Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1356
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 5 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1356

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

Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 22:47:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Don't open "mincoldj2sdk-1_4_0-docfolderminhot" attachment

The attachment contains a Nimda virus. /// Alexander

- --
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: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 14:48:28 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

> ummmmmmm,
> Karl may correct me at any time but it is my understanding that his suit
> was about access to records and directors' rights/responsibilities.
> Nothing in any file documents I read mentioned technical management of
> the internet.

> While it may be argued by many (including myself) that there has been a
> failure on the 'open and transparent' front, I fail to see how Karl's
> suit was an expample of ICANNs failure to manage the root in an open and
> transparent way.

The first problem is that it is State Law that Directors are accorded access
to the company's books. Any idiot knows that so ICANN's refusing to asceed
to the law's requirements somehow says that it is not subject to the Laws of
the State of California and that is a problem in the very least. Further it
is also negligence on management part to spend good legal money on trying to
stop a director from looking at the books.

What I percieve of  Lynn and Cerf is that they may  perhaps be affraid of is
that they would have to take civil recourse against Karl if he were to leak
any of ICANN's finaicial information,; But there is another side to this
too. If per say ICANN's board was doing something financially hinky or
something they are not chartered to do, the with ICANN operating finacially
outside of its charter, if Karl as a director were to gain knowledge of
that, he would have no choice but to disclose it to the people whose
interests he represents on the Board.

And possibly to the Department of Justice as well.

I am not making any threats or statements herein - just presenting a
potential possibility.

>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > 8 cc's deleted.
> >
> > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for,
what
> > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> >
> > Possibly.
> >
> > > The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
root,
> >
> > The protocols require that there be only one root:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt'

The reason there is only one root is because some IETF'er said so and for no
other reason. Why does this limit ICANN or you for that matter? If they
wanted to support more than one Root Zone they could use my RZP (yes its
been filed with the IETF), or any of the other Multi-Root solutions like
BindPlus etc etc etc.

> >
> > Methinks ICANN quite obviously have no right to claim they are living
> > up to their obligations to manage that root in a "open and transparent"
> > manner. Karl's suit is the most blatant example.

I agree - But ICANN by its structure and operating models, never could.

> >
> > I'd argue that they are failing on other criteria too. Eliminating
> > publicly elected directors from a "public interest" corporation,
> > amd generally operating more as a club for various special interests
> > than in the the public interest.

These are not issues of structure but in the actions ofthe people operating
ICANN.

> >
> > Overall, I'd question ICANN's right to suggest -- let alone insist --
> > that they have done a competent job to date, or that they should be
> > trusted to manage the root in future.

I would agree but restructuring them is not the idea eathier. I would like
to split them into several vertical slices. And then provide oversight and
auditing at all levels especially the registrar's and Registries as well as
the Standards Arm.

> >
> > > or only one Internet.

Take a deep breath. The concept that there is only one Internet is a
fantasy.

> >
> > There is only one Internet.

Lwets exlpore my above comment further. What there is, is one public address
space model used, but there are many Internets. All joined with Network
Gateways instead of Routers.

> >
> > > And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is
political
> > > rather than technical
> >
> > You support this?

To some extent. I believe it is the next phase of the evolution of a global
information back bone and that we will probably spend 10 years or so working
out to treaties and networking to really make Jon Postel's and Vit Cerf's
early visions of  a global Internet a reality. Right now the thing that they
were talking about not only doesn't exist but would be toxis to the
governmentsw of the world too and that makes it toxic to its users.

This is not about a one world order, as a society we are decades away from
that. Its about surviving with eachother in the interim until we can get
there.

> >
> > > and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> >
> > That does not follow.

Yes it does.

> >
> > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4
space
> > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of
China.
> >
> > That doesn't work, at least not with standard NAT. The could use all of
> > 10.0.0.0/8 in China without problems, but not 0.0.0.0/0.

No, I disagree. The missing piece is a /8 or a couple of  /8's for global
Interchange. These would be very well known gateway addresses for
country-wide Internets. They could also handle many of the global trademark
names as well.

> >
> > > Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent
namespace
> > > and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative
to the
> > > existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...
> >
> > It looks purely imaginary to me. Can you point to docs on the NAT
> > variant
> > that you believe will make this work?

Try my RZP (Root Zone Protocol) draft for instance. get it from the IETF or
I will send you a better formatted copy. Otherwiase there is all sorts of
tunneling and header management/forwarding writeups in the routing document
on file with Sun, Cisco, and IETF as a larger body. Also there are plenty of
scalar NAT solutions document by their sources.

> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> --
> 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
>

- --
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: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 21:17:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Advisory:  Documents Provided to Karl Auerbach

http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-04aug02.htm
- --
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:22:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Eric and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Dr. Joe,
>
> How do we block this threat of kiddie porn, or should we?
> I stand high on the principle of choice but not to that degree.
> I do not think Jim is working to create a bad scenario.
> Thinking especially outside of ICANN what can we do to make it all better?
> My three teenagers have a hard driven sense of morality that is more conservative
> than mine but meets with general standards.  We speak frequently and indeed email
> frequently about right and wrong.  I do not think we can dictate morality or
> ethics to those who do not engage in discourse about life in general.

  Morality and ethics in many areas of life and professional organizations
is indeed dictated by laws or by oath as you should know.  So yes indeed
we can dictate such if the goal is to define the limits of an extreme..
Kiddy Porn on the Net is indeed one of these.

  If I read you comments above correctly you seem to be saying that
your teenagers are taught or allowed to be taught and learn that
some basic ethical and moral standards can be ignored.  I hope
that is not so, when it comes to Kiddy Porn on the Net...

>
>
> You normally stay the technical course but you have swayed into my area of
> ministry.

  May god help save us all...  The practice of the ministry should never
allow for Kiddy Porn.  And I don't believe it does given recent
events...  So good for Joe's very correct and strong ethical position..
We area all very fortunate to have him as a member of our
stakeholder/user flock as a good and wholesome minister...

>
>
> You speak now of facts but do not offer guidance.
>
> What is your suggestion?
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
> > > point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
> > > only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
> > > rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
> > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.
> >
> > exactly.  and i support your view of the chiness position.  now i know the
> > chiness are twice as smart as we give them credit for.  so i would say
> > they would put some added catch 22 into the works that would favour them.
> > and possibly use a terrorist angle - which is all the fashion rage this
> > year i hear.
> >
> > > Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
> > > oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
> > > Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
> > > is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
> > > despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.
> >
> > i don't know about the right and need to do.  in a perfect democracy no
> > eboarders are required.
> >
> > > The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
> > > impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
> > > boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
> > > understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
> > > the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.
> >
> > exactly and with satellite technology routing around governments is
> > elementary.
> >
> > > If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
> > > anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
> > > Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.
> >
> > i have some bad news.  i have examined jim flemmings ipv8 and i would not
> > be surprised if that protocol ends up as kiddie porn heaven.  in fact
> > any group who does not want to be traced can use ipv8 to communicate
> > securly in secure user communities.  it would put the power of napster
> > into the hands of kiddy porn sites and of course anyone else with an
> > interest in privacy.  impossible to trace.
> >
> > we live in interesting times.  i understand thats a chiness curse too.
> >
> > regards ;)
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 20:31:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Todd and all assembly members,

  Karl as a ICANN elected BOD member and a US citizen if he
finds any clear or even questionable wrong doing in the financial
records is required to make those public and report them to
the proper authorities.  It's just that simple.

todd glassey wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
>
> > ummmmmmm,
> > Karl may correct me at any time but it is my understanding that his suit
> > was about access to records and directors' rights/responsibilities.
> > Nothing in any file documents I read mentioned technical management of
> > the internet.
>
> > While it may be argued by many (including myself) that there has been a
> > failure on the 'open and transparent' front, I fail to see how Karl's
> > suit was an expample of ICANNs failure to manage the root in an open and
> > transparent way.
>
> The first problem is that it is State Law that Directors are accorded access
> to the company's books. Any idiot knows that so ICANN's refusing to asceed
> to the law's requirements somehow says that it is not subject to the Laws of
> the State of California and that is a problem in the very least. Further it
> is also negligence on management part to spend good legal money on trying to
> stop a director from looking at the books.
>
> What I percieve of  Lynn and Cerf is that they may  perhaps be affraid of is
> that they would have to take civil recourse against Karl if he were to leak
> any of ICANN's finaicial information,; But there is another side to this
> too. If per say ICANN's board was doing something financially hinky or
> something they are not chartered to do, the with ICANN operating finacially
> outside of its charter, if Karl as a director were to gain knowledge of
> that, he would have no choice but to disclose it to the people whose
> interests he represents on the Board.
>
> And possibly to the Department of Justice as well.
>
> I am not making any threats or statements herein - just presenting a
> potential possibility.
>
> >
> > Sandy Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > todd glassey wrote:
> > >
> > > 8 cc's deleted.
> > >
> > > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for,
> what
> > > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> > >
> > > Possibly.
> > >
> > > > The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
> root,
> > >
> > > The protocols require that there be only one root:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt'
>
> The reason there is only one root is because some IETF'er said so and for no
> other reason. Why does this limit ICANN or you for that matter? If they
> wanted to support more than one Root Zone they could use my RZP (yes its
> been filed with the IETF), or any of the other Multi-Root solutions like
> BindPlus etc etc etc.
>
> > >
> > > Methinks ICANN quite obviously have no right to claim they are living
> > > up to their obligations to manage that root in a "open and transparent"
> > > manner. Karl's suit is the most blatant example.
>
> I agree - But ICANN by its structure and operating models, never could.
>
> > >
> > > I'd argue that they are failing on other criteria too. Eliminating
> > > publicly elected directors from a "public interest" corporation,
> > > amd generally operating more as a club for various special interests
> > > than in the the public interest.
>
> These are not issues of structure but in the actions ofthe people operating
> ICANN.
>
> > >
> > > Overall, I'd question ICANN's right to suggest -- let alone insist --
> > > that they have done a competent job to date, or that they should be
> > > trusted to manage the root in future.
>
> I would agree but restructuring them is not the idea eathier. I would like
> to split them into several vertical slices. And then provide oversight and
> auditing at all levels especially the registrar's and Registries as well as
> the Standards Arm.
>
> > >
> > > > or only one Internet.
>
> Take a deep breath. The concept that there is only one Internet is a
> fantasy.
>
> > >
> > > There is only one Internet.
>
> Lwets exlpore my above comment further. What there is, is one public address
> space model used, but there are many Internets. All joined with Network
> Gateways instead of Routers.
>
> > >
> > > > And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is
> political
> > > > rather than technical
> > >
> > > You support this?
>
> To some extent. I believe it is the next phase of the evolution of a global
> information back bone and that we will probably spend 10 years or so working
> out to treaties and networking to really make Jon Postel's and Vit Cerf's
> early visions of  a global Internet a reality. Right now the thing that they
> were talking about not only doesn't exist but would be toxis to the
> governmentsw of the world too and that makes it toxic to its users.
>
> This is not about a one world order, as a society we are decades away from
> that. Its about surviving with eachother in the interim until we can get
> there.
>
> > >
> > > > and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> > >
> > > That does not follow.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > >
> > > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4
> space
> > > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of
> China.
> > >
> > > That doesn't work, at least not with standard NAT. The could use all of
> > > 10.0.0.0/8 in China without problems, but not 0.0.0.0/0.
>
> No, I disagree. The missing piece is a /8 or a couple of  /8's for global
> Interchange. These would be very well known gateway addresses for
> country-wide Internets. They could also handle many of the global trademark
> names as well.
>
> > >
> > > > Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent
> namespace
> > > > and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative
> to the
> > > > existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...
> > >
> > > It looks purely imaginary to me. Can you point to docs on the NAT
> > > variant
> > > that you believe will make this work?
>
> Try my RZP (Root Zone Protocol) draft for instance. get it from the IETF or
> I will send you a better formatted copy. Otherwiase there is all sorts of
> tunneling and header management/forwarding writeups in the routing document
> on file with Sun, Cisco, and IETF as a larger body. Also there are plenty of
> scalar NAT solutions document by their sources.
>
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:20:13 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN the Enforcer

Alejandro,

In a recent interview you were asked, "Will a newly organized ICANN be able 
to enforce it's agreements with the registrars?"  You replied, "Yes. ICANN 
will organize itself in such a way that it can enforce its agreements." 
http://www.pair.com/pair/current/insider/0702/netshaker.html

Clearly, there are those that have expressed the concern that ICANN is 
becoming an unaccountable regulatory body that controls prices, services, and 
business practices of domain name companies.   I would ask the following 
questions:  

1.  What role should ICANN have beyond purely accrediting a registrar or 
registry on the basis of technical competence?
2.  Does ICANN's mission provide for its entry into the area of prices and 
business practices?
3.  Do you anticipate ICANN becoming a signatory to the registry-registrar 
agreements?
4.  Are sanctions other than disaccreditation contemplated?
5.  When will the approved Contract Monitor position be posted on the Staff 
Opportunities page?
6.  Has ICANN's intent to begin enforcing its agreements been discussed as 
yet with the registrar constituency?
7.  By when do you anticipate being sufficiently ready to begin such 
enforcement activities?
8.  What type of contract violations would you expect to deal with first?

- --
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: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Dr. Joe,
>
> How do we block this threat of kiddie porn, or should we?
> I stand high on the principle of choice but not to that degree.
> I do not think Jim is working to create a bad scenario.

not much we can do about it.  i simply mentioned the fact that ipv8 is
secure enough for kiddie porn networks and untraceable.  of course on the
positive side - it's also private enough to ensure every net user
anonymity - including both the good guys and bad guys.

but it does have alot of potential liability - which is why our ipv8
assignments will be directly managed by our users - we can see potential
headaches in it.

% whois in-addr.god
#
# [DOMAIN RECORD]
#
#        Domain:     in-addr.god
#
#  Organization:     In trust .GOD & .SATAN Domain Owners
#       Contact:     [email-masked]
#
#      DNS type:     Parked at registry
#
#        Status:     Active
#  Date created:     2002-03-07
# Last modified:     2002-03-08

% whois in-addr.satan
#
# [DOMAIN RECORD]
#
#        Domain:     in-addr.satan
#
#  Organization:     In trust .GOD & .SATAN Domain Owners
#       Contact:     [email-masked]
#
#      DNS type:     Parked at registry
#
#        Status:     Active
#  Date created:     2002-03-07
# Last modified:     2002-03-08

we run 7:186 GOD ipv8

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

regards
joe

> Thinking especially outside of ICANN what can we do to make it all better?
> My three teenagers have a hard driven sense of morality that is more conservative
> than mine but meets with general standards.  We speak frequently and indeed email
> frequently about right and wrong.  I do not think we can dictate morality or
> ethics to those who do not engage in discourse about life in general.
>
> You normally stay the technical course but you have swayed into my area of
> ministry.
>
> You speak now of facts but do not offer guidance.
>
> What is your suggestion?
>
> Eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
> > > point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
> > > only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
> > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
> > > rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
> > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
> > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.
> >
> > exactly.  and i support your view of the chiness position.  now i know the
> > chiness are twice as smart as we give them credit for.  so i would say
> > they would put some added catch 22 into the works that would favour them.
> > and possibly use a terrorist angle - which is all the fashion rage this
> > year i hear.
> >
> > > Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
> > > oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
> > > Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
> > > is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
> > > despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.
> >
> > i don't know about the right and need to do.  in a perfect democracy no
> > eboarders are required.
> >
> > > The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
> > > impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
> > > boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
> > > understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
> > > the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.
> >
> > exactly and with satellite technology routing around governments is
> > elementary.
> >
> > > If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
> > > anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
> > > Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.
> >
> > i have some bad news.  i have examined jim flemmings ipv8 and i would not
> > be surprised if that protocol ends up as kiddie porn heaven.  in fact
> > any group who does not want to be traced can use ipv8 to communicate
> > securly in secure user communities.  it would put the power of napster
> > into the hands of kiddy porn sites and of course anyone else with an
> > interest in privacy.  impossible to trace.
> >
> > we live in interesting times.  i understand thats a chiness curse too.
> >
> > regards ;)
> > joe
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

- --
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 23:53:19 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] HMS .ac, long may she sail

A Cable and Wireless node joins the growing
cacaphony against a plump ICANN:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=889&mode=nested&order=1

Sorry for the infinite recursion. -g

- --
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, 05 Aug 2002 02:06:52 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS .ac, long may she sail - Mostly old info...

I'm just in cleaning out the bozofilter and this
one drops on my head. Guess I better wear a helmet
in future. cc's snipped.

At 03:33 AM 05/08/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   Mostly old info here Gary.  But thank you anyway
>for point it up again.

Oh really? Please point to where it was published before.
Recursion is one thing, repetition another.

>   The slight of hand game that ICANN has tried to play with
>ccTLD's and less used gTLD such as .EDU as Ted put
>it "Coin of the Realm"

Your tinfoil hat must be 'sleight'ly askew.
Ted didn't put it that way. I wrote the piece.
Ted, as editor, chose to publish it. You don't
have a clue how things work do you? -g

- --
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, 05 Aug 2002 10:55:02 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:

>> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
>> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
>
>Possibly.
>
>> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root,
>
>The protocols require that there be only one root:
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt

Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
- - but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
likely.)
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
- --
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, 5 Aug 2002 03:31:17 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS .ac, long may she sail -  Mostly old info...

Monday, August 05, 2002, 2:06:52 AM, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> You don't have a clue how things work do you? -g

Stating the obvious, Gary  :)

He never has.....  Why bother even responding to him?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
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, 05 Aug 2002 05:26:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS .ac, long may she sail - Mostly old info...

Gary and all assembly members,

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> I'm just in cleaning out the bozofilter and this
> one drops on my head. Guess I better wear a helmet
> in future. cc's snipped.

  No need for a helmet there Gary old son, nothing
there to protect really.  >:)

>
>
> At 03:33 AM 05/08/02 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Mostly old info here Gary.  But thank you anyway
> >for point it up again.
>
> Oh really? Please point to where it was published before.
> Recursion is one thing, repetition another.

  Well the archives for this ML have a huge amount of
references for instance. Start around '99 and go forward in
time from there.. Also the NCDNHC Archives
have substantial number of posts and other references
as well.  So be my guest, and do some
research and get a clue!  >:)

>
>
> >   The slight of hand game that ICANN has tried to play with
> >ccTLD's and less used gTLD such as .EDU as Ted put
> >it "Coin of the Realm"
>
> Your tinfoil hat must be 'sleight'ly askew.
> Ted didn't put it that way. I wrote the piece.

  Yes I know. But Ted is credited with the article.
Hence my reference.  Your point is, again???

>
> Ted, as editor, chose to publish it. You don't
> have a clue how things work do you? -g

  Oh I think I do Gary old son.  You just don't
have a clue as to what I wrote.  Remedial reading
and comprehension courses are of course available.
Perhaps you should avail yourself of them soon!  >;)
Start with indirect reference, and pick it up from there...

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 5 Aug 2002 06:58:21 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

> On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> >> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> >
> >Possibly.
> >
> >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root,
> >
> >The protocols require that there be only one root:
> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
> 
> Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
> there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
> - but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
> likely.)

The US doesnt have a law that recognizes the IETF's authority.

In fact, we have a higher law that says that other roots are legal: 
Its called the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Operating a root network is a protected act of publishing - of 
free speech. Any law attempting to ban other roots would be
struck down.

- --
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 #1356
*************************