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

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

Dear Dr. Joe and Professor Jefsey,

I happen to be keenly aware of these variable truths.  And I have the 
luxury to dwell in them and advise and cajole and write policy regarding 
them.

But most importantly with all of this known and some progress and failure 
being made regarding such truths this is also true;

Billions of USD are being made regardless.  That is ok for those who care.

But we are using this experimental tool to change lives, for the better.

Ester and her ilk are great cocktail entertainment but not serious players.
As our work here and elswhere like it are passtimes.
You two have a lot of work to do and little dumbies like me have a Job to 
do getting access, reliability and security to the masses.  ICANN is a fine 
forum for a possible future representative body which is worth some of our 
time.  but we all must realize that our work is important and these 
politics are a sideline.  If ICANN crashes and burns tommorrow who will 
care My Internet will continue to grow and positvely effect lives, thanks 
to you two and many like you.

My one legged shoe shine boy sends his thanks and asks if you would like 
his new email address.

Thanks,
Eric


> 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


http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!


--
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