-
To: Dennis Glatting [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
From: "vinton g. cerf" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:51:11 -0400
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course,
Esther Dyson wrote (in response to Curtis E. Sahakian):
You ask what "excuse" we have. We have a reason: The site is overloaded; we
are getting a much bigger response than we expected. The ICANN staff is
doing what it can to handle the unexpected damand. We have tuned the system
to work
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:43 PM 7/30/00, vinton g. cerf wrote:
Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which
registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000
a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour)
simply because staff
Lloyd Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
The users of the Internet have access to several free browsers that
support frames on a dozen platforms. Folks that are unable to use
the Internet are not an appropriate electorate. Lazy kindergartners
are not the target
Ronda Hauben wrote:
Well, people are now trying to sign up for that membership, for that
limited right to vote and it is clear that the ICANN folks are
not even making any access available to that. The version to sign
up at the ICANN web site requires frames. So people who don't have
a browser
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
How can you be sure of this? I can imagine that there are that many
applicants from the countries you cited that have sufficient understanding
of the issues ICANN is supposed to be concerned with.
How can you say
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/15/2030252.shtml
Of course, an individual large corporation may indeeed use many domain
names. This is completely reasonable: a large corporation may be known
by many names, may have many divisions and subsidiaries around the
world, may have thousands of products -- a large corporation
legitimately may deal
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg07845.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg07744.html
John the Repoman wrote:
P.S.: I wonder how much it would cost to mail every domain(s) registrant in
the world a brief opinion questionaire (even by snail mail (argh)- postcard
even - no ppd return envelope necessary) on major issues under
consideration by ICANN to get a feel for the
Richard Sexton wrote:
I'm not sure it's possible to enfore a charter based on semantics; the
ony chartered TLDs that have been even moderately successful are those
which limit the charter to a specifit (or specific type) or organization.
Do we care? Say .per and .nom were for personal names and
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/sereport/00/05-realnames.html
Sure, as long as everybody changes their software. That's a non-starter.
Everyone doesn't have to change their software. Only the people who care
about RealNames.
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least with congress and the lobbyists there are some rules
for the conduct of public policy in an accountable fashion.
IMHO, the only thing that congress has going for it is that it's
elected by the public. Beyond that, it's just as subject to capture
There has been a bit of media coverage of new gTLDs on a local SF bay
area radio station, CNET Radio 910. They sort of casually mentioned
that some of the new gTLDs already exist, but didn't really go into
any details about it.
It might not be a bad idea (if you haven't done so already) to
http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/147613.html
Mike Roberts' comments:
Also contentious is the question of who should control new Internet
domains. ICANN likely will establish some sort of request-for-proposals
process to identify companies and not-for-profit entities that possess
the
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Working_Papers/00_Rotenberg_1
This is a working paper, so please do not cite it without the author's
permission.
I gave the paper a quick read, and there's nothing in it that's directly
related to ICANN.
--gregbo
"A. Henderson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I heard recently about IOD and their .web registry, I thought I
would go and register some .web domains. However, as I learned, most of
the "good" domains had already been taken. Trying to find a good .web to
register seemed just about as hard as
Although this is off-topic, I thought I'd forward it because (1) I
like to read what Noel Chiappa writes, and (2) this is one of those IETF
threads where people discuss how things might have gone differently
if certain design and implementation decisions had been made differently.
Date: Wed, 12
Richard, I have not seen any comments from you in any of the DNSO archives,
even the public comment areas, at least in the past few months. I don't
see how you are going to have any kind of input into the process if you
don't participate.
--gregbo
Richard, how do you explain the participation of people like Chris Ambler,
Simon Higgs, etc? (Subject to their opinions of what should happen with
new TLDs) it seems they have at least as much of a clue as anyone else
in wg-c.
--gregbo
Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
Explain the reasons and could I know what your relationship to the WG-C
is.
I have no relationship to wg-c except as a reader of the archives (and
occasional poster to the public archives).
I read quite a bit of what you wrote and what others' reactions were to
what
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
But isn't there a Vint Cerf RFC that says "The Internet Is For Everybody!" ?
Nobody took Dr. Joe Baptista off the Internet.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Right. Paul Vixie made him unroutable
I am able to reach pccf.net from three different sites. Whatever Vixie
did doesn't affect the entire Internet.
and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's
still on the Internet.
That he is able to
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
and the 80K a reay listadmin of the dnso list blocks him. But he's
still on the Internet.
He can still post to the ga-full list.
Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But banned for life from the GA-Rules. A dead list - but non the less
it's the principle that counts.
What principle might that be? Subscription to ga or ga-full is voluntary.
Those that choose to read the full feed may. Both lists are archived.
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planting seedthoughts about an Internet constitution
while Cliff's arbitration group has actually produced a draft,
(Please goto: http://www.endispute.co.uk/isr/israem.htm),
which we could, indeed, discuss and amend and evolve.
His posting is
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 14:03:34 -0700
From: Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from Mark C. Langston on Mon, Apr
10, 2000 at 10:52:21AM -0700
Pardon the length of this...
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000
http://www.whatson.tv
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:46:43 -0700
To: "'William X. Walsh'" [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up
From: "Christopher Ambler" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even that would be a step forward that I would welcome.
--
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, the people picked what they picked. Thousands and thousands of them.
It seems more likely than not.
Really? On what grounds? They could very well have decided to register
in .com regardless.
--gregbo
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're trying to get me to believe company-online.com would rather
be company-online.com than company.online ?
I aint buying that, sorry.
We could go on arguing about this for days. Nothing can be determined
until someone finds out from those
Ken Freed wrote:
For the record, the commercialization of radio happened
in the 1920's
It started in the 1920s, but the passage of laws that regulated what
the broadcasters could do happened in 1934, with the passing of the
first Telecom Act and the establishment of the FCC.
and was the
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
It started in the 1920s, but the passage of laws that regulated what
the broadcasters could do happened in 1934, with the passing of the
first Telecom Act and the establishment of the FCC.
I believe that occurred with the passage of the
Radio Act
http://offer.networksolutions.com/go/t1/surv1/
Note question 13.
Michael Sondow wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
There have been commercial registrations in .us for quite some time
now.
And I tell you, once again, that although they have never been
disallowed they are not the principal purpose of .us, as the RFC
makes clear.
Your reading of the RFC
This isn't funny, you know. Many people, myself included, worked
very hard to present proposals for a reorganization of .us that
would preserve it for public interest use, as it was intended.
For the record, the original intent of the .us domain included
commercial use. See RFC 1480.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I think it's very funny Micahel. The country that thinks it
can cotrol the Internet and dicate world wide practice
has THE most screwed up domains on the planet.
In my opinion, this can be fixed by introducing some "portable" SLDs
in .us.
--gregbo
Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI, ATT to put small
companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
If not, why don't you work things out so that freedom and free
enterprise can continue to flourish on the Internet, instead of
Jay Fenello wrote:
What does this have to do with complaints about ARIN's regressive pricing
policies?
Or the huge @Home delegation?
These are questions of policy.
I can't speak to ARIN's pricing policies, but I recall reading somewhere
that one consideration of @Home's allocation was the
Michael Sondow wrote:
I think that the smaller ISPs are too intimidated by the power of
the upstream providers to make any sort of complaint. Only an
organization like ISPA could do that, and they won't because the
power there is with the larger independent ISPs who control their
own block.
I don't read nanog regularly, but from what I've seen, there are a fair
number of clueful people on it. Out of curiosity, are any of them interested
in the alternative root movement?
--gregbo
--- start of forwarded message ---
Path:
news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news1.best.com!news.dra.com!news.keyway.net!news.interpacket.net!u-2.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail
From: "Sally Ann
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So to scare the US Government you eneded up putting control
of the root zone in the hands of... the department of e-commerce.
Oops. That about backfired.
Paul, you also thought the alt groups would be the death of usenet
and you were wrong
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
... you cannot compare the two because usenet is not critical
infrastructure to Internet operation as DNS is. This is not to say
that usenet is not important. However, it is nowhere near as
necessary for reliabl
Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of [ICANN's supporters] are financially endowed, but, speaking
from insider knowledge, it is patently absurd to say that they are
well-organized.
I was thinking of some of ICANN's financial backers (e.g. Cisco) and
some of the associations that
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, I'm grateful to Harvard for creating a forum
where the critics of ICANN can finally get some answers
from the ICANN board! If you'd like to monitor the
action, please check out the public newsgroup at:
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is all this garbage about Internet Stability Greg? DNS id the most
robust protocal to ever run over a TCP/IP transport. What instability
are you talking about?
It's the stability of the namespace, from the perspective of those who
are trying
OTOH we have working tlds and root servers.
Richard, I never said your stuff wasn't working. In fact I have used
it. However, I am a seasoned Internet professional. I know how to use
it within the constraints I operate under.
Most people who use the Internet have little if any knowledge of
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, right, and this is exactly the same as sombody on usenet
listing their email address as [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] in
their signature line. The practice is extremely widespread,
and poeple are still able to communicate just fine. One of
the
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely nothing short of bowing to the dictator du jour (IAHC,
ICANN) will get Vixie "on my side" and I really don't care. He was
wgonr about useent and he's wrong now. The NTIA has no
authority. Who cares?
Authority isn't the issue. It's the
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's authority will Paul - real or preceived. He has this
thing about an "unbroken chain of authoiry" andhe can express
his views better than I can.
I can't quite make out what you mean here. It seems as if you are
saying that he feels their
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your absolutly right. [Vixie] has no obligation whatsoever to
educate the community. As I said the distribution of a fixed root
cache with BIND is a bit of an anti rackets game, but that legality
I leave to others to test.
I imagine if there were
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The third option is to leave everybopdy alone and wait till
they figure it out. It's the slowest, but the "cleanest".
Do you think the Internet community will ever figure it out?
In the past, there has never been an issue faced by the technical
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Do you think the Internet community will ever figure it out?
Do you get alt.sex?
You keep bringing up the creation of alternative hierarchies in usenet
as an example of how the Internet has figured out a problem
Joe Baptista wrote:
Vixie is not an activist. Vixie, like any other individual is motivated
strictly by self interest. The recent RBL vs. NSI struggle was a clear
indication Vixie can, like anyone else, impose his views on the world.
Hitler had the same sweeping powers, and not much came
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incorrect, the NSI - RBL (MAPS) situation is a clear indication Vixie is
well outside his range. He made an arbitrary decision which would of
affected the business interests of NSI, by declareing thier communication
with internic contacts to be spam.
At 08:24 AM 10/2/99 -0700, Richard Sexton wrote:
Vixie is an extremist. Back when the birth of news:alt was the bigest
mess on the net he was the only backbone cabal memebr that thought this
would be the death of the net (or so I'm told). There are root server
operators that take the opposite
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll save you the trouble. It can be summarized as "Icann has a few
warts on it, but it's the only option".
You'll also hear a lot of "I'm tired of this and I don't really
care any more", "if we don't the ITU will take over" and
"...working
Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this is what Richard is saying at all, Greg. Rather
he is saying that allot of people would luv to see serious changes
but feel they are up against ICANN that is is basically intractable.
So they are left with their own devices and feel
Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again I see that you still missed Richard's point and my
reiteration of that point entirely.
I guess I am really dense. :)
Anyway, we'll see what happens, if ICANN does something that causes
the DNS admins of the Internet community to point at the
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
I can't imagine anything that ICANN would do that would cause the
Internet community to take its DNS from someplace else en masse.
En masse ? No. One of them is already pretty pissed though.
Richard, the point
The *current* ICANN board has caused great rifts throughout the Internet
community and made a lot of enemies.
This doesn't necessarily mean that *any* ICANN board would act this way.
An elected board would hopefully act in the interests of those who vote
for them.
However, if ICANN fails, there
If you look at the history of AlterNIC, eDNS, etc. you will see that the net
did not jump whole hog onto the activist bandwagon. That suggests to me that
there is quite a bit of support for the status quo.
--gregbo
Richard, you remember Vixie's comments here a while back, right? "I ain't
in it for your revolution." What makes you think that if ICANN fails he
and the other root server operators are going to engage in some cyber-revolt?
And if they did, what makes you think that the rest of the net would
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, no USG agency has this authority.
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that they would order anyone
to do anything. What I meant is that they would set up root servers
that are configured as they currently are, and instruct people to
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. How about real competition? There are 160,000 estimated dns
administrators who control which root servers are used by their users.
How much do you think corporate interests would pay these administrators
for the priviledge of running the global
"J. Baptista" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not really an issue - is it. Name daemons come prepackaged with
the root servers already prelisted in the root cache file. Few DNS
administrators even know there are options.
So under what circumstances would they be so inclined to make
I've decided to ask a few friends and colleagues their opinions on what's
happened with ICANN lately, and what they are prepared and willing to do.
These people have been on the net for 10+ years, are individual domain
name holders, and have at least an admin-level understanding of how
the
Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now the other part of this picture also begins to come into
focus. This is the curious insistence of folk like Vint Cerf, John
Patick and Dave Farber to say that if ICANN does not succeed, the
Internet and electonic commerce will fail. When asked for
Gordon Cook wrote:
greg -- you may be right.
Yet if you are right and with an ICANN failure all big business would
have to do would be to go to Congress for a quick and easy fix, then
I ask what are Cerf and Patrick afraid of?
Personally, I think that Cerf and Patrick (and others) are
Gordon Cook wrote:
well of course Postel, like ICANN, was rather impeious and did what
he pleased. A key differ ence he was tusted. ICANN is not
Yet Postel was hoping that ICANN would provide some means for the type
of cooperation the (traditional) Internet community has typically
fostered
Generally speaking, I agree with Mike Roberts' assessment of the NSI
cooperative agreement. I believe the USG made a mistake in the way it
was set up, and particularly when and how NSF authorized NSI to start
charging for registrations. This should not necessarily be read as
an outright
Jay Fenello wrote:
"The notion that journalism can regularly produce a product
that violates the fundamental interests of media owners and
advertisers ... is absurd."
-- Robert McChesney, journalist and author
FYI, he mentions ICANN in his latest book RICH MEDIA, POOR DEMOCRACY, in
a
Ellen Rony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr, Farber. There is room here for a different cause/effect analysis. I
posit that if ICANN fails, it will be an indicator that the ICANN *model*
was not workable, NOT that the Net cannot manage itself. The model that is
the source of so much controversy
[Recipient list reset]
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the last several weeks, I have made extensive
use of the Internet to expose the extreme bias the
press has exhibited in their coverage of the ICANN
fracas. Due to the power of the Internet, these
efforts have apparently
Gordon Cook wrote:
I also wonder why, if these issues of why the internet will fail if
ICANN doesn't have its way have been well thought out and are
passionately believed in, it's not possible to take an extra hour or
two and put them into ascii. I had a task to do and stayed up until
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Below is the rewritten paragraph from
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-gtld.htm
"Evidently showing his displeasure with the situation,
Jon Postel at IANA issued an electronic directive that
"reoriented" or redirected routing on some root servers.
[I am not subscribed to all of these lists, so my response will likely
bounce. Feel free to copy my response in future responses, if you wish.
--gregbo]
Frank Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you
here. But, things are being done for
David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get
contributed is secondary to this careful spade work)
But
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the
laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ
that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Richard Sexton wrote:
Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing,
I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled
by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the
same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or
representative
Ken Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig --
Please deal with substantive issues,
the here and now, not ancient history.
Linguistic nit picks do not serve the
larger Internet community. Okay?
Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare
one site to be the master
Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:37 PM 9/9/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
Sorry, Ken, I concur with Craig. It is one thing to temporarily declare
one site to be the master root server, and quite another to disrupt
world Internet traffic.
This is right out of the Dave Crocker play book
--- start of forwarded message ---
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:31:36 -0400
From: Walter Dnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Approved:
Ronda Hauben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a problem with government, people have to do something
about it, while some corporate entities seem to be preaching abolish
government and give them all power.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/14589.html
Interesting. But the
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/tip/politics/story/21411.html
Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably about to be (iii) technical innovation is always
stifled by the genius that produced it aka Internet, unless the
creative energies of the people who actually shepherded the system
into existence can be marshalled to demonstrate the
Craig Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds appealing to me, except that we'd need to review archives prior
to Sep '95, and I don't see any of those at the sites available through
your links.
I believe there was some pre-9/95 discussion of new domain names on the
namedroppers list.
--gregbo
http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/14/net-internet-foundation
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With V6, you have to get addressed from one of the 3 RIR's, in V8
you can get addresses from any of the 2048 TLD authorities. V8 rides
over a core V4 (or V6) transport and grows the net at the edges.
In my opinion, IP addresses should be
"Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what makes more sense. One monolithic address registry
which is a monopoly and a single point of failure,
or 2048 registries, any one of which can give you an address
you can use?
Why do you assume that just because I don't advocate TLD
"A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it turns out, ICANN actually has an official
"Community Feedback" site that contains an archive of
all the "reflections of community consensus." It's the
only site, and it's at http://www.icann.org/feedback.html
I wouldn't go so far as to say
"William X. Walsh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on now Patrick, you know that they mean consensus from the CORE,
ISOC, and Trademark interests.
Indeed. As others have pointed out, users, small business owners,
independent domain owners (holders), etc. have been left out thus
far.
--gregbo
I actually meant to include the poised list as an example of a place
where I have seen a good amount of support for ICANN as well.
--gregbo
Karl Auerbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually if you read the Poised list (I am a former co-chairman of the
IETF Poised working group) you will find that the IETF support for ICANN
is not at all clear or unqualified.
I don't think I said anything to the contrary. There are several people
Patrick Greenwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If ICANN were a community-based organization as was envisioned, instead of
the monstrosity it has become, it would be reasonable to ask the community
for assistance in gather resources to hold elections.
But when the community does cough up money
My general take on what I have seen of the entire DNS controversy is that
it is similar in nature to past struggles over "shared scarce resources"
such as the ones Tony cited. Certainly, from what I have read of the
establishment of the FCC and the 1934 Radio Act, there are striking
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
