[ga] Re: [icann-europe] ICANN, VRSN, ORG: please, let get real.

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joe,
thank you for your comment. [Also thanks for a positive private support by 
a certain person wanting not to be disclosed - unexpected and impresive!].

At 19:54 27/04/02, Joe Baptista wrote:
>I shall refer to these people as twits - which in internet parlance means
>a user who is not an internet newbie (first timer) - so they know their
>way around the internet - but the problem is they have no idea what it is
>they are doing - however they don't know any better and have a false sense
>of security - etc. etc.

The real problem is that they know how to run the network for themselves, 
their community (some refer to it as the ICANN community, ie the JonPostel 
legacy network community). They had no experience about operating it for 
other. And they are foreign to international network system business 
development.

>An example of a twit is ester dyson, and the press who claim she is a
>guru.  as well as people like chris wilkinson who is willing to play cards
>with simms - icanns man in charge of putting out fires.

I think Sims will be recorded as a legal-collar e-terrorist. But why to 
blame him? he is certainly a reasonable pragmatic brillant guy. He learned 
networks from Jon Postel, discovered the opportunity and keeps it going. 
The problem is that Jon Postel is not here anymore to tell him what has 
changed and what cannot be done in the old ways anymore. He is a lawyer not 
a worldwide network manager.

Esther is trying her best the same with what she knows and experienced. I 
never met Wilkinson yet. But I have no doubt he tries to to his best. We 
all have different experiences. There are three kinds of us: the religious 
(like Stuart), those who listen (as most of us) and those who dont listen. 
Unfortunately religious and deafs are the governing minority.

>This claim is nonsense.  The CIA as usual has no clue.  All it takes is an
>attack on the root servers to call it lights out.

Joe, what would be of real interest would be for you to list all what the 
CIA can do or know about a given country in using the root server system. 
Kill access to it. Reroute calls to sites. Intercept mails etc. is obvious. 
I am more interested in the day to day log analysis: did you ever tried to 
link your log files to some event (economic growth, vacations, tension 
etc...). I am sure that one good analyst can learn a lot about a country 
this way.

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Well Jefsey it feels like the Titanic to me too.  But look at the comedy -
>when it blows up it won't affect us.  But it will affect the europeans.

everyone alike. Except open systems, China and friends. Except my French 
nationwide access as it may instantly rely on our roots. We also can offer 
a service in a matter of hours. But... we currently lack the ressources to 
support the whole thing.

> > Point 2. The only solution we have IMHO is :
> > 1. to accept that we are in a general critical situation, so we stop
> > babbling and we think very clearly.
>
>no let it crash.  ICANN is irrelevant to the big picture.  Just sit back
>and watch the worlds bureacrats scramble when the irrelevant non existent
>icann monopoly blows up.  and the result is a very broken and vulnerable
>intranet called icann/doc/ntia.  i won't be affected.  most of europe
>will.

Joe, we are talking about world's economy. Job, people, etc... Gulf War and 
Sept 11 shown us the impact on our lifes. What you propose would be a 
nightmare. Again consensuses are based on Trust. Kill the trust in the USG 
system and you kill the world.

>the dns as you know is a collection of objects which reference resources -
>a master index which can be used by many authors to archive and reference
>information resources independently and in associated communities.

I am sorry, here I part from you. Please reread it as it is today. The 
system is the "whereis". Initially it was understood as a database. But it 
is really a non optimized search protocol. The system is not hierachical 
(top down) it is bootom up (progressive filters).

>the commercialization of the usg internet has been it's death.

Let say Jon Postel ran his network. They did not catch up yet with most of 
the implications of operating for others. And they have no idea about how 
to develop it commericaly.

BTW this is not a simple thing, IMHO.

> > a) the ITU/T, as an international structure, is nation oriented, while the
> > TCP/IP distributed networks are multinational by essence.
> > b) the ITU/T is operators oriented: the TCP/IP distributed architecture
> > makes every participant to be technically an operator. We would overwhelm
> > the ITU/T with thousands of small members.
>
>exactly.  and the culture at the ITU is all wrong.  the itu like most
>bureacratic organizations works on the principles of paranoia.  if they
>can't control the process they would rather have nothing to do with it.

This is the bargain. Either concertation or nothing. Not out any other 
paranoia, but because it will not work. Now, if ITU/T wants to take it the 
way you say, the universal network system will meet real problems as 
telephone under IP adn Wi-Fi will develop. You cannot stop the tide of the 
market.

> > A DN is NOT anything else than a mnemonic pointer to the IP address of a
> > network privately owned resource (a "cyber domain": site, equipment,
> > etc..). The only duty of a DN is to correctly and stably point to that IP.
>
>It's just a bit more then that.  It represents a means of indexing uRL's -
>information - across the internet.  In the old days domain names were not
>up for grabs (commercialized) and the links between resources were much
>more stable then they are today.

This is what I say: URLs are alphanumeric pointers. The whole problem 
results from ACPA. Let kill that  possiblity of transfering DNs and you 
clean the situation. BTW cybersquatters are doing it: they dont renew

> > This is why we have to stop these chit chat about .org and new TLDs, and
> > WLS. We have to openly discuss with Stratton Sclavos and the DoC  ...
>No no - Jefsey - much better to just let it die and collapse.  Less energy
>involved.

I am not sure about this. At least until we have not set-up a contingency 
plan. My contingency plan is a "parallel network" (Intlnet), ie a parallel 
type of application with popular support. So Intlnet can develop in 
parallel, based on different commecial/usage concepts and standard, and 
addressing a different market, so there is no conflict (unless the ICANN 
wants it in colliding). I just propose to resume what we initially did, 
before we left ARPANET by its own. If the ICANN's Internet meet real 
difficulties, or if the USG has to become serious about protecting the US 
interests in taking the root over, the backup would be ready.

jfc







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