannot believe it !
I raised this thing to ISOC more than a year ago!!! I told them in
person at INET in Washington too...
They haven't done a dam thing since...
If you look on the Internet there is a list of
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 03:48:44PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Check the archives, this gets raised periodically, and ISOC is simply
perenially unable to fix it. I think I raised some 12-18 months ago,
and there has still gotten no action by ISOC. I think this falls in
the so what else is
At this time on this date, I cannot get a connection to http://www.isoc.org.
Have you ever gotten this connection?
Can you get it now?
Merry Christmas to all at your house;-)...\Stef
At 16:50 -0800 12/8/03, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote:
See http://www.isoc.org/
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and
Einar Stefferud writes:
At this time on this date, I cannot get a connection to http://www.isoc.org.
Have you ever gotten this connection?
It worked fine for me just now.
Dear Vint,
You may guess that I am deeply involved in that prepartory issues and I
probably can help with some (I will try) unbiased understandings (I am
sorry if this hurts some) of what happens, focusing on ICANN and IETF.
At 00:36 09/12/03, vinton g. cerf wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:37:18 EST, shogunx said:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
Vint;
Unfortunately, the discussion has tended to center on ICANN as the
only really visible example of an organization attempting to develop
policy (which is being treated as synonymous with governance).
To be practical, considering that ICANN never acted as the authority
of the Internet
Just saw this online, and it seem apropos to recent traffic:
A controversial plan to grant governments broad controls over the Internet
has stolen the spotlight of a United Nations conference on IT next week,
where China and Cuba will be among its strongest supporters.
Leaders from
Noel Chiappa writes:
Anyone know more about this?
Since it is being discussed in secret (with even ICANN excluded,
apparently), it's hard to know more.
There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called PrepComs
as in preparatory committees leading up to the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) taking place December 10-12 in Geneva. In the most recent meetings, a
government only rule was invoked that excluded
Noel:
1. The Salt Lake Tribune: U.S. Net dominance questioned
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12082003/business/118003.asp
2. The Register: Internet showdown side-stepped in Geneva
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34394.html
3. CNN Money: A potentially tangled Web?
On 12/8/2003 5:36 PM, vinton g. cerf wrote:
The subject of Internet Governance has been a large focus of
attention, as has been a proposal for creating an international fund to
promote the creation of information infrastructure in the developing
world. Internet Governance is a very broad
See http://www.isoc.org/
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Noel Chiappa writes:
Anyone know more about
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
Cheers
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 11:36, vinton g. cerf wrote:
There have been fairly intense discussions in a series of meetings called PrepComs as in preparatory committees leading up to the World Summit on the
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
v
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
Vint Cerf
SVP Technology Strategy
MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690
vinton g. cerf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
What is wrong with ISOC?
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
This is a feature, not a bug.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | people won't be sure
Franck Martin writes:
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot it be this body, we are looking for?
ISOC membership is open to anyone. Very few governments are going to
support an organization that does not restrict its membership to elite
government representatives.
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
Scott
v
At 01:01 PM 12/9/2003 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
Hmmm,
What is wrong with ISOC?
Cannot
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:37:18 EST, shogunx said:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
at the moment it is not well constituted to develop policy.
No, but it well constituented to be. Is it only necessary that it be
reconstituted.
The fact that cats could swim for long periods
33 matches
Mail list logo
