November 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 1, 2008

Dec. 1, 2008

"JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: > In terms of Internet architecture this creates the opposition between > the ICANN (de?)centralized vision and the distributed nature of the > Internet. Today we have an ongoing discussion at the IETF (BEHAVE) > where the question is about NAT66 (an IPv6:IPv6 NAT version - the > Internet Draft is being introduced by very serious IETF leaders, in > order to try to control what NAT could do under IPv6). The debate > shows that NAT66 will not only be built and deploy, their features be > much more developped than the IETF proposition, but that they will > support a large diversity of IPv6 Realms - hence a large diversity of > DNS roots. > > Most of the IETF old members hope this will not go that way. I've also been following the discussion on the IETF BEHAVE list with great interest. To tell you the truth, I wasn't quite sure about the initial reasons for the heated debate between the people for NAT66 and the people against NAT66. I took 24h to think about it and for a moment, came to the same conclusions about multiple DNS roots & multiple IPv6 realms. With NAT66, the concept of network number uniqueness which was a key proposed feature of IPv6, disappears. Then I thought again - and was taken back to the days when the Internet was not as well integrated as it is today. You know, the days when you needed to route your email through gateways & the like. Sure, there were many other networks out there, but you know what I found to be most amusing is that historically they all merged with the Internet. I am therefore neither "for" or "against" the idea of NAT66. I've seen several alternative DNS roots rise and fall. If organisations wish to launch their own Internet, their own root servers, their own interfacing with the current Internet through IPv6 NAT, sure, go ahead! Let the market decide what's best. Just: 1. don't ask me to pay for it, whether through my taxes or whatever 2. don't restrict the freedom I currently have in using today's Internet 3. don't impose your alternative network on me 4. don't take me back to the dark days of telco monopoly Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

5 5

Re: [At-Large] The kiss of death
by WWWhatsup Nov. 30, 2008

Nov. 30, 2008

While we, indeed, are now an ALS - at ISOC-NY we are having difficulty finding the time and people to give At-Large issues the consideration they deserve. We plan to work on outreach in the New Year, including having both Danny and Beau - and anyone else we can rustle up - speak on the issues at public meetings. Hopefully we can recruit some more interested parties and get up to speed. joly http://isoc-ny.org At 09:39 AM 11/21/2008, Brendler, Beau wrote: >I think also the New York chapter of ISOC has either petitioned to become an ALS or has already been approved as one. > >BB >_ Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com

3 2

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 28, 2008

Nov. 28, 2008

Total of 63 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 28 00:53:02 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 14.29% | 9 | 16.20% | 63499 | jefsey at jefsey.com 14.29% | 9 | 12.23% | 47917 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 9.52% | 6 | 8.58% | 33622 | ross at tucows.com 7.94% | 5 | 7.69% | 30140 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 6.35% | 4 | 6.76% | 26501 | roberto at icann.org 6.35% | 4 | 6.34% | 24861 | franck.martin at gmail.com 6.35% | 4 | 6.10% | 23898 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 4.76% | 3 | 5.54% | 21706 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 3.17% | 2 | 3.77% | 14759 | brenbe at consumer.org 3.17% | 2 | 3.21% | 12597 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 3.17% | 2 | 3.16% | 12368 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 2.37% | 9304 | baptista at publicroot.org 1.59% | 1 | 1.92% | 7519 | ocl at gih.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.81% | 7083 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.73% | 6790 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.72% | 6743 | krosette at cov.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.66% | 6511 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.59% | 6224 | vb at bertola.eu 1.59% | 1 | 1.57% | 6163 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 1.59% | 1 | 1.31% | 5144 | evan at telly.org 1.59% | 1 | 1.25% | 4896 | johnl at iecc.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.23% | 4811 | wendy at seltzer.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.20% | 4699 | lists at privaterra.info 1.59% | 1 | 1.06% | 4154 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 63 |100.00% | 391909 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] (No so) Serious Allegations
by JFC Morfin Nov. 28, 2008

Nov. 28, 2008

Joe, decentralisation is hierarchical root as is the ICANN root. The Internet is not decentralized with ICANN in the core and the ICANN TLD Managers being decentralised and voting to say ICANN is beautifull. The internet is distributed with no hierachical relation between ICANN and TLD Managers who are the trustees of their own communities, they only report to. This is subsidiarity. Such an indpendence can be assisted as much as they need it, but no more than they need it, by servicing (not coordinating) organisations - such as the TLDA. jfc At 02:14 28/11/2008, Joe Baptista wrote: >I am posting this reply to the GA as although I am a member of the at-large >- for some reason I receive emails but can't post. > >So for the record here is my response to some very important issues >concerning root. > >On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Yassin Mshana <ymshana2003(a)hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Well said Olivier - thank you! > > > > Internet is an International Network.Period. (maybe and unless we link > > upwith other planets!? > > > > This decentralisation/ decetralization or whatever it may be called - is > > not and will not be for the benefit of the global community (or will it > > be?) > > >Well I don't know about the benefit to the global community with respect to >a decentralized situation. Theres a lot of politics - which amounts to a >lot of bull ****. Decentralization is the way we are headed of the last few >years are any indication. Decentralization is also good for the all the >networks over all. The Internet is in fact a decentralized model when it >comes to control. Thats its design. > >The networks that use the IANA / DOC root create a lot of error and traffic >overhead. The Internet has grown around the IANA root - not with it - as a >result the IANA root gets a lot of bogus traffic. The error and traffic >overload on the IANA root was well documented in 2003. > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ > >The problem has grown exponentially as China has added National >Infrastructure, along with the Arabs, the Turks > >http://www.publicroot.org/news-2005-06-23-tbd.html > >and many more to follow. > >Nat 66 offers new potential in establishing addressing systems and less >dependence on a core function which is now addressed via the iana doc >contract. > >Your right to say that the world has discovered something common for all. >The problem here is that it takes away control from the people now >benefiting from it. DNSSEC is just another silly attempt to create an >Internet monopoly amongst a small group of people - the ICANN cartel. > >Nat66 is opposed just because it will cost the ICANN cartel money and they >may lose their monopoly. I agree with you that everyone will might or will >benefit from it. But the ICANN cartel at the IETF will block it because >people will lose power and that translates into cold hard cash. > >The IETF is a joke these days. The things they let by are scary - like >DNSSEC. Any nation on earth who investigates DNSSEC would not want anything >to do with it. Thats why all the noise is made on this issue. Your >mathematical reference to the noise being like "one wanting to change the >(+, -, / and x) in Arithmetic/ Mathematics" is funny. Its however less >mathematics then it is accounting. More power to the people means extra " >+" (pluses) for everyone - but it also means more " - " minuses for the >various Isociety cartels. > >This is a bit off topic but I disagree with you that English is the Internet >language. The Internet does not have a spoken or written language except >for various programing languages. All the Internet does well is communicate >from one end point to another. The English used on the Internet is more to >do with human communications. > >English is more a global language. A lot of people so naturally it will >predominate on the net. > >But the Internet is also about harnessing computer power. And at todays >technological advancements I can see very good translation programs bringing >us together. The trick is to build a protocol for interpretation in inter >human language sets. > >Just my two cents. > >Joe Baptista > >-- >Joe Baptista >www.publicroot.org >PublicRoot Consortium >---------------------------------------------------------------- >The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & >Accountable to the Internet community @large. >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

(No so) Serious Allegations
by Danny Younger Nov. 27, 2008

Nov. 27, 2008

Patrick, There are issues raised by the author of this comment that can only reasonably be assessed by other competent engineers (and I am not an engineer), so I am not looking for an assessment as to whether this engineer is a troll or not, but to know if his comments are reasonable when evaluated as engineering concerns by other engineers. The comments made under the heading “DNSSEC Suicide” could be viewed by most laymen as more than somewhat disconcerting. Is there merit in his argument, or not? regards, Danny

7 15

Serious Allegations
by Danny Younger Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

interesting read... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment027.pdf

4 3

A Suggestion for the ExCom
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

Dear Cheryl and members of the ExCom: Just a short note with a suggestion on how you might revise the ALAC agenda Agenda 1. Roll Call (3 minutes) 2. Adoption of Minutes (2 minutes) 3. DNS Policy Issue #1 (15 minutes) 4. DNS Policy Issue #2 (15 minutes) 5. DNS Policy Issue #3 (15 minutes) 6. Housekeeeping: ALS applications (5 minutes) Action Item Review (5 minutes) Questions regarding submitted reports (5 minutes) Decisions to be taken (15 minutes) [Motions to be submitted in advance of the meeting] 7. New Business (10 minutes) Required Written Reports covering prior month discussions: by Liaison: • IDN • Board • ccNSO • NCUC • SSAC • GNSO • dotMOBI • PSC by RALO Chairs: • NARALO • LACRALO • EURALO • AFRALO • APRALO by WG Chairs: • Summit • WHOIS • RAA • IPv6 • IDN • gTLD • DT by Ad-Hoc Committee Chairs: • PSC • New gTLDs by Standing Committee Chairs: • Budget & Finance • Secretariats Report by Executive Committee Chairs • ExCom Report by ALAC Chair: • Synopsis of User Comments/Issues on At-Large list

2 1

Board Liaison Report
by Wendy Seltzer Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

Since the Cairo Meeting, <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm>, as after most public meetings, the Board has heard criticism of the operation of the public forum -- including limited time for public participation and poor remote participation options -- as well as discussing improving mechanisms for Board feedback to the community. The newly formed Public Participation Committee will address these issues as well as inter-meeting communications (including the challenges ALAC has had in getting responses to its comments). The next Board meeting is scheduled for Dec. 11. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

ICANN Regional Gathering in Rome
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

Each year ICANN hosts regional outreach gatherings for ICANN accredited registrars and gTLD registries in the Europe, Asia/Pacific, and North America regions. These meetings are not open to the non-supplier community and no such regional gatherings are put together for any other combination of ICANN constituencies (as ICANN remains committed to its continued status as a registry/registrar cartel). ICANN's next regional gathering is the Europe Registry/Registrar Regional Gathering scheduled for January in Rome. ICANN recently sent "Save the Date" notices to those eligible to attend, but hasn't posted anything on the ICANN website itself, and of course the at-large community has not been invited to attend. These gatherings are deemed to be relatively small information-sharing events intended to educate and inform registrars from the region and their registry partners. ICANN sees no need to periodically educate and inform the non-contracted parties in a similar fashion. Earlier this year ICANN held an Asia/Pacific gathering in Seoul and a North America gathering in New Orleans. As the population of registrars expands in other parts of the world, ICANN expects to offer similar events in other regions and to continue to deny such outreach services to the remainder of the ICANN community. As was the case for the Seoul gathering and the New Orleans gathering, the Rome event will also be as non-transparent as possible with no remote participation opportunities provided, no session transcripts made available and no meeting recordings.

1 0

RAA
by Danny Younger Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

When Kurt Pritz spoke at the GNSO wrap-up session he indicated that Staff is moving forward on "clarifying work" with regard to the RAA that likely could be presented to the GNSO prior to their next meeting. It would behoove the ALAC to wait for these clarifications prior to adopting a formal position on the best path forward for their GNSO liaison to adopt. With regard to the proposed amendments, it was likely inappropriate for the ALAC GNSO liaison to have stated: "The sooner we can approve this, the better" and "Show me where to sign". These comments have conveyed the impression that the ALAC is fully supportive of all the proposed amendments, and that is clearly not in keeping with the Statement that the ALAC has put forth.

2 1