- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] New gTLDs and e-mail
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Bret and all, Than you need to review Yahoo.com's DNS configuration, for example. I certainly believe that Apple or Yahoo would do just exactly whatever they wanted irrespective of compliancy of major RFC's. So either you are not paying attention very closely or just unaware for whatever reason. For yahoo.com's DNS see: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=yahoo.com&token=27a01… Bret Fausett wrote: > I have a hard time believing that Apple or Yahoo or any other major > customer-facing business would roll out a branded TLD with an email > service that wasn't compliant with major RFCs. > > Bret > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

Aigrain's Blog:Corruption overflow in the telecom policy-making environment
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

All, FYI, and something to think about and/or consider in respect to new gTLD's and IDN gTLD's... "On Monday 7 July 2008, two committees of the European Parliament is going to vote on proposed amendments to the telecomm packet regulation, in what is but a provisional step of a skirmish in a much bigger struggle on the regulatory environment for intellectual rights and freedoms. This is a good time to take a step back and look at another much bigger problem." More here: http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=158 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

RIAA Wants To Throw In the Towel On 3-Year-Old Case
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

All, RIAA back in the news and again, and not a favorable mention. When will the IPC see the light, and revoke the RIAA's membership? When will ICANN or DOC/NTIA take action and demand they be removed as a IPC member? See: http://beckermanlegal.com/ After three years of pursuing a home health aide in Brooklyn who has http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/03/0313250&tid=123 never even used a computer, the RIAA has announced it's ready to http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/06/riaa-wants-to-throw-i… throw in the towel. Only thing; it wants the dismissal to be 'without prejudice' so it won't be liable for attorney's fees. The courts have been saying that where a copyright plaintiff gives up, the defendant is http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-7th-circuit-case-… presumptively entitled to an attorney's fee award. So, Ms. Lindor says 'no way.' She wants the dismissal to be 'with prejudice,' and http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/ms-lindor-opposes-ria… she wants her attorney's fees." We've been discussing this case and http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1723253&tid=123 Ms. Lindor's fight against the RIAA for http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/03/237211&tid=185 quite some time. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for DomainNames Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

John and all, I and our members agree fully with your last paragraph of your argument entirely. It is essentially a significant part of our core concerns for the past 9+ years. ICANN hasn't shown that it can manage much of anything very well to date including it's own Domain Names, IP addresses, root servers, or web site and mailing lists. Yet the ICANN leadership for the past 9+ years has been more interested in trying to make judgment calls of the social type and translating those to how the DNS and IP numbering system is managed. Such has failed on most counts far too frequently based on someone's notion of "Political correctness" as though such applied to everyone on the face of the planet. Not only is such a fools errand, it is politically not tenable. The "Church" of ICANN, as it were is a small and divided congregation indeed... The more ICANN pushes, the stronger the push back becomes... Internationalizing ICANN or nationalizing the DNS in terms of gTLD's or especially IDN gTLD's will have limited success I predict. Lets take the first, Internationalizing ICANN. Such a nebulous notion will never meet the full desires, needs, and demands of a ever changing marketplace in a market based global economic marketplace as the winds of political power change, sometimes very slowly, but always changing. International NGO's and corporations need, and will demand via one method or another what they want or feel they need, and squash to the extent possible the nationalized space holders into oblivion. This in some ways explains why .Coop has been a dismal failure as has .Travel. Yet, .mobi all be it's slow growth, is far more flexible and as such has met with success to the extent associated with it's growth. The second, nationalizing the DNS to the extent IDN's can accomplish such, also has limited but perhaps useful and interesting value to indigenous peoples of those nations so interested in such a IDN gTLD name space. But such is a child of language differences and unwillingness to recognize an already well established international language, english by some nations populace and even those in english speaking nations such as the US. Being multilingual as a entragal part of a DN web site is very useful for some that want or seek international reach and exposure, for others, not so. IDN gTLD's in as much as Censorship on moral grounds can or will be imposed by other nations will cause confusion amongst users for years to come, if not decades and seek to divide not unite peoples of different nations. Such is not a healthy thing but may be mitigated IF the GNSO can determine a formula to filter in or out such IDN gTLD's without offending those nations partioners and their representative polulace/users. A judgment call that I personally don't believe ICANN or the GNSO collectively or individually possesses, and never has. John Levine wrote: > > ... On the same scale 1 to 100, what would be the importance of a TLD > > for communities who would ask for its use, in the case of, say, > > ".kill-all-[add your favourite minority]", ".[add your favourite > > insult][append your favourite trademark]", or any other subject that > > might have controversial "morality" or "public order" implications? > > IMHO, much higher than 97. > > Actually, TLDs stopped being important about the time ICANN started. > Back when I wrote the first few editions of Internet for Dummies in the > 1990s, once we got past the mechanics of getting online, most of the rest > of the book was about how to find stuff, Gopher, Archie, Veronica, WAIS, > with only one chapter on this newfangled WWW thing. At the time, it > seemed reasonable to hope that the DNS would grow into a directory, along > the lines of what .MUSEUM has tried to do. > > I expected WAIS, a full text search system, to be the next big thing, > since like nearly everyone else I didn't anticipate the way the web would > absorb everything else. But in a sense I was right, because the killer > app for the web was and is search engines. These days I know a lot of > people whose home page is Google, and who have no idea what the difference > is between the Google search box and the browser address box. Domains and > even URLs don't matter. They type some words into one of the boxes, and > if they get to a place they like, they bookmark it. > > This means that for small language communities, while it's important that > their writing system is included in Unicode, and that there be display > fonts and input methods available for browsers and MUAs, the domains don't > matter because nobody's going to type a domain more than once. After > that, the sites are going to be bookmarked and the e-mail addresses will > be in the address books. > > At this point, the only reasonable argument I can see for a new TLD is > branding, and there only in areas where brand vs not-brand is interesting. > Among the reasons that .coop and .aero are flops is that nobody cares > about real vs fake co-ops or real vs fake whatever it is you have to be to > get into .aero these days. It looks like .mobi will work because .mobi > sites work on phones with tiny screens, mobile users care about that, and > .mobi has a compliance process to check that the sites work like they're > supposed to. Something like .bank might be useful to help distinguish > actual banks from phishes. Other than that, the main motivation for new > TLDs seems to be wishful thinking combined with faith-based budgeting. > > > And I might sound very old-fashioned and illiberal, but my personal opinion > > is that we have more than enough hate speech given the current state of > > affairs, that I don't see the need to create more ways to convey it. > > I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Personally, I think that the > $100K application cost will be a far greater bar to hate domains than any > sort of morality screen that ICANN sets up. The reason I'm opposed to the > morality screen is that, based on ICANN's history, it won't work. > Instead, it will be perverted for the benefit of the usual lobbyists. I > expect the trademark lawyers to object to every new TLD on every possible > basis, technical, moral, community, and anything else on the list. Why > wouldn't they? What do they have to lose? As far as they're concerned, > every new TLD is just another shakedown of their clients who'll have to > waste money on defensive registrations. And beyond that, I don't see a > clear explanation of what the morality screen is supposed to accomplish. > Is it supposed to bar all nasty words? Nasty words used in nasty ways? > How would they handle my example of .NAZI if it's a group of Holocaust > museums who want historical and educational sites? ICANN can barely > handle the mechanical bits, and I see no hope of them successfully > managing any serious judgement calls. > > R's, > John > > PS: FYI, the message to which you were responding was from Canada, where > the speech laws are more like European ones than US ones. Not everyone in > North America grew up with the 1st amendment. > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] New gTLDs and e-mail
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

John and all, You would think that indeed new registries could do their own due diligence. But of course experience clearly shows that they rarely do. Ergo, diligence of users and perhaps the ALAC is necessary. Secondly, as ICANN doesn't do the oversight it should do, especially given the fact that they can't even keep track of their own Domain Names as was reported earlier this past week, someone needs to either fill in the gaps in oversight, or ICANN needs to step up much better than they have been doing over the past 9+ years. I can't see that how much $$ a proposed registry puts up really has anything what so ever to do with their creditability, after all any drug dealer or cartel can back any proposal with $$ easy enough. So your logic as far as price for a gTLD has little to do with doing good due diligence. John Levine wrote: > > So, do I understand correctly that, because one obscure non-RFC compliant > > e-mail address has been out there for a decade this is enough of a test to > > guarantee, there will be no issues with the current market leading MUAs and > > MTAs (and legacy ones) ? > > There will certainly be issues with MTAs and MUAs, since there are plenty > of them that implicitly or explicitly assume that every domain name > contains a dot. > > What we do know is that the existence of such addresses doesn't cause any > global problems. Why does this issue need the ALAC's limited time, rather > than being just one more minor question for the purchasers of new TLDs to > deal with? If they'll be spending $100K or more on their new domain, I > think it's reasonable to assume that they can do their own due diligence. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

Bavarian Police Can Legally Place Trojans On PCs
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 4, 2008

July 4, 2008

All, Is goose stepping next? One thing is for sure, no traveling to Bavaria for me! See: "The Bavarian Parliament passed a law that allows Bavarian police to place 'http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Bayerischer-Landtag-setzt-den-Bayerntrojaner… Remote Forensic Software' ( http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewstic… Google translation) on a suspect's computer as well as on the computers of a suspect's contacts. They may break into houses in secret to install the RFS if a remote installation is not possible; and while they are there a (physical) search is permitted too. The RFS may be used to read, delete, and alter data." The translation says that RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person... Even where there is a reasonable assumptions on concrete preparatory acts for such serious offenses." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Paris debrief
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

Nick and all, Nice Cheerleading. Quite frankly though the ALAC punted on Domain Name Tasting, passed the buck on WHOIS accuracy, made little progress in determining a consensus position regarding GNSO review and restructure, and has yet to do much on new gTLD's. Some good progress seemed to be made on Fast-Flux and Front-Running. However there is not a determined or stated consensus on either of those two issues. Further, there is little progress made on the privacy front, DNSSEC, and DNS configuration which are key issues. Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear All: > > It may be useful for you to know that actually I have heard quite a lot of positive comments about At-Large's work in Paris. There seems to be a widespread view that the community is working harder than in the past and that it is more engaged and constructive with each passing meeting. > > For what it is worth, I can say that with respect to the review, I have seen no evidence that there is anything deliberate about the timing of the release of the report from the perspective that you are wondering about below, Evan. What I can say is that there is a larger question, which a number of you discussed in Paris, about the number of simultaneous public consultations that start (and sometimes end) in close proximity to ICANN meetings, making it difficult for anyone to respond in the time allowed. Some steps have been taken to deal with this in respect of some consultations - you will see that at least one of them doesn't end until August. > > With respect to the travel policy, you will no doubt recall the statement on the first draft put forward by ALAC with community input. I can tell you that Doug absolutely did read this carefully and he spoke highly to me of the contents and the thoughtfulness it held. I do not know what Board members thought of it - perhaps Wendy will know more. > > On the point of reacting very late on the GTLD issue: We discussed this in Paris and everyone acknowledges that more needs to be done earlier to help ensure that all At-Large - and other stakeholder groups - are briefed earlier on issues and that the briefings take formats that are most useful for different groups. We have started to make some progress here I think - the two June briefings for example - and the policy briefs which have started to come out. I know of at least two additional briefings from Dave Piscitello of SSAC which he has said he'd like to arrange and you'll hear more soon. > > In summary I guess I would say that to me this seemed like the most effective meeting for the community that I've been a part of. You touched a nerve with your comments on morality and public order and it seemed to me that more than a few people agreed with you and that your statement did change the debate on the subject. I know that there will be many more opportunities for comment on the new GTLD issue as the implementation plans move forward and we will do all we can to ensure that you have the information that you need to decide what you want to say. > > On 03/07/2008 18:44, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of > those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large > attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. > > We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD > creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in > most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the > registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, > though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. > > Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light > up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own > cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was > as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final > evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). > > Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be > the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite > how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel > policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to > accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the > positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came > across as shrill and obstructionist. > > I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to > another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all > the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough > opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take > positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix > problems. > > Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little > things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us > off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed > almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The > consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that > timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately > that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the > draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the > manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point > of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's > translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far > behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. > > Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake > recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan > -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused > attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the > ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC > members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues > such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work > on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved > people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know > it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have > this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a > panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. > > Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of > its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help > staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with > our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't > tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. > > And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. > > 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the > ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable > and offers something of substance to the governance committee. > > 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy > contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the > objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes > (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to > stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some > cultures (ie, .gay)? > > 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is > there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? > > Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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: [NA-Discuss] [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

Avri and all, Thank you for the reminder re artical 29 and 19. I know our members have been refrencing it for years vis a vi ICANN. We wonder quite frankly, when ICANN will fully recognize in particular article 29? Perhaps you could or would be so kind as to enlighten us in this regard? -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> >Sent: Jul 2, 2008 8:58 AM >To: Governance Caucus <governance(a)lists.cpsr.org> >Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0) > >Hi, > >Perhaps there isn't anything to subtract from article 19 other then >the effects of article 29? i sometimes worry that people are so >focused on the positive value of 19 that they miss the fact that 29 >allows a lot of abrogation of that positiveness. > >Unfortunately article 29 made into the WSIS texts as well. > >a. > >For anyone who does not remember 29 - the get out of FOE free article: > >Article 29. > > (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the >free and full development of his personality is possible. > > (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall >be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely >for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights >and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of >morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. > > (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised >contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. > > >On 2 Jul 2008, at 17:30, KovenRonald(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Dear All -- >> >> On the question of freedom of expression and the Internet, the >> position of the press freedom groups of the Coordinating Committee >> of Press Freedom Organizations, to which the World Press Freedom >> Committee belongs, has been the same as that taken by leading >> delegations such as that of Canada and others in the WSIS, that >> there should be "no new rights" but that there is a need for >> reaffirmation of existing rights, notably Article 19 of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> In this 60th anniversary year of the UDHR, the Coordinating >> Committee adopted a resolution just last month in Belgrade that >> there is nothing to add or to subtract from Art. 19 and that it is >> time to work for its full implenentation in the world. I append the >> text below. >> >> While I understand the desire to explore other aspects of Internet >> access, I strongly feel that, when it comes to freedom of >> expression, any attempts to "improve" on Art. 19 in an >> intergovernmental context will only lead to watering down its >> unqualified call for free speech, on and off-line. >> >> It was a major struggle to get Art. 19 into the final WSIS texts, a >> struggle in which pretty much all of the civil society groups took >> part cooperatively. Nothing being proposed here should now come to >> undermine the notable success of that effort. >> >> We are prepared to reiterate the above points in Hyderabad. >> >> Best regards, >> Ronald Koven >> European Representative >> World Press Freedom Committee >> >> COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS >> INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION >> INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING >> INTERNATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE >> WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS >> WORLD PRESS FREEDOM COMMITTEE >> >> Resolution on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >> >> The Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, meeting >> in Belgrade June 18, 2008, hailed forthcoming United Nations >> commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights and called upon UN bodies and their member states to >> act to implement their pledge of freedom of expression and of press >> freedom, as contained in the Declaration's Article 19: >> >> "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; >> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without >> interference and to seek, receive and impart information and >> ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." >> >> While means of enforcement were not provided for when the UN voted >> that text on Dec. 10, 1948, it has been widely recognized by the >> world's most prestigious national and international courts as now >> constituting international customary law. It was a pledge by the >> international community to enshrine free speech and a free press >> among the fundamental rights for everyone everywhere. >> >> Article 19 has stood the test of time. The text was prescient. There >> is nothing to add and nothing to subtract. Its provision of the free >> flow of "information and ideas through any media and regardless of >> frontiers" made it possible to move from a world in which short wave >> radio was the main transfrontier news outlet to one that encompasses >> all later developments in communications technology, including >> direct satellite broadcasting and the Internet. >> >> Contrary to some later assertions, it was not produced solely by >> Western countries but by a globally representative group of >> countries. The Drafting Committee that wrote it comprised Australia, >> Chile, China, France, Lebanon, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and >> United States, represented by Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the >> Committee. It was adopted without dissent by the UN General Assembly. >> >> The only problem with Article 19 is that it is not respected nor >> implemented everywhere. The time is long past for the United Nations >> to move to make it so. Those countries that ignore their commitments >> to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press should be >> enjoined to do so. >> >> Failure to honor those commitments should be treated as a serious >> breach and should be sanctioned by such measures as exclusion from >> UN human rights bodies. The UN system should reinforce its aid to >> the development of independent news outlets everywhere. >> >> We members of the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom >> Organizations, representing journalists and news outlets throughout >> the world, call upon the United Nations and its agencies to move now >> from their promise of global press freedom to adopt measures for >> implementation needed to transform that promise into practice. >> >> >> >> ************** >> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient >> used cars. >> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance(a)lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)]
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

All, FYI, and of course for those that have been paying close attention Koven and Milton are unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your political bent, correct. Koven in particular as far as the facts are concerned did a good job in articulating in brief, in correctly outlining what ICANN's direction and to a degree, dilemma is. Everybody got some of what they wanted, but no one got everything of all of what they wanted/needed in respect to the gTLD and IDN gTLD decision by ICANN. Of course much of that decision by ICANN will need flushing out in detail in the coming months. What will be interesting is to what degree colisions will exist and what "Social Values" of whom will be impacted vis a vi gTLD's and especially IDN gTLD's. Ergo, it is likely that .XXX will be re-approved and the "Social Values" Social scientests will have something to debate and argue about for years to come. My take is that .XXX for instance will be moved offshore so that USG influence will be limited, and congress will commence to pass legislation to mitigate or limit access and under what conditions access and registration will be allowed as well as determin criminality of accessing Domain Names in .XXX amongsts other gTLD's and IDN gTLD's. China will than not be the only country with a "Great Firewall". -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:14:19 -0400 From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> To: <governance(a)lists.cpsr.org>,<KovenRonald(a)aol.com> References: <d10.2d047f76.359d015a(a)aol.com> From:KovenRonald@aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com] Yes, Avri -- Reaffirming Art., 29 was the price that our Chinese friends and other likeminded delegations made us pay for reaffirming Art. 19. That's what we get for working thru the UN system and illustrates what to expect if we try to fiddle too much with the ICANN arrangements to which so many civil society members are allergic. Better the devil you know ... But Rony, in case you hadnt noticed, ICANN has NEITHER Article 19 NOR Article 29 NOR the US First Amendment. And ICANN has just passed (again, you must not be paying attention) a new gTLD policy that reflects exactly what your Chinese friends wanted, not to mention European advocates of other kinds of restrictions on expression. I will send you the links if you are interested (but I suspect you are not). Do you like the idea of prior restraint for ALL expression in domain names? Do you like the idea that a government can object to a name because it is in a language script that they think they own and they want a veto power over anyone using {Chinese/Korean/Cyrillic/your favorite language here}? Do you like the idea of global standards of public order and morality being applied in advance to any and all applications? I hope you do, because that is all part of the new ICANN policy. So before you invoke ICANN pay attention to the facts, please. I really wonder what you WPFC folks are thinking some times. Does the fact that ICANN has a made in the USA sticker on it mean that you will defend it to the death regardless of what it does? There are no allergies here to ICANN per se or to its model, there are allergies to censorship, arbitrary power and the like. Anyway, getting back to Internet for All, it is meaningless to declare sweeping new rights when the right in question is just a nice-sounding set of words and one has neither the resources nor c clear definition of what it means in practice, nor the political consensus and institutional capacity to deliver it on a global basis. We should rather be asking, what policies have actually succeeded in expanding Internet access as rapidly as possible and what policies do the best job of ameliorating unacceptable levels of inequality in access? Those are realistic questions that can be answered with realistic and implementable policies. Declaring universal rights makes the declarer feel righteous but accomplishes nothing else, except perhaps to devalue the more fundamental rights that are still not being protected. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

1 0

resend of: NIST issues guidelines to test agencies' network security
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

All, Sorry I forgot the link... See: http://gove-media.com/portal/wts/ccmcfOaB77aqk7vqwbjfbr0wmwf Althought this is about 8 years late, if not too late, finnaly the NIST has taken a very positive step for testing the USG's IT network. Let's hope the testing criterion is robust enough and is up to date. Needless to say, we will be watching closely and checking for ourselves as well. Again, as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify". Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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