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

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

Jeff - Boy was that a disjointed thought or what - so then what  was I
thinking... hey let
me complete the context of this paragraph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere


> 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.


this reall means that the IAB sidestepped its own process to createa Request
For Comments document and there is no process for submitting such a document
through the IETF at this time. Only individuals may submit documents for
consideration and any new technology must be submitted as an ID and then
advanced to a RFC...

But whats really funny is that if you read the RFC in question... It never
says why there cannot be multiple roots - it justs suggests that there are
impossible problems with synchronization or in the naming convention that
would be neceaasry to represent Globally Qualified Domain Names and both of
these are simply put, lies. Neither of them is true. But what the hey, the
IAB is proclaiming it as the "specific Architecture statement for the
operation of the Uni-Root World".

> 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.

As I said - I will send you as copy of the MS Word memo if anyone wants to
see it.

Todd

>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


--
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