Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #831
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, November 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 831

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

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 20:38:14 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Upon reviewing the agenda and schedules for the MDR meet I find them
> neither secure nor really having to do with security.
>
> They seem to be vendor, political and personal agenda based.
>
> Why would "for security reasons" there end up being two classes of
> meetings  - apparently some secure and some not?

  These two classes are reasonable but incomplete to address the
actual concerns and existing known security with the DNS and
IP addressing systems which are the two most exposed areas
presently.

>
>
> How can security issues be handled in an open and transparent bottoms up
> manner?

  There are a number of ways.  They have been discussed on this forum
and are also available in several IETF WG forums as well.  I participate
on three of those IETF forums presently (DNSSEC, IPSEC, and TLS).
There are also a number of industry based forums such as the Sans
Institute that also provide a number of classes for certification, one
of which is taking place about the same time frame as the MdR
meeting.  Perhaps Eric, you and possibly others here should
consider taking a look into these amongst a number of other
forums engaged in Internet Security issues.

>
>
> The important thing to remember when reviewing these matters is to keep
> in mind we have "social security" and we have "elitist security".  It
> looks to me like the security set up in MDR is to protect our board but
> to hell with participants.  I don't think that is what the man who stood
> all alone in Yankee stadium to throw out the first ball has in mind.

  The president can always bu updated in this area through Mr. Clark
should you so choose.  Perhaps he should be if you believe that there
is a systemic problem here.

>
>
> I have yet to hear from or see a proclaimed security expert post
> anything anywhere on ICANNs' sites.

  ICANN's sites?  Please explain exactly what you mean by that?

>  Having worked in Security I find
> this irresponsible and dangerous.

  THe ICANN BoD and staff have shown clearly that they are a day
late and several dollars short when it comes to Internet security
concerns that have been known for some time.  Only sense 9/11
has such been of extreme interest to them.  Better late than
never I suppose.

>
>
> Either this meeting is about security which requires security or it is
> not.  And if anyone suggests secrecy equals security  they are stupid.

  Secrecy does sometimes mean security.  Internet security is no
exception sometimes as well.  But this is a judgment call based
on known security protocols as well as methods of implementation.
What is concerning is that the ICANN BoD and staff have almost
no expertise in Internet security areas and will be relying heavily
on the IETF to provide that expertise.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> --
> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 19:05:14 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals

Let's see, I have a choice between the ICANN meetting or this one
http://events.venturewire.com/summit/default.asp. At  $895, it's cheaper
than the ICANN meeting and I'll get more value out of it.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 4:56 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals
|> 
|> 
|> Upon reviewing the agenda and schedules for the MDR meet I find them
|> neither secure nor really having to do with security.
|> 
|> They seem to be vendor, political and personal agenda based.
|> 
|> Why would "for security reasons" there end up being two classes of
|> meetings  - apparently some secure and some not?
|> 
|> How can security issues be handled in an open and 
|> transparent bottoms up
|> manner?
|> 
|> The important thing to remember when reviewing these matters 
|> is to keep
|> in mind we have "social security" and we have "elitist security".  It
|> looks to me like the security set up in MDR is to protect 
|> our board but
|> to hell with participants.  I don't think that is what the 
|> man who stood
|> all alone in Yankee stadium to throw out the first ball has in mind.
|> 
|> I have yet to hear from or see a proclaimed security expert post
|> anything anywhere on ICANNs' sites.  Having worked in Security I find
|> this irresponsible and dangerous.
|> 
|> Either this meeting is about security which requires 
|> security or it is
|> not.  And if anyone suggests secrecy equals security  they 
|> are stupid.
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Eric
|> --
|> 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: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 19:32:34 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals

No Jeff,

I was referring to physical security!  It is very difficult although possible
to cause physical harm over the net.

But your further discussion exemplifies my point over vendors, you are
suggesting that certain products can provide us with security.

There are established ICANN meetings not open to the public yet the President
attended a fully open world series game was my point regarding the first
pitch.

Our leaders are disingenuous at best with this meeting being regarding
security.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Upon reviewing the agenda and schedules for the MDR meet I find them
> > neither secure nor really having to do with security.
> >
> > They seem to be vendor, political and personal agenda based.
> >
> > Why would "for security reasons" there end up being two classes of
> > meetings  - apparently some secure and some not?
>
>   These two classes are reasonable but incomplete to address the
> actual concerns and existing known security with the DNS and
> IP addressing systems which are the two most exposed areas
> presently.
>
> >
> >
> > How can security issues be handled in an open and transparent bottoms up
> > manner?
>
>   There are a number of ways.  They have been discussed on this forum
> and are also available in several IETF WG forums as well.  I participate
> on three of those IETF forums presently (DNSSEC, IPSEC, and TLS).
> There are also a number of industry based forums such as the Sans
> Institute that also provide a number of classes for certification, one
> of which is taking place about the same time frame as the MdR
> meeting.  Perhaps Eric, you and possibly others here should
> consider taking a look into these amongst a number of other
> forums engaged in Internet Security issues.
>
> >
> >
> > The important thing to remember when reviewing these matters is to keep
> > in mind we have "social security" and we have "elitist security".  It
> > looks to me like the security set up in MDR is to protect our board but
> > to hell with participants.  I don't think that is what the man who stood
> > all alone in Yankee stadium to throw out the first ball has in mind.
>
>   The president can always bu updated in this area through Mr. Clark
> should you so choose.  Perhaps he should be if you believe that there
> is a systemic problem here.
>
> >
> >
> > I have yet to hear from or see a proclaimed security expert post
> > anything anywhere on ICANNs' sites.
>
>   ICANN's sites?  Please explain exactly what you mean by that?
>
> >  Having worked in Security I find
> > this irresponsible and dangerous.
>
>   THe ICANN BoD and staff have shown clearly that they are a day
> late and several dollars short when it comes to Internet security
> concerns that have been known for some time.  Only sense 9/11
> has such been of extreme interest to them.  Better late than
> never I suppose.
>
> >
> >
> > Either this meeting is about security which requires security or it is
> > not.  And if anyone suggests secrecy equals security  they are stupid.
>
>   Secrecy does sometimes mean security.  Internet security is no
> exception sometimes as well.  But this is a judgment call based
> on known security protocols as well as methods of implementation.
> What is concerning is that the ICANN BoD and staff have almost
> no expertise in Internet security areas and will be relying heavily
> on the IETF to provide that expertise.
>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> > --
> > 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 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 20:14:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Pro-Nouns

I am sure that Jeffs' citations of various mechanics to provide security
and Roelands more important trip to another forum are far more
interesting to sophisticate regarding "Internet Security".

But I pose to them and to all of you that "security" comes from public
policy, from trade agreements, and from commercial demands made by
consumers.  Yes it is right here and right now that there is the best
group to decide in a policy way what is truly secure.

Does I security mean breach of privacy?

Does I security mean only Norton or only Verisign? Or the Opposite?

How does Micorsoft figure into I security?

Does I security include National Security and what about Cultural
Security?

Do most people even understand social security and colos?  Security
redundancy and backups and modular?

We got a long way to go and a short time to get there again.

Eric

- --
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: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 21:02:35 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Pro-Nouns

You don't get it Eric, it is not that security is unimportant. Rather, it is
that the ICANN is subverting a quarterly corporate business meeting into a
third-rate security convention, at the expense of delaying  serious
corporate business. I'm not sure exactly, but I think that this might be a
bylaws issue and might even be an arguable breach of fiduciary duty. 

The value-add is that I can take back a report that states what was decided,
by whom, and where MHSC has stated/held a position. At the very least, I can
claim some marketing points.

To put it another way, many of us have difficulty justifying ICANN meetings
as it is. It least, the cost is controlled if we only attend the local
meetings (and even that takes some campaigning). In my case, this is the MdR
meeting. This means that physical representation can only happen once per
year for many of us. To then have the only substantive meeting, for us,
turned into a third-rate dog and pony show (SANS is in Chicago that same
week, http://www.sans.org/greatlakes/chicago.htm, for those that really want
an education) basically smothers any representation and voice I may have. 

Would I like to express my views on the ALSC report? You betcha I do. That
was supposed to happen at MdR. Now it is postponed until the Mar02 meeting,
which will be out of reach for me, unless I can find another reason to spend
the money on the same location. Frankly, it isn't worth the effort.

For what reason am I losing my voice in this? ... for some cocamame seminar
series that wont be as good as a professional seminar? Where is the
consensus being built? What issues will be decided? In whose favor will
these issues be decided?

<feh> the words SNAFU and FUBAR apply here and FIDO follows.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 8:15 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Pro-Nouns
|> 
|> 
|> I am sure that Jeffs' citations of various mechanics to 
|> provide security
|> and Roelands more important trip to another forum are far more
|> interesting to sophisticate regarding "Internet Security".
|> 
|> But I pose to them and to all of you that "security" comes 
|> from public
|> policy, from trade agreements, and from commercial demands made by
|> consumers.  Yes it is right here and right now that there is the best
|> group to decide in a policy way what is truly secure.
|> 
|> Does I security mean breach of privacy?
|> 
|> Does I security mean only Norton or only Verisign? Or the Opposite?
|> 
|> How does Micorsoft figure into I security?
|> 
|> Does I security include National Security and what about Cultural
|> Security?
|> 
|> Do most people even understand social security and colos?  Security
|> redundancy and backups and modular?
|> 
|> We got a long way to go and a short time to get there again.
|> 
|> Eric
|> 
|> --
|> 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: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 21:15:51 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Pro-Nouns

Saturday, Saturday, November 03, 2001, 9:02:35 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> You don't get it Eric

You could have stopped right there.  That said it all.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[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

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

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 22:12:24 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pro-Nouns

So contribute something, rather than just detracting.  I will stop right
there.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, November 03, 2001, 9:02:35 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > You don't get it Eric
>
> You could have stopped right there.  That said it all.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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 Nov 2001 02:08:09 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals

Roeland and all assembly members,

  Is that with or without dancing girls?  >;)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Let's see, I have a choice between the ICANN meetting or this one
> http://events.venturewire.com/summit/default.asp. At  $895, it's cheaper
> than the ICANN meeting and I'll get more value out of it.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 4:56 PM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals
> |>
> |>
> |> Upon reviewing the agenda and schedules for the MDR meet I find them
> |> neither secure nor really having to do with security.
> |>
> |> They seem to be vendor, political and personal agenda based.
> |>
> |> Why would "for security reasons" there end up being two classes of
> |> meetings  - apparently some secure and some not?
> |>
> |> How can security issues be handled in an open and
> |> transparent bottoms up
> |> manner?
> |>
> |> The important thing to remember when reviewing these matters
> |> is to keep
> |> in mind we have "social security" and we have "elitist security".  It
> |> looks to me like the security set up in MDR is to protect
> |> our board but
> |> to hell with participants.  I don't think that is what the
> |> man who stood
> |> all alone in Yankee stadium to throw out the first ball has in mind.
> |>
> |> I have yet to hear from or see a proclaimed security expert post
> |> anything anywhere on ICANNs' sites.  Having worked in Security I find
> |> this irresponsible and dangerous.
> |>
> |> Either this meeting is about security which requires
> |> security or it is
> |> not.  And if anyone suggests secrecy equals security  they
> |> are stupid.
> |>
> |> Sincerely,
> |> Eric
> |> --
> |> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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 Nov 2001 02:26:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Security for status quo, not individuals

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> No Jeff,
>
> I was referring to physical security!  It is very difficult although possible
> to cause physical harm over the net.

  Than I need to watch for some person jumping our of my screen?  >;)
No I think not.  I have yet to see and example of what you refer to here
occurring.  Do you possibly have such and example you could share with us?

>
>
> But your further discussion exemplifies my point over vendors, you are
> suggesting that certain products can provide us with security.

  Yes some can do so rather nicely.

>
>
> There are established ICANN meetings not open to the public yet the President
> attended a fully open world series game was my point regarding the first
> pitch.

  Yes.  And so?  the ICANN BoD is free to have closed meetings if it
chooses although this is not wise in the current situation.

>
>
> Our leaders are disingenuous at best with this meeting being regarding
> security.

  Perhaps so.  And I suspect so to a degree as well.  But it is at least
healthy that the ICANN BoD and staff are addressing a long known
problem, however poorly they may address these security concerns.

  If however you are concerned about your personal security at the
ICANN MdR meeting you can always hire your own security service
with body guards if you feel that is necessary.  My company has seen
fit to do so in some instances for me for some time now.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all assembly members,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Upon reviewing the agenda and schedules for the MDR meet I find them
> > > neither secure nor really having to do with security.
> > >
> > > They seem to be vendor, political and personal agenda based.
> > >
> > > Why would "for security reasons" there end up being two classes of
> > > meetings  - apparently some secure and some not?
> >
> >   These two classes are reasonable but incomplete to address the
> > actual concerns and existing known security with the DNS and
> > IP addressing systems which are the two most exposed areas
> > presently.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > How can security issues be handled in an open and transparent bottoms up
> > > manner?
> >
> >   There are a number of ways.  They have been discussed on this forum
> > and are also available in several IETF WG forums as well.  I participate
> > on three of those IETF forums presently (DNSSEC, IPSEC, and TLS).
> > There are also a number of industry based forums such as the Sans
> > Institute that also provide a number of classes for certification, one
> > of which is taking place about the same time frame as the MdR
> > meeting.  Perhaps Eric, you and possibly others here should
> > consider taking a look into these amongst a number of other
> > forums engaged in Internet Security issues.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The important thing to remember when reviewing these matters is to keep
> > > in mind we have "social security" and we have "elitist security".  It
> > > looks to me like the security set up in MDR is to protect our board but
> > > to hell with participants.  I don't think that is what the man who stood
> > > all alone in Yankee stadium to throw out the first ball has in mind.
> >
> >   The president can always bu updated in this area through Mr. Clark
> > should you so choose.  Perhaps he should be if you believe that there
> > is a systemic problem here.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have yet to hear from or see a proclaimed security expert post
> > > anything anywhere on ICANNs' sites.
> >
> >   ICANN's sites?  Please explain exactly what you mean by that?
> >
> > >  Having worked in Security I find
> > > this irresponsible and dangerous.
> >
> >   THe ICANN BoD and staff have shown clearly that they are a day
> > late and several dollars short when it comes to Internet security
> > concerns that have been known for some time.  Only sense 9/11
> > has such been of extreme interest to them.  Better late than
> > never I suppose.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Either this meeting is about security which requires security or it is
> > > not.  And if anyone suggests secrecy equals security  they are stupid.
> >
> >   Secrecy does sometimes mean security.  Internet security is no
> > exception sometimes as well.  But this is a judgment call based
> > on known security protocols as well as methods of implementation.
> > What is concerning is that the ICANN BoD and staff have almost
> > no expertise in Internet security areas and will be relying heavily
> > on the IETF to provide that expertise.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Eric
> > > --
> > > 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 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail [email-masked]
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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 Nov 2001 08:56:20 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)

This is a good example now that this "Neu" group has gotten the dotUS.
Some folks are very good at getting contracts, others are very good at
fulfilling them.  Problems occur when they are not the same folks.  For
example ICANN and dotBIZ.  But the same is true during this time period for
hundreds of dotCOM bombs, they looked real sexy but had no real infrastructure
or revenue stream.

I note that of the start-ups that really have made it they have entirely new
boards from those that got awarded the start up capital.  Some are best at
creating and others best at building and managing.

So as we struggle for more seats on the board through the AL and IDNO and
ccTLDs take heart it is good and right and normal.  Hey ICANN still exists and
that puts them right up there with the successes.

<if anyone cares to learn more about these theories you can order my book at
either;
inyourdreams.biz or justkidding.info>

Eric

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ST" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 4:11 AM
> Subject: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)

- --
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 Nov 2001 13:03:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> This is a good example now that this "Neu" group has gotten the dotUS.
> Some folks are very good at getting contracts, others are very good at
> fulfilling them.  Problems occur when they are not the same folks.  For
> example ICANN and dotBIZ.  But the same is true during this time period for
> hundreds of dotCOM bombs, they looked real sexy but had no real infrastructure
> or revenue stream.

  I wonder if your are aware that Nuelevel is s subsidiary of Lockeed-Martin?
Plenty of infrastructure there I believe.

>
>
> I note that of the start-ups that really have made it they have entirely new
> boards from those that got awarded the start up capital.  Some are best at
> creating and others best at building and managing.

  And many are very good at both.

>
>
> So as we struggle for more seats on the board through the AL and IDNO and
> ccTLDs take heart it is good and right and normal.  Hey ICANN still exists and
> that puts them right up there with the successes.
>
> <if anyone cares to learn more about these theories you can order my book at
> either;
> inyourdreams.biz or justkidding.info>

  Unfortunately for some reason neither of these Domain names resolve.
So most of us will miss reading you book.  >;)

>
>
> Eric
>
> Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ST" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 4:11 AM
> > Subject: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)
>
> --
> 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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 Nov 2001 21:48:02 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)

Jeff,  thanx for your contributions.

Oh yes I am quite aware that LM is a Mother Company, and that Thykol made O rings
for Sally.  This is truly a failure of our dotCOMs.  It is a niche screw-up of
internet facilities claiming infrastructure due to other infrastructure.  When it
comes to security or flight craft it becomes deadly.  The intranet infrastructure in
qualifying specifications of a simple rubber O ring caused great death with knowing
managers.

Security versus dotNEU group?

<more>
Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > This is a good example now that this "Neu" group has gotten the dotUS.
> > Some folks are very good at getting contracts, others are very good at
> > fulfilling them.  Problems occur when they are not the same folks.  For
> > example ICANN and dotBIZ.  But the same is true during this time period for
> > hundreds of dotCOM bombs, they looked real sexy but had no real infrastructure
> > or revenue stream.
>
>   I wonder if your are aware that Nuelevel is s subsidiary of Lockeed-Martin?
> Plenty of infrastructure there I believe.
>
> >
> >
> > I note that of the start-ups that really have made it they have entirely new
> > boards from those that got awarded the start up capital.  Some are best at
> > creating and others best at building and managing.
>
>   And many are very good at both.
>

Name six!!  Better yet try contacting and bringing to this forum two.  Not a
chance.  But I can because I am becoming one.  MOP.

>
> >
> >
> > So as we struggle for more seats on the board through the AL and IDNO and
> > ccTLDs take heart it is good and right and normal.  Hey ICANN still exists and
> > that puts them right up there with the successes.
> >
> > <if anyone cares to learn more about these theories you can order my book at
> > either;
> > inyourdreams.biz or justkidding.info>
>
>   Unfortunately for some reason neither of these Domain names resolve.
> So most of us will miss reading you book.  >;)
>
> >
>

Your wink gives me great pleasure and our common goal toward helping those with less
gives me faith that we can work together to bring common sense to this Net.

> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Jim Fleming wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "ST" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 4:11 AM
> > > Subject: Big trouble with .BIZ (maybe)
> >
> > --
> > 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 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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

- --
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 #831
************************