Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #894
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, December 1 2001          Volume 01 : Number 894

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

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 00:40:33 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

The consequences of foolish choices. ATT paid 6 billion dollars for Excite.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200111/msg0038
2.html

on 11/30/01 10:36 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:

> As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
> 
> Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters to
> the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help stabilize the
> Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
> 
> This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> 
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
> --
> 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, 1 Dec 2001 10:15:25 +0100
From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Good News

Jeff and all assembly members,

On 30 Nov 2001, at 17:17, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   BORooN?  I am not familiar with that?  Any URL references?

boroon.net - BORooN = Business Oriented Root Network
I posted a URL about our White Paper a few days ago in this list.

> > >   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner
> > >   [...]
>   None in specific as I already stated.  Rather a method.

Sorry. We may play with words for a long time. But I haven't that 
time.

> > For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not
> > managed by ICANN are alternative roots.
> 
>   Not so any longer.

? Please specify.

> > Please don't expect people
> > out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a
> > root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive
> > roots. No.  There are inclusive and competitive Root structures.
> 
> > The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from
> > community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for a
> > root which includes the *official* roots.
> 
>   There are no "Official" Roots any longer.  There are simply Inclusive
> and competitive root structures.

Who states that? If this is one of your statements, I can accept it as 
your point of view - which is not wrong as is. If no "official root" 
exists, this has to be a statement from ICANN itself. Did I miss 
anything?

> > The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a
> > common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may be different.
> 
>   Yes this would be a working definition of a Inclusive root structure
> except ICANN doesn't own the Legacy/USG Root's.  The USG DOC/NTIA does. 
> Hence perhaps, your confusion...

Okay. But I'm not interested in the formal structure. The actual 
strucuture is interesting. Differing roots exist simply because
(a) ICANN doesn't seem to be able to fulfill its contractual role: 
developping the Internet by setting up more technically _and_ legally 
_stable_ TLDs.
(b) The legacy/USG roots set up the TLDs ICANN defines as "legal".
(c) ICANN's process for submitting TLDs lasts too long and costs to 
much.
(d) Beside the forum structures and public meetings of the BoD and 
of the constituencies, the real, practical decisions are taken 
elsewhere.

Please don't forget, that the Internet has to be a useful instrument for 
communication and is not an aim by itself. That's why it doesn't 
matter, if roots are named inclusive or official and who formally 
decides about the legacy roots.

> > >   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event
> > >   when a
> > > stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.
> >
> > Jeff, I know what a hit is.
> 
>   Than why did you ask?  >;)

This was not a question, but a comment about the usefulness of a hit 
as a statistical data.

> > That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do
> > you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure?
> 
>   Yes.

Okay. I suppose this is true, when I use your definition of an 
inclusive/competitive root.

> > Do
> > you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?
> 
>   No.  It in fact is anti competitive in it's nature.  However
>   thankfully
> Done Evans made the DOC/NTIA's position somewhat clear.
> That being essentially that the USG/DOC/NTIA will not do
> anything to harm or thwart competitive or inclusive Root structures or
> registries.  But also will not assist them either.  And that is fine.

Agree with that.

Regards,
Pascal
================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
[email-masked]
http://cube.de/
http://boroon.de/
FON: +49-6352-753725
FAX: +49-6352-753726
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 02:02:42 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

|> From: Mike Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:03 PM

|> The NC has already delivered its preliminary comments on At Large to 
|> the Board in Marina del Rey.  It will shortly be considering how to 
|> amend and extend that advice.  The GA has the opportunity to 
|> contribute to that process and it ought to use it.

Does that mean that they are going to actually read the comments better than
they did for WG-Review? Talk about a setup for failure! Further, if cutting
WG-Review short wasn't enough, rewriting the output to suit NC preference
was really over the top!
- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 02:09:44 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Internet stability

The point is, that I wondered how much ICANN activity has relevence to real
internet users, relative to immediate connectivity stability issues? There
are a lot of Excite users that, I am sure, do not have ICANN at the top of
their minds tonight. If ICANN wants to get their attention then it is
something to think about.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:03 PM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: GA DNSO (E-mail)
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Roeland,
|> 
|> how do you suppose that ICANN could have any over-site with 
|> Excite @ home?
|> 
|> ICANN has no contract with Excite @ home and ICANN has 
|> nothing in their
|> charter about stability of organizations it has no contracts with.
|> 
|> Postings such as these don't help folks participate in the 
|> GA, you are
|> detracting focus from real issues and I encourage you to 
|> stay on topic, at
|> least to those we have that are within the purview of the GA.
|> 
|> thanks,
|> 
|> -rick
|> 
|> 
|> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF 
|> Bay Area, may lose
|> > their internet connection due to the business failure of 
|> Excite @ home.
|> >
|> > Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this 
|> is what matters to
|> > the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost 
|> four months. Has
|> > the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to 
|> help stabilize the
|> > Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch 
|> any part of this.
|> >
|> > This may be the largest outage in the history of the 
|> Internet. Heretofore,
|> > the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. 
|> However, unlike
|> > NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, 
|> the impact on
|> > business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new 
|> customers as a
|> > result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
|> >
|> > --
|> > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
|> > Managing Director
|> > Morgan Hill Software Company
|> > tel: +1 925 373 3954
|> > cel: +1 925 352 3615
|> > fax: +1 925 373 9781
|> > http://www.mhsc.com
|> > --
|> > 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, 1 Dec 2001 07:06:55 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

what a "stretch " here !!

next thing I expect to hear is that ICANN is somehow responsible for the
past outbreaks of "Mad Cow" disease.

when you get finish with this silly thread then you can next propose a
resolution blaming ICANN for the "defoliation" of the rain forests in
southeast Asia and south America

ken stubbs
(who by the way is coming to you from comcast@home  in orlando florida)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA DNSO (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:36 PM
Subject: [ga] Internet stability

> As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may
lose
> their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
>
> Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters
to
> the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help stabilize
the
> Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
>
> This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> tel: +1 925 373 3954
> cel: +1 925 352 3615
> fax: +1 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
> --
> 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, 01 Dec 2001 09:29:58 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

Respectfully, I disagree.

ICANN and its predecessor were never related to the defoliation process. Nor
were they ever associated with agricultural controls (or lack thereof) that led
to the mad cow disease problem.

However the 24.xxx.xxx.xxx IP address block allocation that made the @home
business model possible in the first place, etc....
started with IANA. This has everything to do with stability.  If not at the
operational level, at least at the policy level where ICANN claims
jusrisdiction.

You can pay risk mgmt consultants or other experts to tell you but it's just
common sense that the larger the single point of failure, the more you do to
provide either failure prevention or failover security.

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> what a "stretch " here !!
>
> next thing I expect to hear is that ICANN is somehow responsible for the
> past outbreaks of "Mad Cow" disease.
>
> when you get finish with this silly thread then you can next propose a
> resolution blaming ICANN for the "defoliation" of the rain forests in
> southeast Asia and south America
>
> ken stubbs
> (who by the way is coming to you from comcast@home  in orlando florida)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> To: "GA DNSO (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:36 PM
> Subject: [ga] Internet stability
>
> > As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may
> lose
> > their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
> >
> > Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what matters
> to
> > the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> > the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help stabilize
> the
> > Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
> >
> > This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> > the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> > NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> > business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> > result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> >
> > --
> > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> > Managing Director
> > Morgan Hill Software Company
> > tel: +1 925 373 3954
> > cel: +1 925 352 3615
> > fax: +1 925 373 9781
> > http://www.mhsc.com
> > --
> > 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

- --
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

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

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:05:27 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: forum.icann.org for the ALSC Report?

Mr. Lynn,

A "new mechanism"?

Surely you jest.  Based on your Internet presence and performance record, 
I'm sure you don't mean ICANN is creating new technology.  Maybe someone 
from your staff could provide documentation for use with your next message 
so that it could include information about your intention.  After the ICANN 
proves it understands technology, it will earn our trust - until then 
it/you are going to have to try a lot harder.

~k

At 04:27 PM 11/30/2001 -0800, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>Danny:
>
>Thank you for your note. I am sure it is no surprise to you to learn that 
>work is already underway to create a new mechanism for the Internet 
>community to submit comments. In the meantime, those interested can 
>continue to submit their comments to the ALSC Forum at 
>http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml.
>
>With regards
>Stuart
>
>At 3:08 PM -0500 11/30/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Stuart,
>>
>>Now that the Board has requested public comments on the ALSC report, when
>>will ICANN create a Public Discussion Forum at http://forum.icann.org/  to
>>accomodate such comments?
>>
>>If such a Forum is not created that is readily apparent to the public and
>>properly publicized, how do you expect to receive the At-Large input that you
>>ostensibly seek?
>>
>>
>>Further resolved [01.126] that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final
>>Report from the Internet community as a whole, including the DNSO Names
>>Council, the ASO Address Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests
>>that any such comments be submitted within 45 days from the date of this
>>Resolution;
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Danny Younger
>
>
>--
>
>__________________
>Stuart Lynn
>President and CEO
>ICANN
>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>Tel: 310-823-9358
>Fax: 310-823-8649
>Email: [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: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 17:16:15 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

Dear all,
As Joanna puts it in term of economics for this major failure:

On 05:40 01/12/01, Joanna Lane said:
>The consequences of foolish choices. ATT paid 6 billion dollars for Excite.
>http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200111/msg0038
>2.html>

But the real issue is well defined in that memo:

<quote>
I do know that ATT paid six billion dollars for Excite by itself on the 
assumption that people would leave their home pages set to Excite. This 
seemed particularly naive and foolish. It was compounded by ATT comments 
about wanting a share of the e-commerce revenue generated by their 
customers. This seems to be part of a fundamental misunderstanding of what 
the Internet is. I think of it as confusing the Internet with the Home 
Shopping Network and not recognizing the layering and the end-to-end 
architecture.
</unquote>

The problem is the usual problem of commercial people dreaming to reshape 
the network reality rather than using it. Any seaman knows that you go with 
the sea, not against. Before doing any business on the network it is better 
to understand how it works, and how the people use it :-) ...

The problem is that when you tell how the Internet is built you are not 
listened ... yet (so many people know intuitively better) . But it is 
coming with such failures. May be sometime the ICANN will listen too !

The Internet is neither a captive starn etwork, nor a meshed market. It is 
a distributed, open real life multi consensus you have to attract. Business 
on a network must be layered along the network layers: what costs and kills 
is the confusion between layers as with NSI: one thing is to register a 
domain name, another is to certify a user, another is to run DNS servers, 
another is to coopete with other TLDs to develop the Nets. Even if you 
address apparently the same market: actually you do not address 
individually the same people, not at the same time, not in the same 
capacity. Bundling things instead of helping people shopping for waht they 
want, when they want, how they want, costs you your shirt. Telcos have 
nothing to do with the Internet: they have to create a separate affiliate. 
And that affiliate has nothing to do with e-commerce. Another affiliate. In 
France France Telecom understood that: they created Wanadoo - a total new 
name and company, different people to approach the market. And they still 
commercially partly suffer from their Telco ties.

I only hope that this huge financial loss will not hurt Marilyn's since she 
is in that area, and that it will serve all the others who cannot afford to 
lose even 6 dollars to understand the architecture of their own small local 
or family business. I am glad I did not sign with Excite :-) for a project 
!!!

This is not the first time I see AT&T blundering in style: the collapse of 
the X-Ten project in the early 80's helped a lot of my by then X.25 public 
services customers not to go under or wrong - I had a worldwide famous :-) 
day over that in Tel Aviv for those who may remember !!! You may tell 
people what they do is against the network architecture rules: they do not 
listen, but when they see the financial losses some start understanding ....

Jefsey

>on 11/30/01 10:36 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> > their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
> >
> > Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what 
> matters to
> > the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> > the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help 
> stabilize the
> > Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
> >
> > This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> > the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> > NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> > business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> > result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> >
> > --
> > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> > Managing Director
> > Morgan Hill Software Company
> > tel: +1 925 373 3954
> > cel: +1 925 352 3615
> > fax: +1 925 373 9781
> > http://www.mhsc.com

- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 12:11:16 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

Happy holidays Dan...

It sounds to me like your advocating that ICANN should be responsible for
developing policies that deal with breakdowns of poorly operated business
like this.

it would seem to me that the "marketplace" would absorb failures here and
there are, in most cases, redundancies to services currently provided should
they fail.  my guess is that there are dsl and other alternative services in
most markets (although the backup in my market will be 56k dialup) and ,
though there will be inconveniences to consumers (just like airline
failures) there are options. people will learn from these experiences and
will elect to stay with more reliable providers in the future

the one issue that I do have is not an icann policy issue but rather a
"regulatory" licensing   issue and that is one of disclosure.  I live in a
smaller market where there are many thousands of cable internet subscribers
and, to-date,  Comcast has not disclosed directly to ANY of their
subscribers that their service may be in danger of failure. they have a very
"obscure" reference on their  homepage but I can assure you that virtually
none of their subscribers are even aware of the www.comcast.com url much
less the vague allusions located on the home page of the site under "answers
to questions regarding comcast@home service".

the people who grant exclusive licenses to these cable companies should
require disclosure whenever continuation of service is in jeopardy under
penalty of license forfeiture. (if the SEC can mandate "risk disclosure"
then so can the licensing agencies !!

i guess that one would have to decide whether cable internet access is an
"essential service " when thare are viable alternatives available   (i think
not !)

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

> Respectfully, I disagree.
>
> ICANN and its predecessor were never related to the defoliation process.
Nor
> were they ever associated with agricultural controls (or lack thereof)
that led
> to the mad cow disease problem.
>
> However the 24.xxx.xxx.xxx IP address block allocation that made the @home
> business model possible in the first place, etc....
> started with IANA. This has everything to do with stability.  If not at
the
> operational level, at least at the policy level where ICANN claims
> jusrisdiction.
>
> You can pay risk mgmt consultants or other experts to tell you but it's
just
> common sense that the larger the single point of failure, the more you do
to
> provide either failure prevention or failover security.
>
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > what a "stretch " here !!
> >
> > next thing I expect to hear is that ICANN is somehow responsible for the
> > past outbreaks of "Mad Cow" disease.
> >
> > when you get finish with this silly thread then you can next propose a
> > resolution blaming ICANN for the "defoliation" of the rain forests in
> > southeast Asia and south America
> >
> > ken stubbs
> > (who by the way is coming to you from comcast@home  in orlando florida)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "GA DNSO (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 9:36 PM
> > Subject: [ga] Internet stability
> >
> > > As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may
> > lose
> > > their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @
home.
> > >
> > > Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what
matters
> > to
> > > the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months.
Has
> > > the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help
stabilize
> > the
> > > Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of
this.
> > >
> > > This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet.
Heretofore,
> > > the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However,
unlike
> > > NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact
on
> > > business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers
as a
> > > result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> > >
> > > --
> > > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> > > Managing Director
> > > Morgan Hill Software Company
> > > tel: +1 925 373 3954
> > > cel: +1 925 352 3615
> > > fax: +1 925 373 9781
> > > http://www.mhsc.com
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 12:36:41 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Additional comments - Re: [ga] Internet stability

You know, we may be reaching the point where e-mail could, hypothetically ,
be considered and "Essential Service" much like "Postal Service" or
"telephone service"

Dont be too surprised to see, as a result of a massive "potential failure"
(like AT&T's " @home" bankruptcy) , a "regulatory style" movement towards
declaration of e-mail as this type of service.

We all know that the legitamite e-mail volume (not counting "spam")  both
within the USA and world wide is "staggering" and the impact on business as
well as personal communications is significant (witness the fact that i
recieve most of my bills by e-mail rather than thru the "snail mail") of any
significant lost of this capability would be devistating.

Given this assumption, don't be too surprised to see governmental agencies
"jumping"  on this issue in a big way and developing policies & guidelines
for "assurance of continual e-mail service"

 ken stubbs

- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 13:01:50 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

> You may tell
> people what they do is against the network architecture rules: they do not
> listen, but when they see the financial losses some start understanding
....

I think it is more a matter of them understanding it and trying to change it
because it is not consistent with their world-view. Telcom's grew up in a
world where all services are distributed from a central control point (the
CO) to subscribers through a network that grows increasingly "stupid" (the
local loop) until it reachs the terminally un-intelligent end-points (the
handsets) where subscribers consume the pre-packaged service.

The internet, on the other hand, is a fundamentally "stupid" network with no
centralized control and highly intelligent end-points (desktop computers).
In this model, the end-points define the application and services that
travel across the network - pretty scary from the point-of-view of the
standard telco model. This is also where TCP/IP networking derives its power
and mass-market appeal.

This concept was originally proposed as a principle for allocating
intelligence in large scale networks by Saltzer, Reed and Clark in 1981 and
has since become a central principle in the design of the Internet.
Technically, the principle is well understood. Where we are running into
problems nowadays is with the policy implications of this structure driven
by urge to centralize and control the network by those that wish to make
money from it Telcom-style.

Much of the news about the internet that we've seen over the last few years
are driven by those who embrace e2e arguments and those who wish to subvert
them. (Napster v. RIAA, AOL/Time Warner Merger, QOS and much more...)

If you are interested in learning a little bit more about this dynamic,
these papers are a great primer.

End-to-End Arguments in System Design, J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D.
Clark
http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf

Active Networking and End-To-End Arguments, Comment, David P. Reed, Jerome
H. Saltzer, and David D. Clark
http://lawschool.stanford.edu/e2e/papers/Saltzer_Clark_Reed_ActiveNetworking
e2e.html

Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End to End Arguments vs. the
Brave New World, David Clark and Marjory Blumenthal
http://lawschool.stanford.edu/e2e/papers/TPRC-Clark-Blumenthal.pdf

Thanks,

- -rwr

- --
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, 1 Dec 2001 10:01:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet stability

all:

The ATT/@Home issue is completely off topic for this list, lets keep
focused on relivant issues infront of the GA.

chair:

   would you please list the top 3 unresolved issues the GA faced,
   from the meeting in Marina del Rey, to refocus this list.

thanks,

- -rick

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear all,
> As Joanna puts it in term of economics for this major failure:
>
> On 05:40 01/12/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >The consequences of foolish choices. ATT paid 6 billion dollars for Excite.
> >http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200111/msg0038
> >2.html>
>
> But the real issue is well defined in that memo:
>
> <quote>
> I do know that ATT paid six billion dollars for Excite by itself on the
> assumption that people would leave their home pages set to Excite. This
> seemed particularly naive and foolish. It was compounded by ATT comments
> about wanting a share of the e-commerce revenue generated by their
> customers. This seems to be part of a fundamental misunderstanding of what
> the Internet is. I think of it as confusing the Internet with the Home
> Shopping Network and not recognizing the layering and the end-to-end
> architecture.
> </unquote>
>
> The problem is the usual problem of commercial people dreaming to reshape
> the network reality rather than using it. Any seaman knows that you go with
> the sea, not against. Before doing any business on the network it is better
> to understand how it works, and how the people use it :-) ...
>
> The problem is that when you tell how the Internet is built you are not
> listened ... yet (so many people know intuitively better) . But it is
> coming with such failures. May be sometime the ICANN will listen too !
>
> The Internet is neither a captive starn etwork, nor a meshed market. It is
> a distributed, open real life multi consensus you have to attract. Business
> on a network must be layered along the network layers: what costs and kills
> is the confusion between layers as with NSI: one thing is to register a
> domain name, another is to certify a user, another is to run DNS servers,
> another is to coopete with other TLDs to develop the Nets. Even if you
> address apparently the same market: actually you do not address
> individually the same people, not at the same time, not in the same
> capacity. Bundling things instead of helping people shopping for waht they
> want, when they want, how they want, costs you your shirt. Telcos have
> nothing to do with the Internet: they have to create a separate affiliate.
> And that affiliate has nothing to do with e-commerce. Another affiliate. In
> France France Telecom understood that: they created Wanadoo - a total new
> name and company, different people to approach the market. And they still
> commercially partly suffer from their Telco ties.
>
> I only hope that this huge financial loss will not hurt Marilyn's since she
> is in that area, and that it will serve all the others who cannot afford to
> lose even 6 dollars to understand the architecture of their own small local
> or family business. I am glad I did not sign with Excite :-) for a project
> !!!
>
> This is not the first time I see AT&T blundering in style: the collapse of
> the X-Ten project in the early 80's helped a lot of my by then X.25 public
> services customers not to go under or wrong - I had a worldwide famous :-)
> day over that in Tel Aviv for those who may remember !!! You may tell
> people what they do is against the network architecture rules: they do not
> listen, but when they see the financial losses some start understanding ....
>
> Jefsey
>
> >on 11/30/01 10:36 PM, Roeland Meyer at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > As of midnight, tonight, 4 million users, just in the SF Bay Area, may lose
> > > their internet connection due to the business failure of Excite @ home.
> > >
> > > Lately, we've been talking about what matters. Well, this is what
> > matters to
> > > the Internet public. This has been seen coming for almost four months. Has
> > > the ICANN even tried to do anything? Yet, ICANN claims to help
> > stabilize the
> > > Internet. The territory that ICANN claims, doesn't touch any part of this.
> > >
> > > This may be the largest outage in the history of the Internet. Heretofore,
> > > the NorthPoint failure may have had claim to that honor. However, unlike
> > > NorthPoint, Excite has mostly residential customers. Ergo, the impact on
> > > business isn't as great. DSL providers can expect many new customers as a
> > > result, even if Excite doesn't pull the plug tonight.
> > >
> > > --
> > > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> > > Managing Director
> > > Morgan Hill Software Company
> > > tel: +1 925 373 3954
> > > cel: +1 925 352 3615
> > > fax: +1 925 373 9781
> > > http://www.mhsc.com
>
> --
> 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 #894
************************