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

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

Hey Jefsey - I've been warning about it for some time.  But the internet
is in a delicate state of crisis.  The people who understand how it works
are in the alt.root communities, and the twits who are running the show
are playing with icann - i speak of course of the beuracracies, lawyers,
and large corps who have made a dogs breakfast of the dns.

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.

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.

This of course does not include the fact that as the internet has grown to
massive proportions the infrastruture has become increasingly vulnerable -
as per my recent warning -

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200204/msg00123.html

Have the chinese gotten a clue yet?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020425/wr_nm/china_usa_hackers_dc_1

But the bigger issue in the story is the cia making false claims the
chinese don't have the capability to attack cyberspace - i.e.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA analysis says the Chinese government may
have the goal of using cyber attacks to disrupt Taiwanese and U.S.
military systems, but it does not currently have the capability, a U.S.
official said on Thursday."

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.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> I feel I am in the Titanic kitchen discussing tomorrows menu. Why not to
> get real? Do we want to be remembered as the French dancing aristocrats of
> 1789. Let face it, for months some disregard what I say as being wild. But
> here we are:

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.

And the continued use of the USG root system violates most of europes
privacy laws.  I wonder if Christopher Wilkinson can figure out why that
is?  http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=554

If I was Christopher Wilkinson i'd be careful who i sold myself too.  The
members of the EU are going to demand answers and Wilkinson better be
prepaired to respond.

> 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.

> structures, etc... This should be made clear though a GAC declaration (as
> the only existing structure for Govs). The preparation of the world submits
> on the information society would be a good occasion. So we have a social
> frame and a time frame.

its not going to happen in law.  it will happen by necessity.  the law is
incapable of codefying technical and human communication needs.  for that
matter few here really understand the dns.  and what little they do know
amounts to alot of jibberish.

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.

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

> 4. within that time frame we can only make it with existing structures. The
> only existing structure is the ITU/T.

well - lets not go out and create another comedy and dogs breakfast.  i
like theatre and i know itu well.  So I have no doubt they can provide us
with a few more years of excellent theatre - however - they are first
class twits and to a large extent responsible for this dogs breakfast we
call icann.

> 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.

a good example is robert shaw.  you might remember that he claimed planet
communications & computing facility - one of our divisions - was
conducting covert operations against icann on behalf of network solutions
(nsi).  this claim of course made us all laugh and the event clearly
showed the dns community that robert shaw fits the internet definition of
twit perfectly.

if mr. shaw is a good working model of the level of intellegence at the
itu then your proposal is unacceptable.

so i'm sure you can understand why i'm hesitant in bringing in the ITU as
a white knite.  years ago rukowski tried to get the ITU to become involved
in internet operations and they turned it down.  The ITU was a joke then
as they are a joke now.

> 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 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 about how
> to clean the mess and if, when and how .org is to be divested, and how to
> subsidize Verisign while it reconverts itself into one or several profit
> making registries, the way we may dwindle the "Registrars Industry" into
> something survivable, etc. The probably necessay Internet Act should also
> address the organization (ICANN?) and the budget of the ARPA inherited
> Internet/Govnet systems, of their relations with the other TCP/IP networks
> system managers and the fair redistrubution of the IP Blocks (if the US do
> not want the IP allocation to be a major negative issue in Geneva 2003 and
> Tunis 2005).

No no - Jefsey - much better to just let it die and collapse.  Less energy
involved.

regards
joe

www.dot-god.com





--
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