[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Jeff - The IAB presented a RFC to the IETF and it should have been an I-D as
far as I can tell as well since they short circuited the response model by
not submitting their work as though it were a normal submission. If you are
interested in the letter I sent to the IAB and others this morning, send me
your address and I will send you back a copy.

Todd



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere


> Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> >
> > > Todd and all stakeholders interested parties,
> > >
> > > todd glassey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron may be right about the South African Governments Intent, but it
> > really
> > > > makes no difference to the bigger picture. The concept of the Global
> > > > Internet and a One Earth Network is still 20-50 years away I think.
> > >
> > >   The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all
practical
> > > purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > > sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > > network connection.  But they are fast disappearing.
> >
> > No, I think its more that what is here is a one root network.
>
>   Well according the the ICANN BOD and staff that seems to be
> true and how they would like it to remain.  The facts are though
> that in Asia for instance, other Root networks are in place and
> expanding.  This shall continue.  The EU as well is in the
> planning stages of developing their own Root structure as
> well as was recently announced.  Hence, as I originally said,
> "The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all practical
>  purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
>  sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
>  network connection.  But they are fast disappearing."
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And is
> > > > more political and based in the need for Countries to enforce their
> > > > boundaries than in technologies. The other mitigating factor is that
the
> > > > persona that ICANN puts forth, especially with all the in-fighting
going
> > on
> > > > visibly below it, is that the proposed "management of the Internet"
is
> > > > equally incompetent.
> > >
> > >   The present form of "management of the Internet" that this ICANN
> > > BoD and staff are attempting to impose is indeed incompetent, and is
also
> > > not following the White Paper and the MoU.
> >
> > But there is no real reason for anyone to have to buy into the ICANN
> > philosophy. Anyone that would operate their own root can do this.
>
>   Exactly my original point.  And a philosophy that IENGroup reached
> some 3 years ago now...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ron, its not that the one-world idea is bad, its just that as a
race, we
> > as
> > > > a global culture are not ready yet for this love-peace-knowledge
picture
> > of
> > > > the Internet. Until organizations like the UN willing accept the
> > > > responsibility for global peace and the creation of a Terran Bill of
> > Rights
> > > > or a definition of the Human Birthright here on Earth of which this
> > Internet
> > > > is an integral part, we will have these problems.
> > >
> > >   The UN plays a role, all be it an important one, but still only a
role.
> >
> > Yes that's my point. WIPO is not enough.
>
>   Exactly!  The WTO seems to also be in some trouble as you
> may be aware, and loosing favor amongst a host of nations.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > To that end I propose that the only smart thing to do is to not
fight
> > the
> > > > establishment's and let them go onward with compartmentalizing and
> > creating
> > > > eBorders from the Internet's networking model. To do this will
really
> > piss
> > > > ICANN off since it means that they failed.
> > >
> > >   The present ICANN BOD and staff have already basically admitted that
> > > they have failed with Lynn's proposed restructure ideas, which seem to
> > > change radically with almost each passing day...
> >
> > Yes, well when you are grasping at straws...
>
>   ROFLMAO!  How true!  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Not that their vision was wrong
> > > > individually, but that collectively they couldn't get their act
> > together,
> > > > and so now others will step in and take over as with what SA is
> > proposing.
> > >
> > >   Indeed true..
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My personal feeling is that it will take the restructuring of layer
two
> > and
> > > > three to accommodate but this solves many mechanical issues that
ICANN
> > was
> > > > unable to address - the technology is simple...
> > > >
> > > >     1)    If a Root Zone based query/response model is erected atop
DNS
> > then
> > > > we will have capability for a truly interoperable infrastructure.
> > >
> > >   Yes, and this can be several levels deep.  BTW, this is already
underway
> > > in various forms...
> >
> > Most of them leave the ICANN as the single root operator though and
thats
> > where I decouple form the mainstream techie line at this time. The one
root
> > concept is the problem not the answer.
>
>   Very much agreed.  It is not even technically sound in the present
> geo-economic trade environment today...  And as time passes
> the single Root structure becomes less viable.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     2)    If the layer-2/layer-3 Internet is compartmentalized into
> > > > definable areas and eBorders are allowed to become a reality, then
> > obviously
> > > > a NAT style gateway between each eBorderd DNS Tree could have its
own
> > > > individual address space...
> > >
> > >   Also true, and also underway..
> >
> > yes and this is being done pretty much on the QT as well. But it does
> > formally establish eBorders for the Internet and have them intersect at
> > major switching centers.
>
>   Well not really so much on the QT, but not all that visible on ICANN's
> radar screen, as it should be..  But when the ICANN BoD and especially
> the ICANN staff purposefully ignores or actively thwarts or resists
> reality, it harms everyone...  That is just plain silliness...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     3)    The creation of a flattened "global Area" in the area
> > constrained
> > > > by #1 and #2 gives us global network interoperability...
> > > >
> > > > So lets see:    #1 solves the need for more domain names... Each DNS
> > Zone
> > > > can have its own unique set of TLD's; #2 solves the availability of
IP
> > > > Addresses since each eBordered zone would have its own IPv4 space
and
> > talk
> > > > to the global Internet Interconnect though a well-knows set of
> > addresses.
> > > >
> > > > What more do we need?
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > > To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 1:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > > >
> > > > Good morning, Eric,
> > > >
> > > > Eric wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Dear Ron,
> > > >
> > > > >Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Dear fellow at-largers:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied
below.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have
access
> > to
> > > > the Internet, has nothing >>whatsoever to do with Domain Name
> > management.
> > > > It is simply political deception used to persuade the >>ignorant to
> > accept
> > > > nationalization of that management.
> > > > >
> > > > >Please show us where you get this information.  It may not be their
> > > > >fault but it may welll be their creation.
> > > >
> > > > The story came from the Reuters wire service with a June 7, 2002,
Cape
> > Town,
> > > > South Africa dateline. It was also covered on CNN.
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> > > 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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
>
> 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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> 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 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