Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
I am sure your didn't realize it, but you jut make here the worst
turn made so far to Vint Cerf (I obviously hope that you speak
on behalf of Vint, so he might at least claim he has responded).

I rose two questions:

- what is so particular about ".biz" that the Internet needs it more
   than ".web", or ".kids", etc... and significant concept that .info
   do not permit to prove.
- who is going to be responsible for the consequences of the
   technical/political decisions advised by the iCANN to the DoC,
   without a full description of the incurred risks?

These were obviously not questions for a debate. They were
questions for the records. They are now on the record as not
responded or responded through you.



The records show now:

1) Vint did not respond (unless you did awkwardly on his behalf).
     Responding would have been normal, not responding will be
     recorded as surprising: these two questions are pertinent,
     new; of concern to everyone. They will probably be risen again
     and again in the coming months.

     Your response only underlines that Vint did not respond; or
     that you responded on his behalf if he does not contradict
     you (none would belive this exchange went unnoticed from
     him with you being involved).

2) my questions were asked before a decision by the board
     was taken. They were copied to the whole board. You had
     time to comment them. This makes less credible that the
     12 voting "yes" members of the board did not know them.

    You clearly establish in your response that you agree with
    me that there is a serious technical risk. You document
    where that risk is documented by the IEFT. So you fully
    acknowledged that my question is well made, that my
    concerns are pertinent and that the IEFT shares these
    concerns to he extent of having produced an RFC (that
    Dr. Vint Cerf cannot ignore: may be was him a co-writer).

    So the responsibility of the BoD Members is established:
    - they known there was a real risk. First responsibility.
    - they decided not to warn the DoC bout it. Second one.

3) your concern is not the user problem, but the iCANN
     rights. You do not want a technical solution but a
     legal sanction. As if Leah Gallagos was a sacrilege
     rather than a technical/legal/commercial problem.

     You did not even considered the DNS in its current
     versions and try to find a technical solution. You only
     considered supposed ledal rights (that current DNS
     evolutions render obsolete anyway).

     I rose a relevant technical point (you do not contest
     it) but you respond a childish "it is not me, it is she".

     I also note that you do not even think to remember
     the USG exists and you contradict public interests,
     putting the DoC in front of a "fait accompli".

4) your own professional position leads to think that
     the only reason why iCANN chose ".biz" was to use
     NewLevel as a straw (paying) man against the
     Inclusive Roots.

     It is really interesting to see that you are used by
     the iCANN to serve their monopolistic views (or
     duopolistic if Plan B is accepted).

You must realize that the feeling you convey for the
records, the DoC, the DNSO, the GA Member, the
Tauzin Committee, the press and the market is that
there was no other need for the iCANN to delegate
a colliding .biz than to politically use NewLevel and
its money to ascertain its grip on the Internet and
its independence from the DoC.

I am not so sure it is the message that Dr. Vint
Cerf wanted to convey. For the time being this is
the one you put on the records.

On 22:26 08/05/01, Kent Crispin said:

>Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest
>case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal
>sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global
>Internet.  And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in this matter.
>But you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate yourself
>that you expect public response.
>
>Comments below:
>
>On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Chairman,
> >
>[...]
>
> > I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the
> > second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of
> > introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.
> >
> > 1. the strategic question is the following.
> >
> > You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz
> > is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the
> > iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus.
> > Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give 
> fuel to
> > an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond - and
> > I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right to act
> > without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.
>
>Both are clearly true.

I thank you Kent to accept that "consensus by exclusion" is also an iCANN 
practice.

> > In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is
> > however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from
> > you: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And
> > what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?
>
>Nothing is being taken away from her.  She chose to use an alternate
>root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
>she can continue to do so.  However, her actions were irresponsible in
>that they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for
>years, and she must take the consequences.

I do not understand anything there. Let keep ot simple. Leah uses a non 
excluding approach of the root conforming with the White paper. She would 
be happy to use the iCANN root if - in total opposition with its bylaws - 
the iCANN did not discriminate against her, competing against most of the 
SME Internet stakeholders.

> > 2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it
> > through a case study.
> >
> >      Background
> >
> > DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not 
> permit to
> > know which machine  an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes the
> > augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the whole
> > inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including iCANN's TLDs.
> > It is not possible to foresee the root used by every machine on an 
> e-mail path.
> >
> > In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this
> > means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on 
> another
> > host under another root.
> >
> > This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service. 
> Here
> > the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of the
> > network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.
> >
> >      Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better
> > understanding)
> >
> > 1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing
> > ".biz" service.
> > 2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed with your own 
> ".biz"
> > TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better understanding.
> >
> >      Questions:
> >
> > 3) I send a mail to accounting@ibm.biz. Can you certify that that mail 
> will
> > always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and not
> > one under "bis.biz")?
> >
> > 4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at
> > accounting@ibm.biz (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will 
> never
> > reach my own ibm.biz host?
> >
> > 5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for a
> > possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this misconfiguration?
>
>The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root
>system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which
>exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.

I thank you say that
- the addition of one .biz to another .biz is a misconfiguraion
- connecting a new .biz to the global Internet is creating all kind of problems
- I only documented a few of them (the BoD has not even warned the DoC)

> > 6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my
> > mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to me
> > on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be held
> > responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?
>
>actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held responsible
>is the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.

IMHO, the ones who need to worry are those who are advising the USG to run 
into all these problems and do not document them, not even warning about them.

> > 7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and disclosed due to 
> the
> > collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise me to
> > sue?
>
>The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root.  Such
>operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice
>available (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in
>contradiction to such authoritative advice.  I am not a lawyer, but in a
>US court, at least, willfully ignoring such important and widely known
>information would be extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.

You are obviously not a lawyer. The question is not to know who is right.

The question is under the circumstances what are the reasons for taking 
such a risk and who is taking responsibility not to document that risk to 
the USG.

>If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.

Mrs. Gallagos and many others are not understanding why the BoD hides the 
involved risks for the Network stability and attempts a "fait accompli" 
policy at the DoC and GAC Members. Do they really believe they already 
govern the world?

This really looks like if Dr. Vint Cerf wanted to tell the world that the 
registrants of .biz will serve as a living shield for the iCANN policy. 
Interesting: e-Machiavell.

Jefsey



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