If the system of interest consists of a non-trivial number of carrier
edge devices, then a non-random distribution of source addresses is
certain. (para 1, tech).
The armed organization referred to as "Isis" is described[1,2] in some
detail, in the first as having sophisticated digital
Hey!
New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/struck.php?n1v>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://hongcongapps.com/road.php?rm>
Eric Brunner-Williams
Hey!
New message, please read <http://takestockinyourlife.com/usual.php?6>
Eric Brunner-Williams
i read it, its rather good.
-e
On 9/12/15 12:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
(off list) */and I will be happy to share a copy of the letter for you
to review before you agree to sign on.
Why don't you just send us a copy or a
On 10/25/14 5:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It might. So would removing the farce of 'private' domain registration.
the venue where the applicable policy is currently under development is
gnso-ppsai-pdp...@icann.org
just to be tediously instructive, the policy applicable to gtlds is
David wrote:
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage
in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities
complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there
aren't a whole lot of folks from those
On 10/23/14 7:27 PM, David Conrad wrote:
in other words, the bc and ispc were, and for the most part, imho, remain
captive properties of the intellectual property constituency.
Here, Eric is suggesting the intellectual property folks are driving policy
issues on behalf of the folks interested
some history.
at the montevideo icann meeting (september, 2001), there were so few
attendees to either the ispc (now ispcp) and the bc (still bc), that
these two meetings merged. at the paris icann meeting (june, 2008) staff
presented an analysis of the voting patters of the gnso
systemd is insanity.
see also smit.
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws}
of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to
the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of
the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the
.mil
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone
editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of
magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by
reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the
icann 1st and
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's
tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate
namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you
comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the
.us zone, i differ
well, apropos to point #2, the iso3166/ma includes representatives from
ten agencies, of which a certain 501(c)(3) originally in marina del rey,
now in los angeles, is included.
however, i can't imagine staff offering an opinion of record on the subject.
ay for aye would work for me.
-e
On
On 9/17/14 9:10 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
Right. Similarly, .SU has been assigned. SU is a bit odd in the sense
that it was moved to “transitionally reserved” when the Soviet Union
broke up and a batch of new country codes were
On 9/17/14 10:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
To be clear, generic TLDs (gTLDs) can’t have bare (dotless) TLDs (or wildcards).
um. .museum. ...
On 9/16/14 8:26 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What kind of timeframe would a new ccTLD for a major country roll out on?
that could be several quite distinct questions:
1. assuming that the aye vote prevails, in what quarter will the
iso3166/ma issue the relevant update, allocating a code point to
well, looking at the ayatollah's website and invoking google translate
there's this language:
... different mechanisms to secure and protect their users against the
moral and psychological damage this type of service, including access to
information, videos and photos from immoral and
see also:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-3g-phones-filter-unsanitary-water.html#
restated slightly, video, the primary vehicle for porn, needs minders,
text, the primary vehicle for ideas, does not.
-e
On 8/31/14 11:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
well, looking
Please ping me.
TiA,
Eric
On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them ...
i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior
clue
For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State
Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect,
respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC
Chairman Thomas Wheeler,
On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.
I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon
rights-of-way
On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
fiber (conflict of interest).
Ray,
Could you offer a
On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts.
Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and
regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican free markets ideologue) on
a (Progressive)
On 6/26/14 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.html
Have not seen much
Could someone from Amazon Web Services contact me off list? I'm getting root
login attempts from one of your assets and abuse@ hasn't been responsive today.
Tia,
Eric
On 9/12/13 1:39 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
ICANN new gTLD agreements specified 100% availability for the service,
meaning at least 2 DNS IP addresses answered 95% of requests within 500 ms
(UDP) or 1500 ms (TCP) for 51+% of the probes, or 99% availability for a
single name server, defined as 1 DNS
On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
For the folks who aren't aware, there is working being done on a proposal
for a complete do-over of WHOIS:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130703_rebooting_whois/
I don't believe this work address the regional registry
On 7/26/13 8:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:05 , David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
wrote:
You can change anything you want. ARIN ICANN are both member
organizations. Propose a change, get
On 7/4/13 8:00 AM, Ted Cooper wrote:
Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
for a virgin TLD.
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those
On 7/4/13 10:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
significantly improved by fire insurance?
Cute John. Let me know when you've run out of neat things other people
should do.
Eric
On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
our older gear/software/admins need upgrading issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is not
Someone who should know better wrote:
Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this
OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: DEC? the DAG?
Draft Applicant's Guidebook.
On 7/4/13 6:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: DEC? the DAG?
Sigh. DNSSEC and Draft Applicant Guidebook.
I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
who are able to privide you with a connection that will do IPv6.
In this context the universe of 50 providers are registry service
providers, existing and entrant. Verisign, NeuStar, Afilias, CORE,
AusReg, ISC, ...
Your side
Thank you Rubens, you saved me the effort.
Eric
On 7/2/13 7:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
Rather than asking random strangers, you can read the applicant
guidebook and find out what the actual rules are:
There really should be a kinder introduction to those who lack basic
clue than to attempt to read the last version of the DAG, even for the
On 6/7/13 8:28 AM, tei'' wrote:
This is one of these Save the forest by burning it situations that
don't have any logic.
To save a forest firefighters often cut a few tree. Don't cut all the
trees in a forest to save it from a fire.
Seasonal work, many solar obits past.
Well, actually,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas
the headline may be misleading.
Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as operations and
related programs or activities … conducted by or on behalf of the
United States Government, in or through cyberspace,
In time of response order:
There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in
which a para contains possibly relevant registrar shall terms.
This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the
Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the
On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle
records. The same should also apply for DS records.
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == on) that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.
And exactly
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems
like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I
mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position
Folks,
We'd a user account compromised a couple of weeks ago, spam naturally.
We're not getting any response from Gmail's set of contacts, so if
anyone has a working Gmail contact, phone or mail, that they're
willing to share off-list, I'd appreciate it.
Eric Brunner-Williams
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
that indicate the size of the next label. And since
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from
providing those services.
That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical
home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with
Ethernet provider
On 2/1/13 6:26 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
municipal utilities:
- sell bonds cheaper (holders get tax-advantaged rates in interest
income, and are ultimately backed by the muni taxpayers)
Tangential to the private vs public screed:
The ability to issue (and sell) tax exempt (T-E) bonds for any
On 1/31/13 6:28 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
seen is a municipally owned conduit system….
Could you be a bit more specific? What is the muni, and where can the
business model data be found?
Also, what was the muni's ROW
On 1/30/13 6:33 AM, Jason Baugher wrote:
The other thing I find interesting about this entire thread is the
assumption by most that a government entity would ...
could we agree that contract management is a problem inherent and not
abandon an engineering discussion, which includes economics, to
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the public-can't rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francisco,
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
cyber strife between states, or shall cyber strife between states
be without treaty based limits?
On 1/12/13 10:49 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... serious corruption problem, that wants to shut the Internet down ...
Bill,
I don't accept the premise that (a) the settlement free peering model
as modernly practiced can not also be characterized as problematic,
and that (b) the intents (note the
On 9/27/12 9:24 AM, ku po wrote:
CERNET policy is FREE of charge for it's members, as long as the traffic is
in their 'FREE networks' eg most of IP Blocks in China and some
Universities in the world.
However, outbound traffic to Non-free networks eg most blocks outside China
will be charged.
On 6/4/12 12:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
high-value targets are easy to find.
one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
that
On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters.
the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set
formation.
there may be more than one
On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. What? I
have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
service is a problem?
History suggests that the
On 5/23/12 1:40 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In a modestly favorable light, ISC looks like an arms dealer (DNS
redirection)
to the bad guys
my thought looks like a reasonably successful alternate root operator.
i mention kevin dunlap as well as bill's mention of phil
interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as
constituting an extra-
territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are
neither established in France nor
directly providing services within
On 3/28/12 11:45 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Actually, given the uptick in spoofing-based DoS attacks, the ease in which
such attacks can be generated, recent high profile targets of said attacks,
and the full-on money pumping freakout about anything with cyber- tacked on
the front, I suspect a
good head line copy edit.
body lacks substance, though not attitude.
-e
In article 95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net you write:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
well
there are the legacy (pre-2000) set.
there are the seven
Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and
generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs.
I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements
with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs.
at present there are almost as many
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
property, investment
Thank you George. Not SMTP but HTTP.
I expect exact match string (as brand) marketers, and also
partial match string (as brand typo-squatter) marketers, to exploit
this asset class (widely spread and legitimately routed IPs).
#include string/metric.h
#include icann/udrp.h
#include seo/ppc.h
In my experience the path of least resistance is to get a junior network
engineer and ...
agree, where the end goal is to increment the facility's scripting
capable administrators. been there, done that.
disagree, where the end goal is to create a coherent distributed
system with a non-trivial
On 2/15/12 8:32 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
... Before deciding to go the IDNA route, treating DNS
labels as UTF-8 was discussed, evaluated and rejected.
well, sort of. we started with idn as a wg label.
the smtp weenies opined that they'd never have a flag day and anything
other than a boot
of the ICANN Board.
The ASO AC is pleased to announce the following four candidates for its
upcoming appointment.
The Candidates are:
- Thomas Eric Brunner-Williams
- Martin J. Levy
- William Manning
- Raymond Alan Plzak
In accordance with the ASO AC election procedures
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
hijacking]?
So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray's
Folks,
In the never ending game of policy whack-a-mole, we are offered the claim that
that the cost to a small to medium business to make its operational purpose
v6 address enabled is in the mid-five figures.
For those of you who do smb consults, some numbers to make a hypothetical
shop
Well I just asked the question during the Getting Ready panel at the
ICANN 41 meeting.
keep in mind that the venues for asking precise questions for the
purpose of obtaining accurate answers of record are tdg-legal, or
the saturday gnso gtld hours (the kurt show).
Q: How much on top of the
Lets say I want to apply for .WINE with commercial purposes, then what
is a ballpark figure for the funds/investment required ?
My guess, it is way way above the $185K
assuming no defect in the application, necessitiating a second bite
at the apple, at cost (extended eval), and no objections
My perception is that if you don't have access to ~$2M for that kind
of gTLD don't even waste your time.
you may want to consult with a practitioner in the jurisdiction of your
choice who does business organization and investor equity structures,
as the cost to acquire a right to contract for a
I was talking about public perception and the ability to change it
through marketing; not any actual security.
It's like the difference between .com and .biz, people don't
understand when something isn't a .com and don't trust it. When I
say people I'm talking about the average
ray,
... only trust .band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
secure is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk,
a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at
the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
as the elected unaffiliated member representative (or umr) i suppose i
should point out that (a) yes, the structural feature of individual
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations
Really, if you're going to opine on the disasters that will befall ICANN as a
result of the new gTLD program, you might want to actually read what that
program does and doesn't do. Really.
you made my morning dave. thanks for the chuckle!
howdy all from a cold room 100km north of the equator.
...
That's an *amazingly* oblique and de minimis reference to the topic on
point, couched in Eric's usually opaque language ...
...
i'm reading this from the meeting room where the generic names supporting
organization council is meeting
so did anyone have a question or is my epistolary stylistic genius
sufficient as topic of general interest?
... and he talked for 45 minutes, and no one understood a word that he said.
i'm happy to leave the reportage and issue analysis to those better informed.
you look to be someone
[...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
are either confusing or messy the best rationals for declining
either or both of corporate names or trademarks?
are these (corporate naming and trademark registration as generators)
Two comments from two commenters:
I can't seem to find anyone that would benefit from this, with the exception
of Stuart and ICM's shareholders.
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like who
did you talk
On 3/27/11 2:35 PM, John Levine wrote:
... I expect the board and staff really
really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like who
did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX
application and what did you say? and why did you vote
On 3/27/11 4:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
Next, on what basis do you make the claim that .coop and .cat have
failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal communities?
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million
On 3/27/11 5:50 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million world-wide, yet
there are only 6700 domains in .COOP. I would find it hard to say
that under 3% takeup was significant support.
Do you
On 3/21/11 1:19 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
So the days of pointless TLDs are amongst us as we've now given would-be
registrars the right to print money and companies are forced to purchase
useless domain names in order to protect their trademarks, prevent
squatting, etc. When will sanity
On 3/26/11 5:17 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
...
But do you really believe playboy are going to give up playboy.com? Or that
new websites are going to register an address that will result in their
website not being visible by 1/6th of the worlds population (
On 3/26/11 7:17 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
For some reason the aerodynamics of pigs comes to mind here. Having pigs fly is
just about as likely as having ambitious Southern prosecutors
give up the ability to bring meaningless, but newsworthy, porn prosecutions,
ICANN's new TLD or no.
ICM
:
-Original Message-
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brun...@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:24 PM
ICM retained competent counsel for the ICANN issue advocacy. I expect
Stuart will retain competent counsel for the follow-on issues.
Yes, it is certain that Stuart
First, thanks for all the responses to What vexes VoIP users?
I'm looking for pointers to sites, like Geoff Huston's potaroo.net,
that are VoIP clue dense, or mailing lists(*) where the VoIP-full lurk.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
(*) I'm already on the ecrit list, though my real interest in the
OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...
For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs}
are most vexing?
For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
On 2/16/11 4:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect ...
ditto.
i'm not aware of any actions by the .eg registry operator, though i'll
ask, coincidental to the prefix withdrawal.
i suppose in the interests of completeness i should
On 2/16/11 6:10 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:25 13PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't think that the Egyptian shutdown of domain names had much effect;
that's why the bgp prefixes were withdrawn. What was effective was the
withdrawal of BGP prefixes.
Per the NYT article, the
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest
is an error on your part.
gtlds are whatever the controlling contract (icann) requires, and that
currently lacks an external to the point of service performance
measurement, and whatever the registrants require, with
On 2/14/11 3:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
owen,
at several points you assert that gtlds are global, which i suggest is an
error on your part.
TLDs come in two flavors.
GTLD -- Global Top Level Domain -- A domain which contains
On 2/9/11 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
I disagree... I think that offering alternate name space views to the existing
{b,m}illions of v4 addressed spindles requires IPv6 reachability as well since
those will also be adding IPv6
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
