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

IETF, ITU form first-of-kind group to resolve MPLS spat
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

All, Well seems again a couple of the IT standards bodies are at odd's again and yet with little public input, attempting to work out differences over MPLS to T-MPLS interpretability. I would be happy enough if the IETF would fix it's own DNS misconfiguration, and the ITU seek to work productively with MLPS and recognize PBT which is gaining momentum and may in a few years superceed either MPLS and T-MPLS. But of course either of these given the egos involved, would be a near miracle to behold. See http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/022808-ietf-itu-mpls.html?netht=ts_02… Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

[Fwd: [A2k] CFP - Computers, Freedom, & Privacy: Technology Policy '08]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

All my friends, This may be of some interest to some of you whom may wish to submit a proposal or otherwise participate. Thankfully and properly this forum is completely open to all whom wish to participate. I hope the ALAC and ICANN Board and staff members will take the hint. I hope this announcement will aid in the rejuvenation in openness and transparency as well as accountability for ICANN and the ALAC. Many thanks to Edan for making this information available... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] CFP - Computers, Freedom, & Privacy: Technology Policy '08 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:26:29 -0500 From: Eddan Katz <eddank(a)aya.yale.edu> To: a2k(a)lists.essential.org References: <8E862BD2-4F82-4715-BDB1-2958630C7013(a)aya.yale.edu> -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY POLICY '08 http://cfp2008.org/ 18th Annual CFP conference May 20-23, 2008 Omni Hotel New Haven, CT CALL FOR PROPOSALS This election year will be the first to address US technology policy in the information age as part of our national debate. Candidates have put forth positions about technology policy and have recognized that it has its own set of economic, political, and social concerns. In the areas of privacy, intellectual property, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and freedom of speech, an increasing number of issues once confined to experts now penetrate public conversation. Our decisions about technology policy are being made at a time when the architectures of our information and communication technologies are still being built. Debate about these issues needs to be better- informed in order for us to make policy choices in the public interest. This year, the 18th annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference will focus on what constitutes technology policy. CFP: Technology Policy '08 is an opportunity to help shape public debate on those issues being made into laws and regulations and those technological infrastructures being developed. The direction of our technology policy impacts the choices we make about our national defense, our civil liberties during wartime, the future of American education, our national healthcare systems, and many other realms of policy discussed more prominently on the election trail. Policies ranging from data mining and wiretapping, to file-sharing and open access, and e-voting to electronic medical records will be addressed by expert panels of technologists, policymakers, business leaders, and advocates. Open participation is invited for proposals on panels, tutorials, speaker suggestions, and birds of a feather sessions through the CFP: Technology Policy '08 submission at http://www.cfp2008.org/submissions/. Suggested topics for discussion include: * Information Privacy * Anonymity Online * Government Transparency * Voting Technology * Online Campaigning * Social Networks * Citizen Journalism * Cybercrime & Cyberterrorism * Digital Education * Copyright and Fair Use * Patent Reform * Open Access * P2P Networks * Information Policy and Free Trade * Media Concentration * Genes & Bioethics * Electronic Medical Records * Web Accessibility * Open Standards * Network Neutrality * High-Speed Internet Access Policy * Freedom of Information * Technology Policy Administration Submission Deadlines: Panel, Tutorial, and Speaker proposals: March 21, 2008. Birds of a Feather Session (BoFs) proposals: April 21, 2008. Panel, Tutorial, and Speaker proposals accepted by the Program Committee will be notified by April 7, 2008. Registration available online at http://www.regonline.com/Checkin.asp? EventId=193762. ------ Eddan Katz International Affairs Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ Senior Fellow, Yale Information Society Project Lecturer and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School http://isp.law.yale.edu/ _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Pakistan YouTube Block affected wider Internet
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

JFC and all my friends, Just this once, here is a rough translation of JFC's remarks which he chose to send in French for whatever reason: "I am sorry of this answer which shows our Gallic side once more to start with chamailler before advancing, once that one gave us a minister (what hangs to us with the nose after the local elections). You think what you want, but I fear that the current situation is really not carrying future. Each one wanting to be right, whereas we know all that at the end it is the user who is right but in very a long time. 1) the ALAC is the only place in Governorship ICANN/IETF where the user can express himself. To block in reciprocal ignorance, condescension, or simple unsuited information was the great play of the ICANN and the IETF. To continue would be a "crime of injures stability" because there is now the competition of the IGF and the WSIS Forum in gestation. The ALAC is the only bond ethiquement credible for the silent majority of the IGF with regard to "community Internet" (ICANN/IETF/IAB/ISOC) administrative of old. It is important that malgrès its limits it remains it, if not one goes to Split. 2) during years, I was blocked by the saying parisiannism "one cannot nothing make without the IETF" and the IETF saying "I know better than whoever" and being caught for the RFC 3935. Harald Alvestrand finally released me from all that. It is thus possible for me to advance what is not quite difficult: it is enough to implementer missing the presentation layer for those which want. And in fact the reasons for acceptance of the public miss. This made pass the Internet of its current situation "default" to the support of diversity. It would be however unconscious to make it in the form of small a patch making a large splatch. The things should be organized. The ICANN will disparaitra some in its current form (each presentation having de facto its ICANN, i.e. the application of the reinforced co-operation voted by the SMSI), but it is not necessary that it disappears from it in the disorder. It is necessary that it is the "big brother" of the others and progresses in the transition. Only the ALAC can give him the possibility of it by making the hinge, but it is necessary that it understands it and that the ICANN accepts it. Will the IETF also suffer from it, not because of the fact that it is, but because of what it wants to remain (RFC 3935) because decentralization will quickly cèdera the step in front of the distribution of the real world (the ISOC is besides of this opinion and took again my topic to use-centric so much of time opposed to the IETF [ which is leader ISOC? you? ]). The more so as with the presentation layer, of crafty one will not have of cease to restore the other missing layers, and the layers of the semantic level (my part). There too, it is necessary to avoid technical Split and to preserve the decoupling of the levels network, Internet, semantics. If not it will be the disorder, each one wanting to go too quickly (the IETF has blocked for 20 years what I did in 1985). Since you are one of rare the IETF to imply you in the ALAC and the ISOC, I propose to you to réflechir with all that. To try to include/understand (it is not simple) only French drafts (Bachollet, Muget, Benhamou, the Vault, Porteneuve, Lang, Pouzin, etc.) try to make, without good still to realize it (that converges [ explosivement ] towards the ICANN in Paris) and to continue to advisedly use the ISOC with an aim of doing something which speaks with all, benefits from the French contribution, and appaise their divisions imbeciles - born the reconnaitre is needed staff shortage making that the same ones are found together without being recognized. There are very few people who include/understand and are devoted about honestly. AMHA it is not worth while to divide them." My only comment is I have always been a very strong devotee to honesty, which far too often in various ICANN forums has been significantly neglected... JFC Morfin wrote: > At 06:37 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote: > >JFC, > >Have you heard about the Internet? It is a great tool to do some > >research with... Google BCP38 or even look at it on wikipedia and > >you will know. I'm not here to train people, but will gladly answer > >their questions. Also look at BGP on wikipedia, even most of the > >IETF protocols and workgroups are explained on wikipedia. You will > >find quickly why BGP will not scale and why IETF is working on a replacement. > > > >As for the IETF, I agree with Brian Carpenter, IETF is not here to > >do awareness, this is the role of ISOC. IETF is here to work on > >standards, and should be focused on just doing that. > > > >ISOC has been lacking a proper education and policy department but > >now they have one, and produce now a very good IETF journal. So next > >time ask ISOC to come, you will see, it will work better. > > Frank, > je suis désolé de cette réponse qui montre une fois de plus notre > côté gaulois de commencer par se chamailler avant d'avancer, une fois > que l'on nous a donné un ministre (ce qui nous pend au nez après les > municipales). Tu penses ce que tu veux, mais je crains que la > situation actuelle soit réellement pas porteuse d'avenir. Chacun > voulant avoir raison, alors que nous savons tous qu'à la fin c'est > l'utilisateur qui a raison mais dans très longtemps. > > 1) L'ALAC est le seul lieu dans la Gouvernance ICANN/IETF où > l'utilisateur peut s'exprimer. Le bloquer dans l'ignorance > réciproque, la condescendance, ou la simple information inadaptée a > été le grand jeu de l'ICANN et de l'IETF. Continuer serait un "crime > de lèse stabilité" car il y a maintenant la concurrence de l'IGF et > du WSIS Forum en gestation. L'ALAC est le seul lien ethiquement > crédible pour la majorité silencieuse de l'IGF en ce qui concerne la > "communauté internet" (ICANN/IETF/IAB/ISOC) gestionnaire de l'ancien. > Il est important que malgrès ses limites elle le reste, sinon l'on va > à un split. > > 2) pendant des années, j'ai été bloqué par le parisiannisme disant > "on ne peut rien faire sans l'IETF" et l'IETF disant "je sais mieux > que quiconque" et se prenant pour la RFC 3935. Harald Alvestrand m'a > enfin libéré de tout cela. Il m'est donc possible d'avancer ce qui > n'est pas bien difficile : il suffit d'implementer la couche > présentation manquante pour ceux qui veulent. Et ce ne sont pas les > motifs d'acceptation du public qui manquent. Ceci fait passer > l'Internet de sa situation "default" actuelle au support de la diversité. > > Ce serait toutefois inconscient de le faire sous la forme d'un petit > patch faisant un gros splatch. Il faut organiser les choses. L'ICANN > en disparaitra dans sa forme actuelle (chaque présentation ayant de > facto son ICANN, c'est à dire l'application de la coopération > renforcée votée par le SMSI), mais il ne faut pas qu'elle en > disparaisse dans la pagaille. Il faut qu'elle soit le "grand frère" > des autres et progresse dans la transition. > > Seule l'ALAC peut lui en donner la possibilité en faisant la > charnière, mais il faut qu'elle le comprenne et que l'ICANN > l'accepte. L'IETF va aussi en souffrir, non pas en raison de ce > qu'elle est, mais en raison de ce qu'elle veut rester (RFC 3935) car > la décentralisation cèdera rapidement le pas devant la distribution > du monde réel (l'ISOC est d'ailleurs de cet avis et a repris mon > thème user-centric tant de fois opposé à l'IETF [qui est le leader > ISOC? toi?]). D'autant qu'avec la couche présentation, des petits > malins n'auront de cesse de rétablir les autres couches manquantes, > et les couches du niveau sémantique (ma partie). Là aussi, il faut > éviter un split technique et préserver le découplage des niveaux > réseau, internet, sémantique. Sinon ce sera la pagaille, chacun > voulant aller trop vite (l'IETF bloque depuis 20 ans ce que je > faisais en 1985). > > Puisque tu es un des rares IETF à t'impliquer dans l'ALAC et l'ISOC, > je te propose de réflechir à tout cela. De tenter de comprendre (ce > n'est pas simple) ce que les brouillons français (Bachollet, Muget, > Benhamou, La Chapelle, Porteneuve, Lang, Pouzin, etc.) tentent de > faire, sans bien encore s'en rendre compte (cela converge > [explosivement] vers l'ICANN à Paris) et de continuer à utiliser > l'ISOC a bon escient dans le but de faire quelque chose qui parle à > tous, profite de l'apport français, et appaise leurs divisions > imbéciles - nées il faut le reconnaitre du manque de personnel > faisant que les mêmes se retrouvent ensemble sans se reconnaître. Il > y a très peu de gens qui comprennent et se dévouent à peu près > honnêtement. AMHA ce n'est pas la peine de les diviser. > > A+ > jfc > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Fwd: [Fwd: Re: [ga] The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008]
by Franck Martin Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Jeffrey, I will do you an IETF answer ;) let's see how you take it. :D I have never seen so many errors in an e-mail. I really doubt your capacity to comment on ICANN matters when obviously you have no clue on who is who. It is not a lack of information on the web, so I suggest you go back, do some research, see the relations between ICANN and IETF and only after will I start to consider your opinions. >From now on you are in my troll category. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ga] The Anti- Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:21:04 -0800 From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com><jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Organization: IDNS To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> References: <428984.64417.qm(a)web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com><428984.64417.qm(a)web52204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <200802270058.m1R0wQmK019368(a)pechora4.lax.icann.org><200802270058.m1R0wQmK019368(a)pechora4.lax.icann.org> James and all, Yes this is my understanding as well. And when it is available it can or should be able to be found on Thomas. BTU, this is also a significant issue of great interest to users... It is also one that can be greatly reduced with the implementation of DNSSEC and IPSEC as well as many Domains cleaning up their DNS configurations. And to make a good example/start, ICANN organs such as the IETF, IAB, and IESG cleaning up theirs! "James S. Tyre" wrote: > For easy tracking purposes, the bill number is S. 2661. However, the > text won't be available online until (probably) tomorrow. > > At 12:49 PM 2/26/2008 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > > >http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-2… > > > >If anyone can obtain a copy of this newly introduced > >bill, I would be appreciative. > > > >Thanks, > >Danny > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Looking for last minute shopping deals? > >Find them fast with Yahoo! > >Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > James S. Tyre jstyre(a)jstyre.com > Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org I could add all my titles here, but who will it impress? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin(a)gmail.com http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

7 12

NETSOL/ICANN frontrunning lawsuit
by Danny Younger Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Re: "Maybe ICANN's management will reconsider the issue of domain name frontrunning." The issue of NetSol front-running was first raised by Jay Westerdal in his domaintools blog on 8 January -- see http://blog.domaintools.com/2008/01/network-solutions-steals-domain-ideas-c… Discussion immediately ensued on the General Assembly discussion list, on the registrars list, on all the major DN forums and quickly spread to the tech media. The ICANN Board reviewed the matter two weeks later at their 23 January board meeting: Here are the relevant notes from that meeting: "The Chair asked for further developments on the NSI situation. Kurt Pritz advised that ICANN wrote to NSI to investigate the practice and determine if the practice is in violation of the RAA. NSI had already amended the practice prior to that writing to bring it into compliance with the RAA. These were essentially nuances to the initial version of the practices in essence, it has the same effect. There may be one more change to the practice to bring it into RAA compliance. Steve Crocker advised that SSAC had spent a lot of time thinking about this and he made two observations. The AGP is the connective tissue between NSI's goals in the new service and their ability to offer the service, but it is not the right issue. Information supplied by the user when checking name availability disadvantages the user in an unexpected way and when exposed a registrant would not want the registrar to operate in this way. Raising the price on five-day registrations is a pragmatic approach but it does not get to the core value underlying this. We may feel good about the fee but it does not get to the core of what's going on. We should not casually drive by and address a serious underlying issue with the fee. Regarding other ways to eliminate tasting, removing the AGP as a registry contract requirement would not necessarily be effective because a registry might choose to offer some fee discount period for whatever reason that would effectively replicate the AGP. Therefore, although ICANN might remove the AGP as a requirement, it is not assured that this would remove this as an option. If the transaction fee is imposed on add-grace deletes ICANN could subsidize costs resulting from typos or fraud. Steve continued that the dialogue we're having has been about imposing a fee during the AGP, another option is we simply stop defining AGP: taking away any recognition of it as a separate type of transaction. Everything gets simpler if we remove the AGP as having any special meaning or purpose. The NSI situation is distinct from other uses of the AGP and depends on the AGP for efficiency but that is not the only example of a registrar or entity taking advantage of information supplied by customer. Steve's perspective on AGP is that we should stop subsidizing the practice and the other issues will be resolved. The Chair asked Steve his opinion of Susan's resolution. Steve Crocker responded that he is sympathetic to adopting the resolution, and also agreed with Bruce Tonkin that it would be very difficult to declare an emergency policy since AGP has been actively practiced for three years. He also pointed out that what NSI is doing is qualitatively different from what others have been doing. The Chair considered that it might be, that tasters are prepared to pay the transaction fee, and, if that is the case, we may consider a resolution that addresses the issue of front running. Harald Alvestrand noted that there are two different bad results that have been discussed here: front running or capturing names from registrants, and free registration using AGP. Action taken to fix one of them is a good thing, but we should not forget that both issues should be addressed." http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23jan08.htm The issue of front-running was further discussed at the Security and Stability Committee Workshop at the ICANN Delhi session with NetSol's Jon Nevett being grilled by the SSAC's Steve Crocker -- details at https://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-SSAC-13Feb08.txt >From the above it is clear that ICANN management is well aware of the issues. It should also be clear to most that ICANN's Supporting Organizations and other Advisory Bodies have yet to recommend policy to deal with this particular situation. To start the ball rolling, I refer the community to an earlier consensus policy that made it possible to review proposed "registry" offerings that might impact the security/stability of the DNS before they were officially launched -- namely, the Registry Services Evaluation Process that was adopted by the ICANN Board on 8 November 2005. Perhaps one way forward would be to recommend a similar "quick look" process to consider new registrar services. This could be tackled by way of a GNSO PDP, and the ALAC could most certainly request that the GNSO consider this option. Thoughts? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

2 1

Network Solutions Sued For Defrauding Millions - ICANN also named in Class Action
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

For your information HYPERLINK "http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080225/LAM06125022008-1.ht ml"http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080225/LAM06125022008-1. html LOS ANGELES, Feb. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California. "Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them. Would you get a good deal? Each time someone asks Network Solutions about a domain name, the firm creates a monopoly for itself, forcing consumers to pay the price they demand," said Brian Kabateck, lead counsel in the class action and Kabateck Brown Kellner's Managing Partner. Whenever someone searches for the availability of a domain name through Network Solutions' website, the company immediately registers the name for itself, preventing other companies from selling it and forcing consumers to pay Network Solutions' expensive fees. If a consumer were to go to another, cheaper site to register the name, they would find the name is "unavailable." Consumers are never informed that inquiring as to a name's availability through Network Solutions results in the company holding a monopoly on selling that name. This allows Network Solutions to continue charging substantially higher prices for domain name registration. Network Solutions charged $34.99 to register the name sought by this suit's lead plaintiff. A competitor would have charged $9.99. Network Solutions' scheme is made possible by ICANN. ICANN allows companies that sell domain names to avoid paying registration fees for names cancelled within five days. Thus, Network Solutions can defraud customers at no cost to itself. ICANN is aware that Network Solutions is abusing this policy and yet continues to facilitate its actions. ICANN is the international organization, headquartered in Marina Del Rey, CA, that regulates domain names and other Internet protocols. Kabateck Brown Kellner is one of the nation's foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Google, Yahoo!, Farmer's Insurance, Eli Lilly and others. As a plaintiff's-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers' side. Sébastien Bachollet Président HYPERLINK "mailto:sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr"sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr HYPERLINK "http://www.egeni.org"www.egeni.org HYPERLINK "http://www.isoc.fr"www.isoc.fr No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1298 - Release Date: 25/02/2008 20:45

13 28

Re: [At-Large] Pakistan YouTube Block affected wider Internet
by JFC Morfin Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

At 13:28 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote: >Je t'aurai bien lu, si j'avais eu le temps mais c'est bien trop >long... qu'a la fin je ne sais plus de quoi tu parles. Prends ton temps. A moins que tu cerveau ait rétréci au soleil :-) Plus sérieusement, c'est justement le problème trop de précipitation superficielle, pas assez d'analyse, de réflexion et de synthèse. Ce qui fait que l'on ne pique pas la rouille de l'architecture : on passe son temps à la repeindre et les couches de RFC s'accumulent. Jusqu'au moment où cela part en miettes. Je viens par exemple de relire les neuf pages du site ISOC sur le User Centric Internet, bien que cela soit modérément long, un peu à côté de la plaque (confusion entre user-centric et user-choice), terminologiquement opposé aux valeurs de l'IETF (RFC 3935) et que cela ne donne pas toutes les URL clés. Il n'est donc pas aisé de comprendre exactement ce dont vous parlez. Mais je fais l'effort. Si tu ne le fais pas, tu ne pourra pas comprendre ce qui se passe puisque cet effort est précisément l'objet de l'évolution technique en cours. Depuis des années, l'IETF bloque le développement du fait du flou de sa pile protocolaire. Ce temps là vient à son terme en raison de la pression politique, industrielle, stratégique, et bientôt économique du niveau sémantique et sociologique. Et elle le sait et l'exprime par sa rigidité (ex. Harald). L'ICANN est en partie armée pour s'y retrouver avec l'ALAC. Pas l'IETF. Il est possible que l'ISOC veuille jouer un rôle équivalent à celui de l'ALAC au bénéfice de l'IETF, ce serait une idée cohérente. Mais alors il faut qu'elle se mette à la fois elle-même en cohérence avec l'IETF (parlant le même langage avec la même vision) et avec les gens (qui ne sont ni des utilisateurs ni des consommateurs). Bonne nuit ! jfc >On 28/02/2008, JFC Morfin <<mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com>jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: >At 06:37 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote: > >JFC, > >Have you heard about the Internet? It is a great tool to do some > >research with... Google BCP38 or even look at it on wikipedia and > >you will know. I'm not here to train people, but will gladly answer > >their questions. Also look at BGP on wikipedia, even most of the > >IETF protocols and workgroups are explained on wikipedia. You will > >find quickly why BGP will not scale and why IETF is working on a > replacement. > > > > > > >-- >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Franck Martin ><mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>franck.martin(a)gmail.com >http://www.peachymango.org/ >"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" >G. Bachelard

1 0

EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks, does the ALAC and ICANN support free speach?
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

All my friends, Seems that the ACLU and EFF are supporting Wikilinks. This is a good and healthy thing in the preservation of free and unfettered speach. Question very recently seems to be, does the ALAC and ICANN support the 1st amendment? Limiting speach in a public forum of which ALL of ICANN's created forums are supposed to, be have not and do not. One has to wonder why? I for one am saddened to see that some of our Australian friends have decided to seek to limit speach and practice Selective Censorship in the ALAC... See:http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2… and http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q… and http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q… Article follows: Seems like the forces to protect freedom-of-speech in the groundsetting Wikileaks.org case have spoken: Henry Weinstein at LA Times reports that http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wikileaks27feb27,1,6769872.story a coalition of media and public interest organizations today urged judge Jeffrey White to rescind the shutdown of Wikileaks.org, which presents "restraint on free speech that violated the First Amendment", and is generally considered to become a representative case for free online speech. The dirty dozen organizations fighting for your voice and mine include the EFF, the ACLU, The Times, AP, Gannett, Hearst, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists. Lets hope that is enough muscle strength to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers! Meanwhile http://wikileaks.be/ wikileaks is still going strong via all available other domains, and is ttp://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks:Donate currently organizing support and donations.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Pakistan YouTube Block affected wider Internet
by Franck Martin Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Je t'aurai bien lu, si j'avais eu le temps mais c'est bien trop long... qu'a la fin je ne sais plus de quoi tu parles. On 28/02/2008, JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: > > At 06:37 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote: > >JFC, > >Have you heard about the Internet? It is a great tool to do some > >research with... Google BCP38 or even look at it on wikipedia and > >you will know. I'm not here to train people, but will gladly answer > >their questions. Also look at BGP on wikipedia, even most of the > >IETF protocols and workgroups are explained on wikipedia. You will > >find quickly why BGP will not scale and why IETF is working on a > replacement. > > > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin(a)gmail.com http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Pakistan YouTube Block affected wider Internet
by JFC Morfin Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

At 06:37 28/02/2008, Franck Martin wrote: >JFC, >Have you heard about the Internet? It is a great tool to do some >research with... Google BCP38 or even look at it on wikipedia and >you will know. I'm not here to train people, but will gladly answer >their questions. Also look at BGP on wikipedia, even most of the >IETF protocols and workgroups are explained on wikipedia. You will >find quickly why BGP will not scale and why IETF is working on a replacement. > >As for the IETF, I agree with Brian Carpenter, IETF is not here to >do awareness, this is the role of ISOC. IETF is here to work on >standards, and should be focused on just doing that. > >ISOC has been lacking a proper education and policy department but >now they have one, and produce now a very good IETF journal. So next >time ask ISOC to come, you will see, it will work better. Frank, je suis désolé de cette réponse qui montre une fois de plus notre côté gaulois de commencer par se chamailler avant d'avancer, une fois que l'on nous a donné un ministre (ce qui nous pend au nez après les municipales). Tu penses ce que tu veux, mais je crains que la situation actuelle soit réellement pas porteuse d'avenir. Chacun voulant avoir raison, alors que nous savons tous qu'à la fin c'est l'utilisateur qui a raison mais dans très longtemps. 1) L'ALAC est le seul lieu dans la Gouvernance ICANN/IETF où l'utilisateur peut s'exprimer. Le bloquer dans l'ignorance réciproque, la condescendance, ou la simple information inadaptée a été le grand jeu de l'ICANN et de l'IETF. Continuer serait un "crime de lèse stabilité" car il y a maintenant la concurrence de l'IGF et du WSIS Forum en gestation. L'ALAC est le seul lien ethiquement crédible pour la majorité silencieuse de l'IGF en ce qui concerne la "communauté internet" (ICANN/IETF/IAB/ISOC) gestionnaire de l'ancien. Il est important que malgrès ses limites elle le reste, sinon l'on va à un split. 2) pendant des années, j'ai été bloqué par le parisiannisme disant "on ne peut rien faire sans l'IETF" et l'IETF disant "je sais mieux que quiconque" et se prenant pour la RFC 3935. Harald Alvestrand m'a enfin libéré de tout cela. Il m'est donc possible d'avancer ce qui n'est pas bien difficile : il suffit d'implementer la couche présentation manquante pour ceux qui veulent. Et ce ne sont pas les motifs d'acceptation du public qui manquent. Ceci fait passer l'Internet de sa situation "default" actuelle au support de la diversité. Ce serait toutefois inconscient de le faire sous la forme d'un petit patch faisant un gros splatch. Il faut organiser les choses. L'ICANN en disparaitra dans sa forme actuelle (chaque présentation ayant de facto son ICANN, c'est à dire l'application de la coopération renforcée votée par le SMSI), mais il ne faut pas qu'elle en disparaisse dans la pagaille. Il faut qu'elle soit le "grand frère" des autres et progresse dans la transition. Seule l'ALAC peut lui en donner la possibilité en faisant la charnière, mais il faut qu'elle le comprenne et que l'ICANN l'accepte. L'IETF va aussi en souffrir, non pas en raison de ce qu'elle est, mais en raison de ce qu'elle veut rester (RFC 3935) car la décentralisation cèdera rapidement le pas devant la distribution du monde réel (l'ISOC est d'ailleurs de cet avis et a repris mon thème user-centric tant de fois opposé à l'IETF [qui est le leader ISOC? toi?]). D'autant qu'avec la couche présentation, des petits malins n'auront de cesse de rétablir les autres couches manquantes, et les couches du niveau sémantique (ma partie). Là aussi, il faut éviter un split technique et préserver le découplage des niveaux réseau, internet, sémantique. Sinon ce sera la pagaille, chacun voulant aller trop vite (l'IETF bloque depuis 20 ans ce que je faisais en 1985). Puisque tu es un des rares IETF à t'impliquer dans l'ALAC et l'ISOC, je te propose de réflechir à tout cela. De tenter de comprendre (ce n'est pas simple) ce que les brouillons français (Bachollet, Muget, Benhamou, La Chapelle, Porteneuve, Lang, Pouzin, etc.) tentent de faire, sans bien encore s'en rendre compte (cela converge [explosivement] vers l'ICANN à Paris) et de continuer à utiliser l'ISOC a bon escient dans le but de faire quelque chose qui parle à tous, profite de l'apport français, et appaise leurs divisions imbéciles - nées il faut le reconnaitre du manque de personnel faisant que les mêmes se retrouvent ensemble sans se reconnaître. Il y a très peu de gens qui comprennent et se dévouent à peu près honnêtement. AMHA ce n'est pas la peine de les diviser. A+ jfc

1 0