Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Sandy and Jeff,

Your comments are well appreciated.

But I wonder.  Especially in light of the fact that you both know, or at least should
know, that I ask these questions as a straw man and in a Socratic dialogue fashion, and
that I personally already know the answers.
And I am sure you both know I keep a keen eye on herald and jimmy, that I have direct
communications with the DoC and several NICs, that I work with ccTLD managers, that I
attend icann meetings, that the company that sponsors my behavior is a global internet
marketing agent for countries and regions and cities, that I have a following that
provided over 30% of the chair vote last election.

But I wonder why you slam me so hard.  You could not do it out of ignorance.  So I must
conclude;

You do it to dissuade others from posting and to assure the GA's ineffectiveness.

Well you both are doing a great job of beating up on me an scaring others from
participating.

(because our two remaining monitors are running for office, we are essentially not
monitored so please
feel free to really beat the heck out of me for this post)

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > >
> > > Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for your comments,
> > > >
> > > > 1.    When should a RFC be disregarded?  What is the criteria?
> > >
> > >   Look it up yourself.  It is on the IETF web site as to when, and how
> > > this is determined.
> > >
> >
> > All positive comments welcome.
> >
> > All comments referring back to the originators of the offending documents are bull.
> >
> > Everyone knows we are friends but this kind of comment stretches things, as it
> > offends us dotcommoners.
>
> If you're offended because you don't understand it, please either learn it
> or shut up.
>
> I can suggest some good starting points:
> http://www.tcpipprimer.com/index.cfm
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Unix-and-Internet-Fundamentals-HOWTO/
> but there are dozens of others including web sites, books, courses, ...
> Choose one to your taste.
>
> If you think you understand it and are offended by parts of it, start
> participating in IETF Working Groups, working toward improving it.
>
> If you don't understand it, don't want to learn it, and are offended
> by it, why on earth should anyone care?
>
> > The IETF web site is bullshit and we all know it. It is an offense to all
> > common users of the net.
>
> The IETF and its predecessors designed the net, and overall they've done
> a brilliant job of producing something open and flexible, and of value
> not only to the big companies and gov'ts that own most of the
> infrastructure, but to the "dot commoners" as well.
>
> Of course it's not perfect and there's still work to be done. No wonder.
> RFC 1118 was a "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet" published in 1989,
> before the web was invented. From its section on "Internet problems:
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1118.txt
>
> "     When the Internet was designed it was to have about 50 connected
> "     networks.  With the explosion of networking, the number is now
> "     approaching 1000. ...
>
> The Internet still works at least moderately well today despite the
> continuing explosion. The number of networks today must be at least
> in the tens of thousands; for all I know it could be far higher. If
> it still works, that far outside the original design spec, there's
> no denying it's a fine piece of work overall.
>
> The only other major attempt to define protocols for an internet was
> the ISO (International Standards Organisation) work on their OSI
> (Open Systems Interconnection) project. This was largely dominated
> by big telephone companies and heavily supported by various gov'ts.
> It was a miserable failure, completely eclipsed by the technically
> superior and far more open IETF TCP/IP suite of protocols.
>
> So the fact is that the /only/ demonstrably successful way to design
> and run an Internet is via the open processes of the IETF.
>
> My main objection to ICANN is that they are abandoning those proven
> methods:
>         all the crap about constituencies instead of the IETF model
>          open to anyone interested
>         game-playing with the At Large Board seats to give those
>          constituencies even more power
>         abandoning IETF's open Working Groups in favour of closed
>          Task Forces
>         WIPO involvement
>         giving The ITU (International Telecommunication Union) and
>          ETSI (European) equal status with IETF and W3C in the PSO
>         ...
>
> I'm inclined to think we'd be further ahead scrapping ICANN entirely
> and reverting to the model we had before, with Jon Postel and a
> small staff just running the show.
>
> The only hard part would be finding someone as savvy and as widely
> respected as Postel. You need someone who has demonstrated high levels
> of both social conciousness and Internet technical knowledge. Methinks
> there are a few around:
>
>         John Gilmore http://www.toad.com/gnu/
>         Karl Auerbach http://www.cavebear.com/
>         Paul Vix http://www.vix.com/
>         Bill Simpson (I don't know his home page, but here's
>          one of his papers http://cryptome.org/esigs-suck.htm)
>
> Give any of that lot a small system adminstration staff and a good
> secretary, and beyond doubt they'd do a better job cheaper than ICANN's
> entire structure.
>
> > When you speak at me, remember you speak to a user not an engineer.
>
> When you speak of the IETF, remember that they've done a fine job
> overall, and that when it comes to the technical questions of
> protocol design "you are constitutionally entitled to have a
> personal opinion, but not to have a professional opinion".
>
> Also remember that the engineers aren't the enemy. Most of them just
> want to design and build usable systems, with whatever resources
> they can get at.
>
> Note that the two ICANN Board members who consistently advocate
> reasonable positions from the point of view of user interests
>
>         Karl http://www.cavebear.com/
> and     Andy http://www.icann.org/biog/mueller-maguhn.htm
>
> are among most technically competent members of that board. Several of the
> ones consistently on the opposite side are lawyers or telephonists,
> the least adept folk there in terms of Internet technology.
>
> Many techies are quite concerned about user interests, and about issues
> like freedom and privacy.
>
> See for example some RFCs on privacy protection:
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1984.txt
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1421.txt
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1991.txt
>
> Or the major annual conference on such issues:
> http://www.cfp2002.org/
>
> Or the various organisations working for net civil liberties:
>
> http://www.eff.org/
> http://www.cpsr.org/
> http://www.gilc.org/
>
> Note that all of these were founded by -- and are still largely
> composed of -- technical folk, but they are the only organisations
> around that deal seriously with various issues that might well be
> of major concern to "dot commoners".
>
> It seems to me the most useful contribution you might make to
> further development of the net would be to get involved in those
> organisations and encourage large numbers of other "dot commoners"
> to do the same.
>
> At any rate, this would be a better use of your energy and enthusiasm
> than gratuitously slagging the IETF.

--
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