Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1257
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 3 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1257

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 08:07:55 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

Michael - this ccTLD nightmare may actually be an outgrowth of the way in
which DNS was architected, and to a large extent may be based in that DNS
services are not like telephone numbering. Also there is the issue that the
DNS of today (BIND 9.x) is really still only designed for a single root
system through a single registrar so global scaling and the need to offer
billions of name possibilities were never considered. Especially when some
of these names would need to be "identical" to others. Likewise the BIND
protocol is only a delivery mechanism and is not capable of managing the DNS
infrastructure it supports further complicating the process.

With that said let me propose that should have happened is that the
country-code (what now is the ccTLD URL anchoring nomenclature) might have
been made the prefix on the URL as opposed to a part of the URL itself. This
would have allowed an essentially  infinite number of possibilities for the
dot com, net and org domains since each  ccTLD code would have its own set
of dot whatever's. Then to round this off, all we would need some globally
"equated" names as well for folks like Cocacola or other global players.

So something like "http://[us]www.nasa.gov" would have the [us] country code
in the URL and would have been NASA globally, but to keep things simple the
already existing "http://www.nasa.gov" would have been the same from within
our TLD.

Such a mindset would also allow for us to do "[us1], [us2], and [us..X] zone
names such that the underlying marks (the textual representation of the
URL's) could be identical. It is no more confusing than the use of ccTLD's
now to achieve the required physical expansion of namespace.

My feeling is that this model would have required simple additions on the
processing of DNS to make real and would have saved a ton of pain in the TLD
creation since each TLD would only need to support its own root servers to
step in here. This means that registrars or Countries could set up their own
TLD's which is what true privatization should enable.

I think that the adoption of such a naming model convention would have made
life much easier for all concerned.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

> Actually, I don't think this will help as much as it should, since the .us
> contract written by DoC takes the Sims line: .us must do what ICANN tells
> it.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Peter Dengate Trush wrote to Joe Sims:
> > > But step one is for you and ICANN to accept that the cctlds do not
operate
> > > under a licence from ICANN. They operate under a duty to their LIC.
> >
> > I think that now, since the .us ccTLD has been put back to life,
> > we will see a better understanding of ccTLD position from the US
> > colleagues. There is a clear difference in .us and .com managements,
> > the former being US matter and duty to their LIC and USG
> > (actually the USG did not sign any contract with ICANN for its
> > own space, which was analysed as a good example to follow by
> > more ccTLDs), the later is an ICANN experiment in devising
> > extraterritorial rules for global TLD, and their reinforcement.
> >
> > My personal interpretation is that for many of our US collegues
> > there was a confusion between .com (extraterritorial) and .us (USA),
> > and a kind of perception that US did accept other countries
> > to influence the .com matters, while they do not get "reciprocity"
> > for other ccTLD. Now with .us up and running well, they have a
> > clear, American example of the difference with gTLD.
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> >
> > --

SNIP

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN exists to facilitate, not to coerce

In an ongoing exchange, the following statement was made with regard to
ccTLDs as a justification for ICANN to impose obligations and restrictions
on ccTLDs:

> ...  If you want to simply proclaim that each ccTLD is an
> island, which demands connectivity to the authoritative root but has no
> global responsibilities

That statement is based on a faulty understanding of what the Internet is
- - a voluntary aggregation of entities who voluntarily chose to adopt or
replace certain conventions of communication as their individual needs
require.

As part of that voluntary aggregation it was discovered that there is
usefulness in having namespaces and in connecting those namespaces.

A DNS root is merely a bridge to connect namespaces.

I frequently walk and drive across the Golden Gate Bridge.  As a work of
engineering and art it has considerable intrinsic value.  But its function
is to join two bodies of land and two populations of people.  It is a
bridge that would not have been built, no matter the aesthetics or
engineering challanges, but for those bodies of land and populations of
people.

The Golden Gate Bridge, like the ICANN/NTIA DNS root, exists to link
entities more important than itself.  The relative importance of the
Golden Gate Bridge is understood.  Its board of directors exists at the
pleasure of, and to serve, the counties on either side of the bridge; it
does not dictate policy to those counties.

The ICANN/NTIA root serves merely to link more important entities, TLD 
namespaces.  Its role is subservient, not dominant.

ICANN's job is merely to establish the technical parameters so that
groups, such as ccTLD communities, that wish to communicate can do so.

ICANN exists merely to facilitate, not to coerce.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign to Help Telecoms with Wiretaps (fwd)

Yahoo - VeriSign to Help Telecoms with Wiretaps
http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020603/tech_verisign_1.html

Reuters Internet Report
VeriSign to Help Telecoms with Wiretaps

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Security and Web address provider VeriSign Inc.
(NasdaqNM:VRSN - News) on Monday unveiled a new service to help U.S.
telecommunications carriers comply with wiretapping regulations that have
gained more prominence since the attacks of Sept. 11.

Mountain View, California-based VeriSign is testing its new "NetDiscovery"
wiretapping services, which is expected to be commercially available in
early July for land-line, wireless and cable carriers, said Terry Kremian,
executive vice president of VeriSign's telecommunications services.

Under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
telecommunications companies must have systems that allow law enforcement
officials acting with a court order or other legal authorization to
intercept targeted telephone calls and access caller ID data quickly.

The law also requires carriers to provide the resulting wiretap data to
the police or the FBI in a way that allows it to delivered or transmitted
offsite to government offices.

...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:04:21 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Paul Kane's comments:

from a post to the Council list:

The importance of ICAnn

As CENTR members travel to Crete for their 14th General Assembly, many
colleagues will pass through Socrates' "home town" of Athens, it is worth
remembering that Socrates did not want his words transcribed onto tablets or
into books that could circulate without their author or travel beyond the
reach of discussion and questions, for fear of exposure to unauthorised
revision, confusion or misrepresentation. Plato recognised his teacher's
concerns and published Socrates' thoughts and conversations as an honest
Secretariat, simply recording the wisdom of his teacher and the
understanding of the people. The problems to which Socrates pointed are just
as acute today, in an age of re-circulated 'news', public relations, global
gossip and Internet power struggles.

The new Internet technologies are ideal for achieving greater transparency
and openness. Unfortunately the very technologies that distribute
information so easily and efficiently are every bit as good at spreading
misinformation and disinformation. If we want a society of technical
stability and which placing trust is easier, we need to look for ways in
which we can actively check one another's claims. This cannot be achieved
merely by greater reliance on informed consent or consumer protection. Due
to the nations of the world having cultural multiplicity and diversity of
political and legal platforms, it is most likely a single global management
structure will fail all of the communities it is designed to serve and
potentially lead to commercial and civil chaos.

Milton believed that truth and civil accord would always triumph in a "free
and open encounter".  With the Internet a rich and diverse global resource,
technically not able to be subject to the more traditional hierarchal top
down "governance" structure perhaps the time has come for our political
masters to start thinking laterally.

Throughout the short history of the Internet development has occurred
through "Centres of Expertise" - where those with the necessary knowledge
share their wisdom, so the merging of great minds results in a step forward
for the global community and the betterment of mankind. Each Centre of
Expertise has retained its autonomy to remain focused on resolving specific
issues, avoiding confusion and chaos. These various autonomous Centres of
Expertise foster the community spirit such that Cicero's proverb Iucundi
acti labores (a job well done is a real pleasure) leads to a robust, stable
and universal Internet, without the restrictions imposed by inflexible
contractual relationships. The Technical community, from the Root Name
Server Operators to the Internet Engineering Task Force, all understand the
foundation of the Internet is built on cooperation and failure to appreciate
such simple principles potentially lead to destruction of the universal
communications medium, used by millions of citizens today.

The virtual world is no different from the physical world. In a democratic
society, there is a multiplicity of political parties. In each country there
are different views, cultural considerations, jurisdictional areas of
authority delineating areas of responsibility. The Parliament, the forum for
information exchange, is replaced once the term of office has expired; yet
the judiciary continue to serve their community, ensuring stability and the
on-going well-being of the community. No single forum has power over the
courts of the land and the sovereignty of a nation, yet history has shown
the vagaries of politics, oscillate from left to right when long-term
prosperity is almost always found at the point of equilibrium.

If ICANN becomes a "seat of power" it may become the "seat of failure"
subject of litigation, derision and circumvention.  If ICANN becomes the
servant to the community, offering itself as a place of information
exchange, organising a programme of activities to encourage participation in
the Internet and democratic process by the widest spectrum of people, it
will provide authoritative analysis of problems and practical suggestions
for change. It is not governance by "power" or "proclamation" but cajoling
compliance based in standards and community advancement.

The role I see for ICANN is as an Internet Centre for AdmiNistrative
excelleNce, (ICAnn). Like Plato accurately recording the wisdom of the
Centres of Excellence so the global Internet community can continue to
enhance and enrich the lives of its users. Just as Plato, continues to play
an important role in today's civilisation, ICANN too can become an important
source of published knowledge.  I am specifically not advocating that ICANN
becomes the source of knowledge, for like Socrates I fear unauthorised
revision, confusion or misrepresentation, but an ICAnn that simply records
and publishes Internet community input and wisdom. It is the Centres of
Excellence who through internal management processes formulate Best Practice
applicable to their Community and pass their decisions to the ICAnn for
publication.

The role of Governments and their representatives is very important as a
means of submitting Public Policy issues to the community, via participation
in each Centre of Excellence, and the GAC. Just as Plato was the recorder of
Socrates' wisdom, so was it that Euthyphro, Apology and Crito, who checked
to ensure the integrity of Plato's work as Trustees on behalf of the
community. For the community at-large to have confidence in ICAnn, the
(s)election by the Nominating Committee of the representatives of the
(small) Oversight Body of Trustees needs to be considered carefully to
ensure cultural multiplicity and diversity of political and legal platforms
is present.  Such an approach will foster confidence with the community
at-large and facilitate an understanding of the importance of maintaining
equilibrium without introducing destabilising visions of authority.

Most of the Root Name Servers are operated on a pro-bono basis by
organisations with staff of excellent technical competency and network
infrastructure of more than adequate capacity for the global community.
Currently the IANA function is undertaken by ICANN performing a management
function with insertions and modifications of entries in the root zone file
on behalf of US Department of Commerce.  The Root Name Server Network is
proven to be robust, resilient to attack and a stable foundation for the
further development of the Internet.

The Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Architecture Board have
a proven track record in developing technical standards for the
inter-connection and global operation of the Internet, and openly discussing
and regularly publish on the Internet (using internal management processes)
RFC's as guidance to the community.

The 3 (soon to be 4) Regional Internet address Registries (RIRs) have a
proven track record in managing the allocation of Internet Protocol
Addresses, regularly hold open meetings with interested parties to ensure
the stable development of services throughout their geographical areas of
operation.

The 244 Country Code Top Level Domains Registries (ccTLDs) obtain their
authority from, and are accountable to, their local (national) Internet
communities, which may comprise local Government, Internet users, community
groups and trade/professional associations. ccTLD registries accredit and
enforce agreements with their registrars or resellers in accordance with
their published policy.

Like all of the above Centres of Expertise, ccTLDs hold regular meetings
with their members and formulate Registry policy based on national law,
cultural requirements and technical resources of the national
infrastructure. There are a few situations in the ccTLD community of
requests for reassignment of the management of a ccTLD registry.  Where the
reassignment is amicable from one administration to another ICAnn's role is
simply to record the change; where a reassignment is in dispute there should
be recourse by the aggrieved parties to national courts to resolve any
disputes, with ICAnn recording the judicial verdict.

The generic Top Level Domain Registries (gTLDs) obtain their authority under
contract from, and are accountable to, ICANN. ICANN - or the Advisory Bodies
to ICANN formulate policy following input from active members of the global
Internet community.  ICANN has the responsibility to accredit and enforce
agreements with gTLD registrars servicing gTLD Registries and failure to do
will potentially cause chaos undermining the stability and confidence of the
gTLD registrant community.

Under this proposal the resources required in the provision of services
under ICAnn are proportional to the demands placed on ICAnn by each Centre
of Expertise. Upon evaluating the required resources it became clear the
level of funding to ICAnn is inversely proportional to the expenditure each
Centre of Expertise undertakes in self administering its requirements.

When the IETF or the RIR's seek to resolve a specific issue, they
self-organise the communities and hold open public meetings either virtually
via email lists or physically to seek the counsel of the experts. When the
combined wisdom of their members is obtained they publish the results in an
open and transparent manner so all may share in the benefit. National ccTLD
registry operators similarly consult their national communities, at great
internal expense, to address specific issues of interest to their national
community, and once the consultation process is concluded share their
finding with the broader international community, so other Registries may
benefit.

Due to the globally diverse composition of the gTLD community, the gTLD
community is by far the largest direct contributor of fees to ICANN paying
for a range of coordination and policy development services. Having
developed policy the gTLD community needs to be assured ICAnn will enforce
the terms of the contracts developed through community consensus. Failure by
ICAnn to enforce the contracts results in Registrars, Registries and
Registrants incurring additional support costs to resolve operational
disputes, whilst having paid a proportion of the levied domain registration
fee for ICAnn to undertake a contract compliance role. Once the gTLD
community becomes more established and matures, the opportunity for
self-organisation will manifest, and it is likely the resources required by
the centralised compliance unit of ICAnn will decrease.

The level of funding for the Internet Centre of Administrative Excellence as
outlined is, I am advised, sustainable by the respective communities to
ensure the stable operation of ICAnn as the centralised community
coordination resource.

At the click of a mouse those with insatiable appetites for information and
a desire to participate in the process of evolution of the Internet can do
so by becoming a participant of their chosen Centre of Expertise.

Some members of the ICANN Board may be reluctant to allow a Body of Trustees
(by empowering the Centres of Excellence), thereby not facilitate the
required evolution to the ICAnn structure. It therefore beholds the
community at large, including Governments, and each Centre for Excellence to
play a pivotal role as catalyst for change.

In my opinion there is no need for the inappropriate centralised seat of
power, or regimes that protect the past against the developments of the
future, instead we need a vibrant light weight decentralised ICAnn such that
Socrates, Plato, Euthyphro, Apology and Crito would all be proud.

Paul M. Kane ([email-masked]) 22nd May 2002
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:29:33 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: ... H2K2, Public Voice]

Announcements, forwarded from the politech list, of two
conferences that may interest people here:

Public Voice in Internet Policy
Washington, June 22
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/dc02/

H2K2: NY, July 12-14
http://www.h2k2.net/

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: FC: Events: Observing Surveillance, H2K2, Public Voice
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:41:03 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>

[snip]

- ---

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:39:39 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Sarah Andrews <[email-masked]>
Subject: Public Voice event

Hey Declan,

Wondering if you could post this on your list at some stage.

Thanks.
Sarah.

On Saturday June 22 ,the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in 
association with INET 2002, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty 
(CPSR) and Georgia Tech IP3, will host a one-day public symposium on the 
Public Voice in Internet Policy. Leading academics, technologists, and policy
makers from around the world will come together to discuss the future 
rights and freedoms of the public in the information age. Topics to be 
considered include ICANN reform and public participation in Internet 
governance; the privacy and free speech implications of recently passed 
Terrorism and Cybercrime measures; and the future of the Public Domain in a 
world of increased intellectual property laws, Internet commercialization 
and media consolidation.
Details and registration at: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/dc02/

- ---

To: [email-masked]
From: Macki <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 22:10:34 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: H2K2 announcment
X-UIDL: 4f89856c1b703af536c67b15165c9efa

Speakers

    Keynote speaker #1: Aaron McGruder, author of the daily comic strip
    "The Boondocks" which has devoted time over the years to hacker
    issues, most notably the DECSS case. McGruder is one of those rare
    individuals with access to the mainstream who actually "gets" the
    technical issues. Needless to say, he has been targeted relentlessly
    by censors for daring to speak his mind. Sound familiar?

    Keynote speaker #2: Siva Vaidhyanathan, professor at NYU and the
    University of Wisconsin, frequent NPR commentator, and author of the
    recently published "Copyrights and Copywrongs." Vaidhyanathan is an
    expert on what's going on with copyright law, the dangers we're
    facing, and how it will all ultimately change our society. His talk
    will focus on "life in a distributed age" where distributed
    information systems of all kinds are challenging cultural and
    political assumptions. He says, "The moral of the story is that
    whether we like it or not, it's time to take anarchy seriously. We
    have spent the past 200 years thinking centralization of power and
    information was the greatest challenge to republican forms of
    government and corporatized commerce. But now, it should be clear,
    decentralization and encryption have emerged as the most important
    dynamics of power."

    Mark Hosler. Lead singer of Negativland - the band that got sued by
    nearly everyone, including their own record company - will be
    addressing issues of fair use and censorship, plus presenting a video
    display of Negativland's past and future.

    Robert Steele, former clandestine case officer (spy), author of "On
    Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World," president of Open
    Source Solutions Inc. He was once described by writer Bruce Sterling
    as "about 100 times smarter and 10,000 times as dangerous as the best
    of the hackers, for he is successfully hacking the most challenging of
    bureaucracies, the U.S. intelligence community, and doing it for the
    right reasons."

    Cult of the Dead Cow. Nobody can predict what this year's stage show
    will include. Whether it's releasing new software that will really
    piss off Microsoft or dancing with Jello Biafra on stage as part of a
    twisted "bow to the cow" ceremony, the cDc will continue to prove
    their dominance as a corrosive influence on young minds everywhere.

    The Mentor. You've probably heard "The Conscience of a Hacker" quoted
    all over the place, including the movie "Hackers." It remains one of
    the most inspirational pieces written about the hacker community and
    it's survived well over time. This year, we're pleased to have the
    author of the piece himself give a reading of it and offer additional
    insight.

    Steve Rambam. A favorite of the HOPE conferences, Rambam is Senior
    Director of Pallorium, Inc., a licensed investigative agency, with
    offices and affiliates worldwide. He offers dramatic technical insight
    into the world of private eyes and the many databases that contain
    information on all of us. You'll learn what you can do to protect
    yourself and see some live demonstrations that show just how fleeting
    privacy is.

    Uzi Nissan. The Nissan family has been around a lot longer than the
    car manufacturer. But that hasn't stopped them from being mercilessly
    harassed with lawsuits for daring to register the site nissan.com.
    You'll see the tactics that are used against the "little guy" and find
    out what it takes to fight corporate America.

    John Young. Founder and operator of one of the web's most valuable
    resources - cryptome.org. No stranger to controversy, Young continues
    to publish and link to information on such subjects as Echelon and
    Tempest and was among the first to publish the complete transcript of
    the trial involving Osama Bin Laden in 1994. More recently, Cryptome
    tracked down 20 year old testimony of MPAA chief Jack Valenti that
    showed how the movie industry believed VCRs would destroy Hollywood.

    Deborah Natsios. Operator of Cryptome's companion site, cartome.org,
    described as "an archive of news and spatial/geographic documents on
    privacy, cryptography, dual-use technologies, national security and
    intelligence -- communicated by imagery systems: cartography,
    photography, photogrammetry, steganography, camouflage, maps, images,
    drawings, charts, diagrams, IMINT and their reverse-panopticon and
    counter-deception potential."

    Andy Mueller-Maguhn. Involved with Germany's Chaos Computer Club since
    the 80's, organizer of the annual CCC Congress in Berlin, and more
    recently elected to the board of The Internet Corporation for Assigned
    Names and Numbers (ICANN) where he offers his unique perspective and
    reports back to the people on what is really going on inside that
    mysterious and powerful organization.

    Rop Gonggrijp. Founder of the Dutch publication Hack-Tic which wound
    up evolving into xs4all, one of the biggest Internet providers in the
    Netherlands. Also a key organizer of the Dutch hacker conferences that
    wound up inspiring the original HOPE conference in 1994 and continue
    to inspire us to this day.

    Eric Grimm. Not only does he understand Internet issues, he has a real
    passion for cutting through legal gibberish and getting to the real
    issue. This is the guy who beat Ford in court when they sued us last
    year.

    Mike Godwin. The former Staff Counsel for the Electronic Frontier
    Foundation, Godwin has a long history of defending individual rights
    on the net and standing up for free speech everywhere. He is the
    author of "Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age."

    Robin Gross. Currently a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier
    Foundation specializing in intellectual property and fair use.

    Gweeds. Known throughout the community as a hacker activist (not a
    hacktivist). Gweeds is known to raise eyebrows, issues, and the
    general level of intelligence in whatever room he's in.

    Pud. Founder of one of the favorite web sites on the net today -
    fuckedcompany.com - where people in the industry go to find out and
    possibly spread the latest rumors on the internal workings - and
    sometimes imminent collapses - of all kinds of companies. You'll learn
    the trials and tribulations of keeping such a site going as well as
    why it serves a vital function.

    Bernie S. Longtime hacker, 2600 writer, and information gatherer. He
    is not a friend of the authorities and has been targeted and
    prosecuted by them in years past. It hasn't kept him from continuing
    to investigate technology, asking lots of questions, and sharing what
    he learns.

    Emmanuel Goldstein. Co-founder, editor, and publisher of 2600
    Magazine, host of WBAI's "Off The Hook," producer/director of "Freedom
    Downtime," and chief organizer of the HOPE conferences. Frequently
    blamed for the downfall of society.

    Cheshire Catalyst. The last editor of "Tap" Magazine, the publication
    for phone phreaks and computer hackers that existed in the 70's and
    80's.

    Doug Thomas. Journalist and author of "Hacker Culture." Thomas did a
    number of pieces on the Kevin Mitnick story, one of the few writers
    who actually tried to get to the bottom of the story.

    Mike Levine. Host of the "Expert Witness" radio show on WBAI and
    author of numerous books. A 25 year veteran of various federal
    agencies. If you've ever heard his show (which immediately precedes
    "Off The Hook"), you know that this is a guy who knows how the federal
    system works - and how it doesn't. With the FBI just being granted
    sweeping new powers, this is one of the few people who will tell you
    exactly what it means.

    Again, this is merely a preliminary list of what we're working on for
    the conference. You can also look forward to panels and talks on
    social engineering, pirate radio, conspiracies of all sorts, 802.11
    fun, lockpicking, nanotechnology, Indymedia, cryptography,
    steganography, satellite hacking, and a whole lot more plus showings
    of your favorite hacker movies including "Freedom Downtime" and a
    brand new one called "Owned."

- ---

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:38:19 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ccTLD dialogue with Joe Sims (wasRe: your comments

- --=======739164D8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3A03534B; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Peter and Joe, I am truly puzzled by this lack of understanding of 
what the Internet is or could/will be ..  Peter, did you think there are 
thousands ways to consider a name associated with an IP, not only the 
sterile one the  ccTLDs have copied from NetSol? Joe did you ever tried to 
understand how the DNS works and the absolute lack of need of a root server 
system if the user station are smart enough - what it could/should/will 
soon be or already are. May I remind you that I do not use your root server 
system for two years now!  And many we are. Not to be a pirate and go 
alt.roots but for stability, security, speed and protection. What Richard 
Clarke is probably going to propose for Govnet if he does his job 
correctly, and why would he not do it correctly?

Also, .. Joe, reinventing the history the way you do, does not really help: 
ARPANET peole inherited the .ARPA part of the name space and used - as all 
the others - the roots into the other names spaces we gave to them. That 
these other networks did not keep using their name space and switched to 
X.121 does not  change anything to the principles you call upon. ccTLDs 
were created to interconnect local networks (a TLD is a virtual network 
name) with the ARPA virtual network (.arpa). The French system (Cyclades 
was older and gave many features to the ARPA, including subsidies. This is 
not a master slave system and hisgtory. It is a give and share one. Please 
reread the RFC 883. Or listen to those who did it ...

When you link New-York to London by Great Western, canoe or Concord you do 
not delegate the UK to the Queen!!

Each ccTLD is an island. And each user is an island. And this is what is 
turely interesting, because it makes your job to serve them - or to lead 
thelm - if you are good. Anyway this is the way itis and this is the way it 
will circumvent all your effortto claim it should be otherwise :-) and why 
we can support your refform: it wants to rule a world which does not exist. 
So there is no real harm to that Grand-dadyKarten, except its cost.
jfc

On 16:19 03/06/02, Joe Sims said:
>This is a pretty good illustration of the perception gulf we are dealing
>with.  Hello! -- ICANN was created because individual national governments
>cannot effectively deal with the global issues created by global character
>of the Internet and the DNS.  Notice that to Peter, the only global issue
>is interconnection, and things like cc's that act like g's, escrow, dispute
>resolution, whois -- these are all up to the "local internet community."
>So, if 240 LIC's decide on 240 different policies, that is not only OK, but
>the way it should be, in the World According to Peter.
>
>The GAC principles are highly contentious and in my view and others just
>plain wrong in their declaration that the internet naming system is a
>public
>resource. How does the USG regard that claim, for example?
>
>On this point, I suggest you read the contract between the USG and its
>contractor, which states that it shall comply with the GAC Principles and
>ICANN policies.  And the last time I looked, the USG was part of the GAC
>that adopted those principles?  Was NZ?
>
> >Such
> >things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
> >resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
> >cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our
>who
> >to contact when an issue arises  -- stuff like this?
>
>No. These things, in a cctld, have nothing to do with ICANN. These are
>issues for the LIC, and
>because they are in the main subject to clear and identifiable national
>law,
>there is an available remedy for any problem which a registrant might
>encounter. How presumptuous to think that ICANN should or could play any
>role in this. Its not ICANN's job to protect the people of a cctld from
>failure of its registry. Its simply absurd to suggest that its ICANN role
>to
>provide a dispute resolution process, not the national legal system.
>And if there's a gap in the national laws, there are national remedies.
>
>Cybersquatting in a cctld cannot have anything at all to do with ICANN,
>whose mission is technical management of names and numbers, not to protect
>intellectual property rights.
>
>Denying the existence of the real world will not make it go away.  Read the
>White Paper, and the MOU, and then tell me again that ICANN has no policy
>role outside of technical management of names and numbers.  I understand
>you wish it were not true, but it is.  I suggest that, if you don't like
>it, you seek to persuade your national governmental representative to
>advocate for a different way to deal with the global issues that you say
>ICANN has no role in, since they will not be overcome by wishes and hopes.
>Perhaps you would prefer that these issues be dealt with by some form of
>intergovernmental organization, where I suppose you could assert again (but
>with many fewer people listening) that these issues are solely the purview
>of the LIC.  As someone that seems to have some understanding of
>international legal principles, you will appreciate that even local acts
>that have extra-local effects frequently create jurisdiction outside local
>boundaries.
>
>The cctlds are not equivalent to the gtlds. Regulations which ICANN  passes
>as the LIC for the g-space are nothing to do with the laws and policies
>each
>cctld develops by its own processes.
>
>Until we get this clear, the real prospects where there can be discussions
>about crossover cannot begin. I for one, see much advantage in a place
>where
>those problems that have been solved in the g-space can be brought to the
>collective attention of the ccTLDs, who may well adopt similar or
>complementary policies (and vice versa).  An existing example is the
>adoption by several
>countries of UDRP as the local DRP. I see the ccSO as the place where the
>cc's will meet, and it should be to the ccSO that proposals for "crossover"
>policies can be debated.
>
>But step one is for you and ICANN to accept that the cctlds do not operate
>under a licence from ICANN. They operate under a duty to their LIC.
>
>And exactly where did the cc administrator's get their delegation?  Was it
>the DNS version of the Immaculate Conception?  If I remember my history,
>the cc delegations came from the IANA, and they brought with them
>obligations to the global DNS and the LIC.  Reinventing history does not
>move the ball forward.  The issue under discussion is what is the
>appropriate allocation of policy responsibilities.  This is neither a
>matter of high policy nor or high politics; it is a purely pragmatic
>question of what policy authority is necessary or useful, where should the
>policy development process be located, and how should policies adopted be
>implemented.   If you believe, for example, that it is not desirable that
>those ccTLDs that act like gTLDs should have to comply with some or all of
>the policies that apply to gTLDs, say so and explain why.  But don't simply
>assert that it is an irrelevant question because  a ccTLD is not a gTLD,
>which is neither persuasive nor productive.  If you believe that there is
>no legitimate global interest in every TLD having escrow or dispute
>resolution policies or whois databases that meet some minimal global
>standard, say so and explain why.  But don't try to avoid the debate by
>saying that the question is illegitimate.  When you want to debate the
>merits, I'm ready.  If you want to simply proclaim that each ccTLD is an
>island, which demands connectivity to the authoritative root but has no
>global responsibilities, go ahead, but don't be surprised if many don't
>find that discussion very interesting.

- --=======739164D8=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1257
*************************