For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site they
will get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some messages say: you are forbidden to access this web site
because your IP address appears form country black listed due to USA
government policy.
I would like to
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Robert West wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:56 PM
To: 'Tarig Yassin'
Subject: RE: Who controlls the Internet?
Each individual government seems to control the information the
Internet filtering in Australia is yet to come in, however give it time and
Australia will have filters in place to block all content that the government
deems inappropriate! Just do a google for filtering in Australia!
Kindest Regards,
Jared Hirst
Sent from my iPhone
On 26/07/2010, at 5:06
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:41:05PM -0400, Robert West wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:56 PM
To: 'Tarig Yassin'
Subject: RE: Who controlls the Internet?
Each individual government seems to control
On Jul 25, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
Deal all
I want to show you some obstacles that some countries face them
every day.
For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site
they will get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some messages say: you are
Bill,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
inherited the role IANA staff performed prior to ICANN's creation. As far as I
am
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
inherited the role
On 7/25/10 8:24 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
I would like to issue a question here, who controls this Internet?
Vix does, who else?
:)
Gadi.
- Original Message -
From: Tarig Yassin tariq198...@hotmail.com
I would like to issue a question here, who controls this Internet?
The elders of the Internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Bill,
I suspect this thread has degenerated to the point of irrelevance, so this will
be my last comment. Feel free to have the last word.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:30 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA _never_
Any 3com switching geeks out there?
Contact me offlist if you don't mind a question or two.
thanks
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Robert West wrote:
Each individual government seems to control the information the enters or
leaves their borders.
No, each individual government can have laws restricting information entering
and leaving their borders.
Few gov'ts actually control said info.
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that
matter, see also my July 2nd post: I went so you don't have to --
ICANN Bruxelles pour les nuls.
The initial report of the 65 person VI WG is published.
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more than happy to sell the name ...
Get your
On 7/26/10 12:45 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with the fifth option?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut
past of discussions/text circulated through
On July 26, 2010 at 14:42 brun...@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) wrote:
When Hewlett-Packard wrote to ICANN earlier this year that it should
get .hp, the obvious rejoinder was Buy a country like everyone else,
submit a change request to the iso3166/MA, and do business under .hp,
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with the fifth option?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut
past
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back would be impossible to answer. (that
On 07/26/2010 01:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:48:13 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
... Very Interesting Times for ISPs that deploy LSN and are subject to
CALEA.
CALEA is not a time machine. When an order is received, the collection
agency starts receiving traffic; nothing (or at most, very little) is
CALEA is not a time machine. When an order is received, the
collection
agency starts receiving traffic; nothing (or at most, very little) is
known prior to the wiretap order. Put another way, you cannot be
ordered
to produce tapes of phone call that happened a month ago. (CALEA only
says
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:36:08 -0400, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
say, i wonder how many actual calea requests have been sent out
anyway?? (I know one very large network has yet to get a single one,
or so the grape vine tells me.)
I see this asked a lot...
I see this asked a lot...
http://www.askcalea.net/reports/wiretap.html
[2009] http://www.askcalea.net/reports/docs/2009wiretap.pdf (warning:
314pg verbose report)
To save yourself the trouble (pg 8 of the slow 5MB download):
Telephone wiretaps accounted for 98 percent (1,720
cases) of
Between e-discovery and RIAA issues, retention times are probably shrinking
even though capacity for retention is growing.
Capacity for retention has grown but one still needs fast searching of
data, or a few LEA requests on the same day or week will overflow your
capacity to answer them.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:09:55 -0400, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
I think it's safe to say CALEA is a non-issue for this crowd.
That's true for now. But with an increasingly data hungry world, and VoIP
popularity, ISPs aren't going to escape CALEA forever. There are reasons
IOS has
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
j
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
Actually the alliances visible at present are:
JN2 proposal:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
- Original Message -
From: Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com
To: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 27 July, 2010
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
collaborative marketing ploy of 2001.
Or eNom's .cc/.com ploy from 1999-present. Don't
On 7/26/10 7:50 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
collaborative marketing ploy of 2001.
Or
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the entities at the table don't like or want at
On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the
34 matches
Mail list logo
