Subject: RE: CORE == Big Brother ??

From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:31:03 -0000

Hi, Fred.

I wrote:
> >There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other
> >Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing.
> 
You wrote:
> For the record, there has in fact been consultation with leaders in
> the
> Internet community, I believe that there has been some amount of
> inter-governmental consultation, and the Green Paper says of itself
> that it
> represents a step along the way, not the final plan. Publication of
> the
> paper and fielding the resulting comments is Magaziner's way of
> obtaining
> community input.
> 
We agree on the following:

- there has been no open discussion (only some consultation with (some)
leaders in the Internet Community)
- there has been no vote

We disagree on the following:

- no consultation of the other Governments (if you believe there has
been some, please state who and when. The European Community has not.
Bangemann (Magaziner homologue in Europe) has learned it from the press.
Go check yourself, please, or just wait for the EC answer)

The Green Paper is without any doubt just one step along the way, but it
is an official step, and it has to be taken seriously.
Diplomatic rules state that you consult the partners before doing the
first official step, not ask for comments afterwards. If the other
governments are not partners, than the move is OK. (but the answer will
be consequent)

Regards
Roberto

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:13:01 -0500

Hello Roberto:

Before you accuse Mr Magaziner and my government of unfairness or worse,
let's have some discussion of who you are and whose interests you are
representing. let's see: [email-masked].  ETSI is the telecom
standards group for the Eurporean PTTs is it not?  The group that puts the
telecom standards desired by the European PTTs globally before the ITU in
Geneva.  ETSI is also one of the 88 (or is it 100?) CORE registrars or is
it registries with $10,000 and $2000 a month tied up in the POC gTLD moves.
ETSI has (or had?) its headquarters in Spohia Antipolis where INRIA and
Christian Huitema did their path breaking work in connecting France and
europe to the Internet.  yet i am told that for many years ETSI wasn't even
aware of INRIA's existence and that as recently as 1991 ETSI was an adament
oponent of the internet.

The IETF list readers might find it useful to have some context to judge
who you are against the remarks you make.

>Go check yourself, please, or just wait for the EC answer)

I reply that your claim is false.  Magaziner has been in and out of Europe
and asia all fall and winter.  Who and when?  I can attest to the following
that on the morning of january 27th.  I was standing in the hallway of the
Millenium center in london where Ira had just given a keynote presentation
to an internet conference for which i was technical coordinator.
Christopher Wilkinson (of the EC and Eurpoean Union and a member of the
POC) and I had earlier had a brief conversation in which he told me that he
had a private meeting with Ira magaziner to ocurr immediately on the
conclusion of his speach.  I stood and watched as Ira was snagged by two
significant american memebers of the community while Mr wilkinson waited
for what turned into about a ten minute conversation to end and observed
Wilkinson and Magaziner leave the the room together.  now if wilkinson
didn't share his personal briefing with the POC or ETSI that isn't my fault.

Where Ira was on Weds I don't know....but I do know that he was at the
economic meeting in Davos Switzerland the next day.  And if i had access to
lexus nexus search service i'd bet i could lay out an extensive schedule of
consulations with European leaders.  Ira is not a stupid man and has done
and is continuing to do the internet extraordinary service.

I don't know about you personally, but ETSI has an agenda and that agenda
is not friendly to an Internet that is not controlled and governed by the
ITU.

Make no mistake about it the Green paper is not JUST about DNS -- it is all
about deciding whether special interests will or won't be given control of
the internet.  Although "governance" is a word that in this forum is
anathema, the folk here better look it straight in the eye and realize that
the Green paper is about who will have an opportunity to try to govern the
internet - the leadership of our community or the interests representing
the LECs and foreign PTTs

>governments are not partners, than the move is OK. (but the answer will

***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)           http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:24:46 -0800 (PST)

Ok.  Let me use your criteria to see how far I can distance myself from
Roberto...

  - I *am* a citizen of the United States.

  - I do *not* work for a European PTT (nor an American ISP/NSP either.)

  - I am *not* a signatory of the MoU (although I think it is the best
    thing going among the various options on the table.) 

  - I have known about INRIA since at least the mid 1970's.

OK, so by your criteria I've distingished myself utterly from Roberto
Gaetano.... 

Yet I do believe that my government is being unfair, or worse.  (Indeed,
much worse.)

My initial stream-of-consciousness, unedited, unproofread thoughts on the
so-called "Green Paper"  are still at

	http://www.cavebear.com/green_thoughts.html

My comments about NSF's failure to abide by the Privacy Act is still viewable via

	http://www.cavebear.com/

My formal response to the NTIA is still being written, but I will post
it when it's done.

		--karl--

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:14:52 -0800

> Before you accuse Mr Magaziner and my government of unfairness or worse,

Actually, those of us who know our government well are equally
inclined to worry about "unfairness or worse" -- perhaps even more so.

> who you are against the remarks you make.

And your point is?  Mr Gaetano has not made any attempt to conceal 
his affiliations.

> that on the morning of january 27th.

Let's see -- Mr Magaziner must have considered that input deeply,
given that the Green Paper came out on what? the 30th.  And of course,
the point isn't gathering input -- in a consensus building process
that input must considered, and reflected in the result. 

I think, given the European response, that the claim that Magaziner
considered European input is laughable.  

Furthermore, I have heard from people who were in meetings with
Magaziner, that he explicitly stated that he considered this first and
foremost an American Political Problem.  This was apparently in the
context where someone had brought up the international focus of the
MoU as a plus for the MoU...

[...] 

> is not friendly to an Internet that is not controlled and governed by the

Oh spare us the ITU boogyman, please.

> the internet.

You mean like giving NSI/SAIC an exclusive perpetual monopoly over the .com 
registry, while at the same time making it almost impossible for its 
chief *international* competitor to compete?  Yeah, I  guess you're 
right -- the GP *is* about giving control to special interests....

>  Although "governance" is a word that in this forum is

Frankly, I don't consider the Dept of Commerce part of the "leadership
of our community".  I think the leadership of our community has a
decidedly more international cast. 

Oh, and just for the record -- I am biased :-)  

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:04:43 +0000

Gordon and all,

  A brief reply to Gordons comments here to Roberto and the rest of us.

  Gordon, good comments and a nice little fact stating info on what Ira has done
internationaly PRIOR to the GP being made public.  Many others have also done
so in a private manner as well in this reguard.  It is ashame that there are some
that do not do their homework very well.  I believe that it was Jim Flemming and
Jay
F., that stated some time back that this effort was under way.  I also believe
that
Ira dis as well.

  Well, you can lead a hourse to watter, but you can't make them drink.

> >governments are not partners, than the move is OK. (but the answer will

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:14:35 +0100 (MET)

> didn't share his personal briefing with the POC or ETSI that isn't my fault.

sory but your comments are just a prove that your intentions are
principial and not considering that simple facts 

that the GP itself is a prove that there was no big intention of the USG 
to have it internationaly founded

can you found anything internationaly in the GP ??

the gtld-mou from isoc and iana was a international thing 
but not the USG commerce departement GP 

but as mr.baker sugests we musst see also the positive sides of the 
USG GP action and should in this ways buld up a basis for duscusion with
them  

thanks
sascha

ps.anybody with a little brain about the global nature of the internet can 
   understand why the atempt to build up a international politicial 
   internet infrastrukture is so imoprtend and why the organisations
   of the united nations are and can be useful to acomplish this 

   ITU is the only big international telecom organisation and if we 
   can bring them to the point to accept internet and to cooperate for
   its further systemathic covering of the planet than we have
   done a great work 

   AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MR.HEATH ISOC AND IANA HASE DONE 

   you can write hunderds of green papers but you would not even close 
   come to the position to have done such historic contribution to the 
   global internet as the isoc and iana hase done

   the only organisations who understands the global nature of the 
   internet and also ablle to act on that

   time will tell  
   and me too :-)

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:21:50 -0500

Does this one join the endless crazy
 quilt acronymanical list of failures?
 IANA/ISOC/ITEF/IESG/IAB/IAHC/CORE/POC/PAB
 and now ITAG! If it looks like IAHC, smells
 like ISOC, and talks like IANA it is, it is!

 My initial response: there are no women in
 this group. In order for this thing to work
 there have to be added 19 more members. Six
 drawn from the "alternative" groups: People
 like Dixon, Rutkowski, Fleming, Fenelo,
 Kleinman or my despicable self. These twelve
 would *not be able to vote on the final
 outcome. They would be advisors and support
 staff to an additional 13 netizens the majority
 of which must be women. This group would have
 the final say and would be drawn pretty much
 out of a hat like we select juries. Finally
 ditch the Acronym shit and fund this process
 for one year of conventions travelling worldwide.

 If you people incorporate these suggestions
 perhaps we will avoid another disaster. This
 matter cannot be trusted to yet another closed
 group of insiders of either side.

>
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:30:09 -0500
> To: [email-masked]
> From: Dave Farber <[email-masked]>
> Subject: IP: itag announcement
>
> The Chair of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Brian Carpenter,
> and the Director of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
> Jon Postel, jointly announce the formation of the "IANA Transition
> Advisors Group" (ITAG).
>
> The ITAG will serve as a set of senior advisors to the IANA during the
> transition to a new organization with formal status as a non-profit
> corporation with a board of directors.  This group will cease to exist
> when the board of directors of the new organization has its first
> meeting.  The members of the ITAG have declared themselves as not
> candidates for the initial IANA board.
>
> The ITAG will consist of 6 members.  The initial members(*) are:
>
>         Randy Bush      - Verio
>         Brian Carpenter - IBM UK
>         Dave Farber     - U Penn
>         Geoff Huston    - Telstra
>         John Klensin    - MCI
>         Steve Wolff     - Cisco
>
> * organization affiliation for identification purposes only.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:34:27 +0100 (MET)

> > * organization affiliation for identification purposes only.

hi bob thank you for this infos 

on other part of your mail i can not comment becous not competent to do so

thanks
sascha

---

From: Drachen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:40:35 -0800 (PST)

Okay, I've been happy lurking, but this one I just don't get. Why mostly
women? Why does it matter?

Vinnie 
--
[email-masked] System Administrator Epoch Internet
"Connecting The World, One Business At A Time......
By Caring About A Customers Success"
[email-masked] Spam Patrol

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:51:55 -0500

>  of which must be women. This group would have

All the small furry green creatures from Alpha Centauri[1]
demand representation too...
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

[1] With apologies to Douglas Adams.. At least they were REAL
small furry green creatures.... ;)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:09:58 -0500

>right -- the GP *is* about giving control to special interests....

Kent,

Consider what you are arguing.  

The IAHC version of "fairness" is for NSI to forfeit all
interest in .com to a new organization where this "chief
*interenational* competitor" has an established interest,
and NSI has none.

That's a perverse definition of fairness.

What many of the more rational members of the Internet
community are supporting is a non-zero sum solution --
where we all agree to share a pie that is bigger than
the pie we currently see on the table.

When is the POC/PAB/CORE leadership going to join
the community in finding this solution.  So far,
you and your associates are the only hold-outs!

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:46:15 -0500

Vinnie replied:
>Okay, I've been happy lurking, but this one I just don't get. Why
>mostly women? Why does it matter?

 Half the population is female and
 must be included. Why is that so
 hard to understand? If we never
 share with women their voice is
 not heard. Are all geeks sexist
 or is it just *these* IANA/ETC
 geeks? Sad how little things really
 progress in some sub-cultures.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:51:09 -0500

I wrote:
>>  ....... They would be advisors and support

>demand representation too...

 Sorry, they are already represented
 in proxy by Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter,
 Dave Farber etc. by the sounds of your
 entirely estranged from reality replies.
 I have stumbled upon a group which has
 not understaood the concepts of equity,
 consensus and inclusion! Like finding
 so many Brontosauri in the Mall... I
 cannot but be surprised. Let's get a
 little current shall we children?

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:25:09 -0500

>  consensus and inclusion! Like finding

OK. Obviously my point was missed the first time.  If we want
to be *truly* inclusionary, we need to guarantee that at least
20% of the group be Chinese nationals without network access,
another 15% be from the Indian subcontinent without network
access, and so on.

What? You say you want them to actually have a *clue* about what
the Internet is?  Or did you *REALLY* want major decisions made
by  a group that includes 7 random AOL[1] users, inKl00ding 3 
K-raD el33t haquer wannabes and a BIFF L))KALIKE KLONE.  Oh,
let's not forget we need to include at least 3 representatives
from e-mail spamming companies, since they generate 25% of the
traffic.....

Yes, equity, consensus, and inclusion are nice concepts.  But let's
not let those concepts stand in the way of making sure that decisions
are made by people who understand the issues.  The single scariest
thing about the OJ Simpson trial was that it was decided by 12 people
who were intentionally selected for their lack of knowledge of current
events, understanding of how testing labs work, and similar points.

Do you want your ISP making technical decisions on how to provide you
service based on the criteria you want to use to determine who gets
to decide how the WHOLE INTERNET gets service?  If not, why not?

[1] AOL has most of the market share, most of this group should
statisically come from there.

---

From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:56:30 -0400 (AST)

> you and your associates are the only hold-outs!

I don't see many apart from NSI saying that they should keep C-O-N, I don't
see many apart from yourself saying you should keep per/nom, likewise with the
stuff "claimed" by eDNS, alternic, Allisat et al.

When the POC/PAB/CORE block says it looks for community consensus, it gets
kicked at for not having more than half the internet actively saying "we
support you". It seems to get overlooked that when added together all the
supporters of gTLD-MoU on an individual basis (and I mean ACTIVE supporters,
not just someone who for the hell of it has pointed a nameserver in a
certain way), it blasts the hell out of the supporters that every other
alternative plan has. Of course, when that gets pointed out, the "other" lot
turn around and say that the rest of the internet hasn't voted in favour...

I see that each person who has a self centered motive in this argument
stands alone, and that way claims as much input as the whole other block put
together. You Jay seem to believe that you have exactly the same rights by
yourself as the whole POC/PAB/CORE put together. Maybe that is where the
mistake is, in getting lots of signatories to the gTLD-MoU, instead of
having each individual company voice itself as being in favour of that
solution. Someone said somewhere recently that politicians decide based on
dead-paper-weight, and they could be very right.

Maybe it's more effective for EACH company in CORE to submit a reply to the
GP and EACH signatory of the gTLD-MoU to do likewise than actually get them
to talk as a block.

You're talking about being fair to NSI (and presumably yourself as well).
Would it be fair to give them an unfair advantage? I personally don't think
so.

Yours, John Broomfield.

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:39:16 -0500

>>  consensus and inclusion! Like finding

Valdis replied
>another 15% be from the Indian subcontinent without network

 I believe in inclusion on all
 levels among an adult population
 as in jury selection. Apparently
 even the concept of having women
 represented is a little too difficult
 for the onlookers to grasp as a
 concept. I did not want to over
 burdern their obviously stressed
 minds with too much at this point
 in time. If you will

>events, understanding of how testing labs work, and similar points.

 I believe, like with a jury, certain
 minimal requirements have to be set.
 After that I will trust a group of
 my peers over the rather hard-core
 technocrats who have ruled to date.
 Technicians and knowledgeable insiders
 have no role except to advise. The
 Citizens of the Internet should set
 the broad and mighty course.

>to decide how the WHOLE INTERNET gets service?  If not, why not?

 I do not understand this last question.
 Please clairify or rephrase it. Remaining...

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:49:30 -0500

At 11:19 AM 2/13/98 -0800, Darrell Greenwood wrote:
>At 9:09 AM -0800 2/13/98, [email-masked] wrote:
>No. You are the one being perverse.
>
>NSI is a private US corporation only responsible to its shareholders
>and currently as a US government contractor having, IMO, no ownership
>of .com presently.
>
>The gTLD MoU sets a first principle in the management of TLDs...
>
>"The Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a public resource
>and is subject to the public trust."
>
>...and is clearly implementing that first principle with its actions.
>
>The Green Paper appears to desire to implement something for which
>thoughtful Americans must feel shame. (i.e., chance, cronyism and
>possibly corruption in the gifting of TLDs worth $100 million to
>private owners.)

Darrell,

Your editing took my comments out of context.

>>>right -- the GP *is* about giving control to special interests....

My response was to Kent's claim that the Green
Paper was somehow being unfair to this "chief 
*international* competitor".  I was only pointing
out that the IAHC solution was every bit as
unfair as you claim the Green Paper is, if not
more so.

I went on to state that the goal here shouldn't
be to kill NSI, nor should it be to kill this 
"chief *international* competitor" -- it should 
be to find a fair solution where everyone wins.

[I should also add, it should be fair to CORE and the
88 registrars who have invested their time and money.]

So what's preventing this from happening.  IMHO,
it is the refusal of the POC/PAB/CORE leadership
to work with the rest of the Internet community
to find a win-win solution.

---

From: "'Dawn Marie Legnini'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:49:50 -0500 (EST)

Hello Please take me off this list.
Thank you

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:30:09 +0000 (GMT)

> *interenational* competitor" has an established interest,

The current situation is that NSI runs all gTLDs as a monopoly.
If the gTLD MOU were to go ahead, the gTLDs would be transferred
to CORE, *but* NSI would be able to become a CORE registrar.  

The general assumption has been that NSI would join CORE and 
pretty much automatically become the biggest of the CORE registrars.

This aspect of the proposal is in fact reasonably fair.  

What is unfair about CORE is that (a) standards for registrars have
been set unreasonably high, (b) the list of registrars was closed for
no particular reason, (c) CORE's management board, the Executive 
Committee, voted in by an artificially restricted set of members, 
will hold power for a long time, and (d) CORE claims the right to 
control _all_ gTLDs.

Of course the Green Plan's requirements for registrars are even
more perverse than (a) and CORE has decided to accept new candidate
registrars.  That leaves (c) and (d).  But I think that, after the
shock of the Green Paper, a more sober CORE is now prepared to
negotiate.
 
--
Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:36:27 +0000

Jim, Jay and all,

> This aspect of the proposal is in fact reasonably fair.

  This is you consider that NSI must sign the CORE-MoU and pay the $10k
entry fee to become a CORE registrar.

> will hold power for a long time, and (d) CORE claims the right to

  I will take this comment in reverse order.  First, (d), CORE does not
have even a
reasonably small consensus to be given control of all gTLD's.  That would
be
internationaly unjust and unfair.  Second or (c), The so called Executive
committee,
has nearly all the decision making ability and as I indicated in my First
(d), they
were not even really elected by anything close to a consensus of any
reasonable
or exceptable kind.  Neither of these two problems have been adaquatly
addressed,
and are not likely to be judging from the lack of reasonable action that
has been
taken on POC of late.  Third, (b), there is indeed a cloke of wonderment
as to why
the ability to register additional registars was closed so quickly and
without much
if any REAL justification.  And Forth (a), the $10k entry fee is indeed
and was indeed
totaly to high and in some sense not necessary at all.

> shock of the Green Paper, a more sober CORE is now prepared to

  Again in reverse order.  I am sure that CORE may be more willing to
negotiate
now that ther is the GP.  This is something that Dave Crocker ranted
about on several
occasions when he felt that the RSC's and Round Table ideas wern't real
alternitives.
Well now there is one of substancial perportions and possible impact on
the
MoU.  Second and last, I find it yet to be known that the GP's
requirnments are
more perverse as the perposal is yet to be in a final form.

Regards,

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:21:55 -0500

So sascha thinks the ITU should take over the internet.

Well well sascha....have you read the Jan 11th 1998 address of the current
secretary general of the ITU  which according to him became the
international Internet Union in the year 2006?

http://www.itu.int/itudoc/osg/ptspeech/chron/1998/65998.txt

read it.....it is very instructive.  I suspect that the majority of the
IETF doesn't feel that it needs Dr. Pekka Tarjanne, or any other ITU
bureaucrat to run its affairs.

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:42:03 -0800

On Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 07:21:55PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
> read it.....it is very instructive.

It's instructive in how far you will twist things to make a point. 
We've already seen the accuracy of your sources concerning ETSI -- I
actually went and looked at this document to see if you had improved
any. 

The document is actually a lighthearted fantasy thinkpiece, set 10
years in the future (talking about "telepathic polling devices" among
other things) -- hardly a blueprint for a takeover of the internet.

And to be blunt, Gordon, I don't care a whit if Dr Tarjanne wants to
be involved in the internet -- every single government and quasi
governmental organization in the world wants to be involved in the
internet.  As Captain Renault says in "Casablanca": "I'm shocked --
shocked! to see gambling going here!" -- as he collects his winnings. 

>  I suspect that the majority of the

I suspect the majority of the IETF doesn't feel that it needs Ira
Magaziner, or any other USG bureaucrat to run its affairs, either.

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:53:00 -0500

>actually went and looked at this document to see if you had improved

No Kent we have seen Roberto's "twisted version" of ETSI members.... I have
been expoloring the web site where I find things like:  In 1997, ETSI will
produce 1,600 deliverables (Technical Specifications, ETSI Standards
and European Norms). This would be equivalent to 180,000 pages, if printed. By
comparison there were 500 deliverables, consisting of 25,000 pages produced
in 1993.

I call that a nice bureaucracy.  I see a section devoted to Tiphon.  Other
that the flavor of screen after screen is European telecommunication
standards AND NOTHING INTERNET.

That is those screens that work: for example try:  About ETSI

This service is temporarily unavailable for maintenance.
Sorry for the inconvenience...

or try: Standards Making Process (98_01pp4.exe, 63KB). Monthly statistics.
HTTP/1.0 404 Object Not Found

While you may not care a whit if Dr Tarjanne wants to
be involved in the internet, I do.  I and a lot of others will do
everything we can to see that the ITU does *NOT* become the International
Internet Union.  So Kent take the POC and go off with the ITU and plan your
campaigns and i am sure the best will win.

>other things) -- hardly a blueprint for a takeover of the internet.

Well lets see:

Those of you with longer memories will remember the
furore that surrounded an earlier FCC Order-the
Benchmark Order of August 1997. The Benchmark
Order applied maximum rates that US carriers could
pay for every minute of traffic landed on foreign
territory and, by implication, on US territory. Those
benchmarks were also discriminatory. The concerns
then were that other countries were bringing above-
cost traffic to the United States. Apparently, the US
policy-makers had not learned lessons from other
sectors such as ship-building, iron and steel, or car
manufacture.

or

Back in 1998, many felt that this had been the FCC's
strategy all along: to impose such unacceptable and
extraterritorial regulations on traffic over the PSTN
that it would force traffic onto the Internet. They
pointed out that while US carriers controlled only 30
per cent of PSTN traffic, they controlled more than 90
per cent of Internet traffic. The difficulty was that US
carriers had still not worked out a viable business
model for the Internet. While lecturing the rest of the
world on the need to rebalance their domestic tariff
structures, they had neglected to rebalance their own.
Until last year, local calls in the United States were
still free.

or

US and European carriers were
unable to compete on price with the new generation
of Asia-Pacific carriers and soon they moved their
own call centres off-shore.

or

Incredible as it may seem, at
exactly the time when the world should have been
celebrating a major trade victory following the WTO
agreement, the barricades went up, the lawyers were
called in, and the battle lines drawn up. Fortunately,
the ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, held
in March 1998, helped to defuse some of that tension
and it laid the groundwork for a multilateral
agreement on termination charges.

or

How did the Union manage this transition from
being a net receiver to a net payer of dividends to its
shareholders?

The answer is simple: by doing what it had always
done in acting as a custodian for the world's common
resources of radio spectrum and the numbering plan
and by providing a forum for the world's
telecommunication community to meet and discuss.
The only difference is that now the cost of the Union's
services is charged directly to the beneficiaries rather
than being shared between all Members.

Ah yes Kent - and dear Secretary General Trajanne:  how nice to be the
global custodian of public resopurces.  SOME LIGHT HEARTED FANTASY KENT.

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 05:11:52 +0100 (MET)

> So sascha thinks the ITU should take over the internet.

itu was invited by mr.heath/isoc to participate in the process of 
political internationalisation and globalisation of the internet 
organisational infrastructure 

only a fool would not "use" such big organisation for the benefit of
further global internet development 

the itu hase the same right to participate in the wonderful internet 
endevour as you and me and hase much more to contribute as many of us 

and mr.cook dont wory about who would take over the internet 

there are some other people who does this for you 

thanks
sascha
ps.if you really want to wory about something than look over to 
   http://www.oxygen.org and see what they want to do and who is the 
   enginering company for them-namly saic 

pps.when you read mr.tarjanes speech to the end you would see that it was 
    in atempt to bring the telcos closer to the wonderful thing internet 
    and so to mobilize their resources for further development of the 
    internet 

ppps.it was strategicaly a briliant move to involve international
     organisations in the internet policy infrastructure and so set the 
     standard for participation of the single governments namly tru this
     organisations speack united nations  

     could you revile us YOUR strategie for involving politics and    
     governemts into the system of the internet but not aloving them to
     dominate the internet ? becouse the policy is one of many aspects of
     the human society-there are religion science policy economie culture
     and work  and one single aspect of the society can not control the 
     global society and the internet represents this universaly global
     society 

     could you show us that you are ablle to think also in such levels 
     and not only see conspiracys where they can not be becouse there
     are organisations like isoc iab iana ietf etc who takes care that 
     internet is not "falling in wrong hands" 

     for the USG is internet just electronic commerce and it hase to be 
     "regulated" by the commerce departement 
  
     but the commerce is just a part of the wunderful and very complex 
     yet not complitely known entity "internet"  

     i-take this vuew from dr.cerf and mr.heath  
     see the already existing internet organisations at the hearth 
     of a posiblle internet (self)governance  but also a compliety
     involvment of all societys parts in this governance where every 
     part is bringing in its best for the wholle but a part can not
     control the wholle 

     it is exactly what isoc and mr.heath is trying to achive  
     a meta representation of the global internet system and this
     meta competence you can not get with force or money but with 
     visions

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:12:49 -0800

On Fri, Feb 13, 1998 at 09:53:00PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
[complaints that ETSI is a bureaucracy, and has some bad links on their 
web page]

Wow, bureaucracy.  A damning indictment, indeed.  Surely, then, you
must find the USG completely insufferable. 

[long quotes purporting to be support for the idea that the ITU is 
plotting to take over the internet]

> global custodian of public resopurces.  SOME LIGHT HEARTED FANTASY KENT.

I frequently wish I was ruler of the universe.  Doesn't mean it will 
happen. 

But please, please -- redirect your paranoia.  The ITU takeover is at 
least a few years away.  The USG takeover is just around the corner.  

Gordon, you claim to be a journalist, and must presumably have at
least some attachment to journalistic ethics.  Here is a clear case of
government official proposing a sweetheart deal for a large, privately
held defense contractor, and asking that there be legisation that 
preserves this position.  And further proposing for-profit 
monopoly registries, and insulating the new IANA from the sure-to-result 
lawsuits by asking for yet more legislation.  Instead of being a 
sycophant, don't you think you should be investigating this?

We are assured that the USG will be out of this regulatory quagmire in
a couple of years -- Gordon, you claim to be an American, like me --
when have you *ever* seen that happen.  Even if Ira Magaziner were a
saint (history clearly shows he is not), congress will get involved --
factions in congress this very moment are thinking about how they can
regulate the internet, in terms of content, in terms of encryption
policy, in terms of how to tax it -- man can't you just wake up and
smell the coffee for 30 seconds, and shake off this dream about ITU 
plots to take over the universe?  We have a much more serious and 
pressing problem, like a six inch spike staring us right in the eye.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:08:42 +0000 (GMT)

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> support you". 

This is misleading in the extreme.  The MOUvement has never had the active
support of anything more than a tiny fraction of the Internet community.
ISOC, for example, with 6,000 members claims to represent 60 million or
so users.  But the gTLD MOU's claim to support rests above all upon ISOC's
signature on the MOU.

>               It seems to get overlooked that when added together all the

This is the most perverse distortion of reality.  The reality is that 
nearly everyone registers domains in either .com/net/org or in the 
national TLD registries.  Few have considered any other scheme, only
a tiny number have heard of the gTLD MOU.  Reality is that almost no one
would object to the status quo continuing and very few would object to
the Network Solutions monopoly over .com/net/org being perpetuated.

I am not arguing that either the status quo should continue or that 
NSI should be allowed to run the .com/net/org registry as a monopoly
forever.  What I do believe is that the MOUvement should be actively
seeking the support of the Internet community, rather than simply
claiming that they already have it.

They don't have it.  But the gTLD MOU does have a significant number 
of very loud opponents.  This is exactly why there has been no progress
in this area and exactly why the United States government has intervened.

If you don't want the proposals of the Green Paper to become our new
reality, if you don't want the NSI monopoly perpetuated, what you should
be doing is getting people to support the gTLD MOU, not wasting time 
attacking other opponents of the Green Paper, not wasting time discussing
who took what position a year ago, not claiming that the world secretly
loves the MOU but just can't bring itself to say so.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:13:46 -0500

>Magaziner, or any other USG bureaucrat to run its affairs, either.

 Interesting. IETF, IANA, IAB,
 ISOC, IESG, ETC, organizations
 made up of more or less the same
 people (Americans) believe them
 selves to be above any law. Even
 that of the US which funded and
 created their Internet playground.
 Very amusing.

 Now if these people feel their
 own US Government has no jurisdiction
 over their ACRONYM activities who
 does? It certainly isn't the so-
 called "Netizens" who are *never*
 given any opportunity to vote on
 anything. Is it the UN? If The
 Secretary General of The United
 Nations issued a Paper calling
 for elections, open public process,
 accountability, wide participation,
 etc. what would happen? I suspect
 exactly the same thing. He/she would
 be told "Stay out of our business".

 So IETF/IANA/ISOC/IAHC/ITAG/ETC regard
 themselves as a sort of overarching
 and imperious cyber world government.
 They will take direction from *no-one*
 and regard themselves as above any law
 not of their own making. A pretty
 chilling reality. It is imperative
 that some group working in the public
 trust finally controls this collection
 of totalitarian leaning technocrats
 before they turn the whole Internet
 into some sort of Virtual Gulag with
 themselves permanently installed as
 info-czar leadership forever. And the
 60 plus million rest of us as are
 relegated permanent to info-serf
 inmate status.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 05:55:28 -0500

>shocked! to see gambling going here!" -- as he collects his winnings.

 Tarjanne as corrupt official
 seeking personal fortune in
 the course of his allegedly
 public service. Very appropriate
 imagery Kent. You listening Ira?
 These bastards really believe
 it's okay to do what they're
 doing. I wonder how long this
 kind of shite would last if it
 were going on in a US Federal
 Agency? Can any one say "Grand
 Jury" and "Indictments Galore"?

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:51:20 -0500

I have a few question Kent may choose
 to answer: why do you object to any
 decsion making role in the formal
 process by people like Tony Rutkowski,
 Jim Fleming or Vince Wolodkin? And
 why is there no FORMAL role in all of
 this for the average netizen who
 basically pays all the bills here?
 I look forward to reading your replies.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:19:38 +0000 (GMT)

> organisational infrastructure 

ISOC has 6,000 members and claims to represent the 60 million users
of the Internet.  Only the very credulous would accept this claim.

I am an Internet user.  Which of ISOC's members represents me?  How
did he or she acquire my support?

> further global internet development 

The Internet has grown at an incredible rate without the help of 
the ITU.  Many would argue that it has grown at this rate BECAUSE
of the lack of "help" from large, telco-dominated organizations.

The telcos rightly regard the Internet as a threat.  The growth of
telephone traffic, ie voice traffic, is more or less limited to 
population growth, say 2-3% a year overall.  Internet traffic grows
along a very fast exponential curve, with an increasing amount of that 
traffic being machine-to-machine.  Internet traffic will shortly or
has already eclipsed voice in terms of volume and in terms of value
added.

The telcos are fighting a rearguard action.  Everywhere they are 
lobbying governments to distort pricing and choke Internet traffic.
In the UK, for every 20p that goes to ISPs for Internet traffic,
80p goes to the telcos.  They use this 80p to frantically build 
defenses against the enemy: us.  They get the money from us, they
use it to fight us.

>     and so to mobilize their resources for further development of the 

Translation: "to mobilize their resources to fight, block, and try to
take over the Internet".

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:14:17 -0800

On Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 05:55:28AM -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:
>  imagery Kent.

Actually, I was thinking of Mr Cook, complaining about bureaucracy 
taking over the internet.

>   You listening Ira?

Ah -- I see -- you favor making IANA a US Federal Agency.  All clear 
now.

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:47:29 -0800

On Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 06:51:20AM -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:
>  Jim Fleming or Vince Wolodkin?

I have made no such objections.

But your question is unclear: 
Decision making role?  Which formal process? the Green Paper? the MoU?

For the Green Paper there is basically two ways you can participate -- 
submit comments, as described at the web page, or you can somehow 
arrange to be in Mr Magaziners personal presence, or perhaps Beckwith 
Burr's presence as well.

With the MoU you have wider options -- you can submit comments to the
web page (there are two outstanding RFCs there now that have been up
for public comment for some time now); you can arrange to be in the
personal presence of some two dozen or so people; you can participate
in the gtld-discuss mailing list.  If your organization signs the MoU
you can participate in PAB, and, as a member of PAB, you can elect
members of the POC (that's one of the RFCs) -- you can nominate
yourself as a member of POC, and if you are persuasive you can get PAB
to elect you... 

>  And

There are several possibilities, as described above.  Furthermore, 
the fact is that the people behind the MoU take the term "public 
trust" very seriously, and have made significant changes as a result 
of public input.  Suggestions for ways to give representation to the 
"average netizen" have considered many times; the current RFC on POC 
restructuring calls for some POC members to be chosen regionally, via 
the PAB election process.  [That RFC has been out for some time now 
-- I expect the results will be finalized, and a public announcement 
made quite soon.]

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:21:50 -0500

>Ah -- I see -- you favor making IANA a US Federal Agency.  All clear

 I was refering to the behaviour of Mr.
 Tarjanne and the ITU which, if it was
 accountable under any law similar to
 that of the US, would be facing legal
 consequences right about now. Grand
 juries, indictments, dismissal actions
 and inquiries would be descending upon
 ITU in any standard democracy. In a
 democracy if any agency of the elected
 government had stayed so far out of it's
 mandate and so blatantly attempted to
 usurp the powers and responsibility of
 "We The People" serious consequences
 would follow. Since no government seems
 to be responsible for the oversight of
 ITU that brings us to IANA.

 IANA is Jon Postel. Jon Postel was hired
 by the NSF a US Federal Agency to do a
 specific, limited task. The NSF is guided
 and controlled by ELECTED officials like
 all other US Federal agencies. It is
 standard practice for any contractors of
 Federal Agencies to fall under the exact
 same guidelines and legal resposibilities
 as the hiring agency. Furthermore it is
 standard for agencies of government and
 contractors to those agencies to have
 clear legal limitations to their mandate.
 Should a contractor break with the legal
 or operational limitations consequences
 follow. They may be dismissed, reprimanded
 or may face civil or criminal charges
 under the common law. IANA/Jon Postel
 is not above this law. Is Kent and the
 rest of his crowd arguing Jon is above
 the law? Very interesting!

 Mr. Postel and the two other employees
 of IANA have strayed widely from their
 rather restricted NSF contracted role.
 They appear to be assuming a function
 that in our society, based as it is on
 democratic, representative government,
 is resevred for elected and duely
 sanctioned politicians. Jon Postel/IANA
 appears to be setting up some sort of
 International Governance Organization
 something I thought was the due right
 and obligation of the legitimate, elected
 governments. Canada (my sad home), The
 United States and the other sovergiegn
 nations of this depressingly divided world
 are responsible for creating International
 Governnance bodies the like.

 Even if the world's nations have had
 difficulties in creating international
 governance bodies do we really want un-
 sanctioned, un-elected, unrepresentative
 unaccountable individuals foisting such
 bodies on us as a result? Certainly not.
 Mr. Postel's IANA and the casacade of
 front organizations he has erected as
 his version of world Internet government
 have to be rather ruthlessly put down as
 a cyber version of history's infamous
 Beer Garden Putsch. Jon has transformed
 in his fifteen year tenure from a minor
 federal contractor to benevolent World
 Dictator. It's very much time his role
 was re-instated and then terminated.

 "We The People" will not tolerate such
 brazen infringments upon a Democratic
 process and principle hundreds of thousands
 of people died to create or preserve. If
 it means we destroy the prospects of a
 handful of career technocrats - Postel,
 Tarjanne, Shaw, Crocker, Crispin and so
 on - to preserve rule of law and government
 of the people, for the people, by the people
 it is a small price to pay.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:17:17 -0500

>Decision making role?  Which formal process? the Green Paper? the MoU?

 Quite simply why were these people or others
 who hold similar opinions not inculded in
 the defunct IAHC? Or on the ITAG list or in
 any significant IANA function all of which
 their propoants claim to be representative?
 It seems to me differing opinions must be
 included for any body to represent a community.

>yourself as a member of POC, and if you are persuasive you can get PAB

 Rutkowski, Fleming, Wolodkin or people
 of similar opinions were not formally
 and directly included in writing the
 MoU or in creating CORE. It's too late
 now to claim an inclusive process. It
 started by determinely excluding very
 significant elements of the community.
 Which explains why no-one will support
 the MoU, PAB, POC, CORE or the other
 essentially exclusionary organizations.

 Do not compare these little groups to
 the US government which represents
 200 years of history and hundreds of
 millions of citizens however imperfectly.
 There is no comparison. One is elected
 and accountable to many laws and a
 constitution. The tiny associations
 Mr. Crispin alludes to represent a
 few dozen men and their companies.

To recap I wrote:
>>  And why is there no FORMAL role in all of

>-- I expect the results will be finalized, and a public announcement

 This is all way too little way too
 late. Had you and your collegues
 included diverse opinions at the
 outset and the role of netizens been
 central it would have been a differant
 story. Now we face the opainful task
 of starting all over again after two
 years waste and conflict. We have learned
 what not to do and how not to procede.
 Now we are left with going forward
 and in succeeding where Mr. Crispin
 and his collegues have failed.

 Let us get on with the work. There is
 a role for Kent et al. But it is no
 longer, and has never been, at the
 helm. Rather they are but a minority
 opinion among many. Let us all strive
 to work together.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:25:16 +0100 (MET)

> of the Internet.  Only the very credulous would accept this claim.

i am not competent to coment on this but my personal vuew is that
isoc is not claiming to represent the 60 million user but to 
represent the internet this user are using 

to use something dont make you to be the "owner" of this 
or to use something dont make you "to be that thing"

the most of the 60 mill dont even care how internet is working  
and who are the people who make it work 

the users dont make it work  they are just using it 

so the users are not "the highest autority" 

you try again and again to use this arguments of broad user representation 
but at the moment there is no such broad user representation posible 

maybe in the future 

if you have some ideas how such broad user "representation" can be achived 
than fine  go on with it 

but it does not change the fact that "the user" who normaly just takes
care on him self and his wellbeeing is not the "ultimative autority"
for the internet  with this also a group of the same users dont mean 
anything - as in some mails befor funy described 

> did he or she acquire my support?

i can represent your interest if you want 
or you can become isoc members by your self and represent your interest 
by your self

> of the lack of "help" from large, telco-dominated organizations.

i mean the internet relays on larg part on the infrastructure of the
telcos  without them there will be no internet 
so they are indirectly very helpful to the internet :-)

can you understand this ?
 
> has already eclipsed voice in terms of volume and in terms of value

no they just start to begin to come closer to the internet as every one of
us hase for first time come in contact with the internet and hase give up
his rejections becouse of dont knowing the thing personaly

so telcos are slowly understanding that the internet is somethig wich also
helps them to do their job and busines better  so they start to accept it 
not as a treath but as a friend :-)

> defenses against the enemy: us.  They get the money from us, they

na how you would "fight" them ?

do you want to build your own ships and lay cable over the ocean :-)
or just "take them on board" and help them to come closer to the 
wunderful thing internet and let them become a part of our future 
and let them bring in their useful resources and become a equal and useful 
partner

this is a rolle wich the itu can do or is doing it already 

if not they would start such things like oxygen project and remain to
dictate you the price 

> Translation: "to mobilize their resources to fight, block, and try to

so you have to be smarter and to help them to understand and accept the
real nature and vision and wonder of the global internet in a nice way and 
they will never forget it and would make you to their friend and leader:-)

of course not you becouse you are not qualyfide to do so
-but maybe if you change some prejudgements and reservations :-)

but there some other organisations like isoc who is qualifyd to 
work in a productive way with such coloses like telcos and 
help also solve some problems like of some little internet service 
provider like you  always complaining about this and that but not ablle 
to solve them

so hier is the benefit of isoc for you of wich you where not avare of
but isoc is doing this for the benefit of internet infrastructure as
wholle and in this way for the benefit of the single internet user as well

mr.dixon you as the single internet user was not ablle to solve the 
"telcos" problem but the isoc as internet metaorganisation is in process
to do so

in you case is the cooperation with the ITU the best thing wich could
hapen so that in this way your problems with the telcos could be solved 

do you belive it(u) ?:-)
-first we should offer trust than we will gain trust !

thanks
sascha
ps.this vuews are personal and dont represent the internet society its 
   officers and its members

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:27:22 +0000

Jm and all,

> of the Internet.  Only the very credulous would accept this claim.

  How true.

> did he or she acquire my support?

  DId you ever join the ISOC?  if so that is how they determined you as one of
its supporters.

> has already eclipsed voice in terms of volume and in terms of value

  Though I hate to agree that the Telco's view the Internet as a threat, I must

for the most part.  Though not all do.  This problem is really due to two
things.
1.) The telcos, dragged their feet in understanding and getting involved in
the development of the Internet because they never thought it would
eclipse the Voice communications they already developed.  This is especially
true of AT&T.  2.) This reason is related to #1 as well.  When technology
for using voice communications over the internet without incurring long
distance charges.  This worries the Telco's substantially.

> defenses against the enemy: us.  They get the money from us, they

  Very true.  But they are starting to loose this battle slowly.  This slipping

in the battle on the side of the Telco's is becoming more and more evident to
the
Internet using public and the general public all over the world.  The 1996
Telecommunications act is stark evidence of this.

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:40:57 -0800 (PST)

> national TLD registries.

Yes, that is very true.  Anyone who wants a working domain name is kinda
compelled into .com/.net/.org/.edu/ or a country code.

> Few have considered any other scheme, only a tiny number have heard of
> the gTLD MOU. 

Again very true.  Perhaps the question should be whether anyone would like
an alternative to the existing scheme.

> Reality is that almost no one

Now here I disagree.  Most people I hear from (most of whom are not on
this mailing list) do object, often strongly, to the status quo and to
NSI's monopoly.

(We are both extrapolating a long way from small samples.)

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:45:07 -0800 (PST)

> arrange to be in Mr Magaziners personal presence, or perhaps Beckwith 

Since NTIA is entering a period of formal rulemaking, it is going to have
to abide by the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC 553) and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5 USC 552b).  These may make private
meetings with interested parties somewhat questionable.

		--karl--

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:17:46 -0500

Jon Postel wrote:
>For those of you actually interested in using democratic processes to
>operate Internet organizations:
>
>The Internet Society (ISOC) is in the midst of its nomination and
>election process to decide on five positions of its Board of Trustees.
>
>One third of the 15 member board is elected each year. The term of
>office is three years.
>
>The individual members of the ISOC vote to elect the Trustees.
>
>The current list of candidates and procedures to nominate further
>candidates are available at:

 I am no more interested in joining
 ISOC than I am in becoming a Shriner
 or in joining the Michigan Militia.
 ISOC is just another private club. It
 is representative of absolutely nothing.
 We have governments and elections and
 politicians and parliaments that
 represent us thank you very much you
 power crazed chip monkey you. Get the
 fuck back in your machine cage and
 leave the politics to real governments.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:51:47 +0000 (GMT)

On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:

> i am not competent to coment on this 

Then why are you doing so?

>                                      but my personal vuew is that

This claim descends into farce.
 
> so the users are not "the highest autority" 

Precisely then what backs ISOC's claim to represent anything 
at all??
 
> but at the moment there is no such broad user representation posible 

I don't.  I simply dispute ISOC's claim to represent the users of 
the Internet.
 
> if you have some ideas how such broad user "representation" can be achived 

Personally I believe that in 1998 the best "representative" of the 
end user is his or her Internet service provider.  The ISPs offer
users a choice of Internet policies.  They choose their provider and
thereby choose their preferred policy.

Now to be honest I think that the whole idea of someone to claim to
represent end users is silly.  But various parties, governments 
especially, list various "stakeholder" groups and give user groups
a prominent place.  Then they look around for candidates in this
area and ISOC steps forward.  Well, that's what I am objecting to.

The US government green paper reserves seven places for user groups
on the board of directors of the new IANA.  This is absurd in various
ways: these user groups don't represent anyone but themselves; users
in general have no opinion at all on DNS issues and lack the 
knowledge to form such opinions in any case.  But you know and I 
know that ISOC will claim at least one of those places.
 
> or you can become isoc members by your self and represent your interest 

Uh, you don't get it.  ISOC does not represent me at all and I don't
want it to represent me.

> so they are indirectly very helpful to the internet :-)

In the UK, according to ITU figures, 20% of revenues generated by
the Internet go to ISPs and 80% go to the telcos.  Why?  Because
regulations and various anti-competitive practices prevent ISPs 
from paying competitive prices for long distance circuits.   We don't
need this kind of "help" any more than victims need muggers.

It would cost almost nothing to string fibre over the border
between Ireland and the UK or Belgium and France.  Can we do it?
No.  Why?  Because the telcos strenuously lobby to make it 
impossible.  So we have to pay astronomical rates for cross border
traffic.  

A 2M circuit from Frankfurt to London costs about $45,000.  A 2M
circuit from Frankfurt to New York costs about $50,000.  Why is the
easy bit so expensive?  Why is it so cheap to cross 5,000 miles of
open sea?  

A 2M circuit from London to Paris costs about $35,000 a month.
A 2M circuit from London to New York costs about $30,000 a month.

Do you notice the pattern?  Why does a few hundred miles in Europe
cost more than thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean?
 
> can you understand this ?

Can you?

> not as a treath but as a friend :-)

Oh how sweet.
 
> if not they would start such things like oxygen project and remain to

Project Oxygen in fact is IP over the oceans.  It is designed to 
allow ISPs to get low-cost international connections.
 
> "telcos" problem but the isoc as internet metaorganisation is in process

Mr Sascha, the ISPs of Europe would be mad to trust ISOC to solve this
particular problem.  EuroISPA is working actively to reduce cross-
border telecoms charges within Europe.  We will be happy to be judged by 
results achieved over the next couple of years.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:57:47 +0000 (GMT)

> compelled into .com/.net/.org/.edu/ or a country code.

There are those who register in .mil and those who register in the
home-grown TLDs.  ;-)
 
> this mailing list) do object, often strongly, to the status quo and to

My operational definition of "almost no one" is say less than 0.1% of
the user population, which means less than 600,000 people or so.

My point is not that I am a supporter of the status quo or NSI, but
rather that very very very few people have any opinions on these
issues at all.

> (We are both extrapolating a long way from small samples.)

I don't think that my sample sets are all that small.  At meetings
of ISPs in the UK and Europe, on email discussion groups involving
ISPs, the usual response to DNS questions is near-total indifference.
And these are the most knowlegeable people in Europe ;-)

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:29:00 -0500

>thereby choose their preferred policy.

 I beg to differ Jim. ISP's no more
 represent their users than do the
 telco's or any other service provider.
 Your company may offer superior service
 and stellar customer relations. However
 you cannot for a moment represent your
 clients any more than your solicitors
 could in event of a dispute. This is
 a classic conflict of interest situation.
 Which is why I insist that technocrats
 (including ISP owners and operators...
 sorry Jim!) have only an advisory role.

 There is no group representing "Netizens"
 in all of this mess. Their representatives
 are the various soveriegn governments of
 which the US executive branch appears to
 be most knowledgeable. I honestly believe
 there is a need to enlighten governments
 worldwide concerning the Internet.

 I do not believe in some super-legal
 status for the Internet and hold that
 only through conscious, International
 treay process will sane and balanced
 governance be brought to what has been
 the preserve of a small band of technocrats.
 That will include citizen participation
 and representation. If there is justice
 in the world - and there is - it will
 also restrict persons or companies with
 conflicts of interest from pivotal
 decision making positions.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 98 16:31 PST

> Then why are you doing so?

Because you have been setting such a fine example for months.

<plonk!>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:26:28 +0000

Jim and all,

> Precisely then what backs ISOC's claim to represent anything

  I have no idea.

> I don't.  I simply dispute ISOC's claim to represent the users of

  I do as well in the sense that they put it.

> thereby choose their preferred policy.

  For the most part this is very ture.  But you can "Host your own".

> area and ISOC steps forward.  Well, that's what I am objecting to.

  I have objected to this false representation model myself directly on more
than one
occasion.

> need this kind of "help" any more than victims need muggers.

  Much of this the reason that ISP's allow this "Hi-way Robbery" is becouse they

simply do not want to put forth the effort to build their own telecommunications

infrastructure.  This can be easly done by employing the proper technologh like
our DDS
technology and done relitively cheaply.

> impossible.  So we have to pay astronomical rates for cross border

  Why is fiber even needed or preferred for that matter.

> easy bit so expensive?  Why is it so cheap to cross 5,000 miles of

  We can set them up with DDS for $250k one time cost and less than
$900/month access fees per channel of operation and that gives them
662 gigbits bandwidth.  No land lines of any kind needed.

> allow ISPs to get low-cost international connections.

  ANd it will be deploying DDS!  >;)

 Regards,

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:07:47 +0100 (MET)

On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Bob Allisat wrote:

>  represent us thank you very much 

bob you are going too far

you are free to join or not to join any
organisation you want but you are not free 
to talk about dr.postel in such primitive way 

the list owners should not alowe such behaviour
and should kick you out of the list

i am not shure how to get you juridicaly for that what you 
do but i hope some of the lawyers on the list can help 
out-you can not in public insult other people that way 

it hase nothing to do more with democracy or freedom 
of speech  you are just very offensive all the time 
and with most intensity to people to who you 
should be thankful becouse they have helped building up the 
internet

from now every your post on this list would
be delated on my computer

but i would prefer not to see any post from you on this lists

sascha

ps.sory but i am not shure how long this lists would tolerate such 
   behaviour  
  
   i propose to kick them out the of gtld-discuss list and 
   also of the ietf list

   those one who are interested in further mail from bob 
   should subscribe to his personal list of 
   televirtualy yours organisation and should run the world 
   together  but should keep this lists clean from such psyhopat

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:14:30 +0100 (MET)

> Then why are you doing so?

becosue i can not tolerate your atacs agains isoc and this becouse 
you are not even avare what isoc is and what it does for internet

> This claim descends into farce.

sory what have you done for the internet beside runing your litle 
internet service provider and "representing" the x isp in europe ?
unfortunately i have not heard about anything special

euroispa is a closed club of isp and isoc is a open 
organisation to EVERYONE not only to isp's 

do you claim isp's or euroispa represents the internet ?

i see you in NO WAY representing my interests 

> Precisely then what backs ISOC's claim to represent anything 

the isoc are people and organisations who hase developed and runed the 
internet from 0  so therefor they represent the internet as a CONCEPT 

> I don't.  I simply dispute ISOC's claim to represent the users of 

sory..  who represents the users of the internet ?

> thereby choose their preferred policy.

the isps can become something wich could represent the users of the 
internet but by this you could not become the ruling autorithy for the
internet

it is a kind of lowest level of "representing" somebody by offering him
the internet conection-they want to conenct to internet first and at all 
not to you :-) 

but you representing just your part of user and not alle users
so you dont have the global autority 

isoc and its predecesor organisations have helped to organize a working
management infrastrukture for the internet where you as isp hase come
later and now you claim to be more competent and importend than isoc ???
becouse you offer some access to the internet wich was builded by others?

isp's are just using what other organisations like isoc iab iana ietf hase 
worked out and now they want to "jump and to take over the show" ??

do you really think this could work ?? 

> area and ISOC steps forward.  Well, that's what I am objecting to.

isoc does not need to wait until somebody "looks around" 
isoc was there befor "anybody" else was aware that internet even exists

> know that ISOC will claim at least one of those places.

sory  i am a single internet user-not a isp:-)  and isoc represents my
interests  but you as isp dont   so who represents me.. ?

> Uh, you don't get it.  ISOC does not represent me at all and I don't

so and you and isps dont represents me and i dont want you to represent me 
so what now ?

> need this kind of "help" any more than victims need muggers.

hey you dont get it again 
without their infrastucture at first there would be not such things like
internet   you just first and always see the negative side
this disqualifys you to be our "leader"  becouse you would emidiately run
into war with anybody else  and thats not the way we like to go 

> impossible.  So we have to pay astronomical rates for cross border

so why not sit together with them and find out why they have such prices
and work a solution to the problem wich would satisfy you and them
-by the way they have and already does invest hughe sum of money to 
build up the networks  somehow the money hase to come back and also hase
to be invested in further network development 

> easy bit so expensive?  Why is it so cheap to cross 5,000 miles of

becouse europeans are not so advanced as americans :-)

> cost more than thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean?

why you ask me  go to the telcos take a gun and shut them down
than take over the networks(and from than pay for them) and make a
reeeealy cheep price for all of us :-) this is the way to go  isn it ? :-) 

> Can you?

no i cant :-)

> Oh how sweet.

yes it is sweet to do good to the people and to the world 
very sweet   but  you are so bitter  what hapens ?:-)

> allow ISPs to get low-cost international connections.

really ?:-)
than become a budy with them mybe than you woild also become 
"beyond the internet" them :-)  do you would call you self than
"oxygen service provider" :-)  you make some advancements you are geting
closer to god :-) is this what you wanted ? (sory it is a joke:-)

> results achieved over the next couple of years.

why not let the isoc and euroispa work together to achive this goal !!??
it will be more productive and it will come closer to that what you want 
-you will have a powerful companion with isoc-or do you really think that
 you will succeed with YOUR strategie and make frends with the itu and
 telcos or treatenth him to death with some countings or court actions
-and you would be ablle also to bring in the isps as a powerful and 
 importend group  into the concept of a internet selfgovernance

or dou you think the isps of the earth could be ablle to build up the 
GOVERNMENT OF THE INTERNET and RULE them of course ?

do you mean only the isps and their user should "run" the internet ?

"you"(isps+user) can be a importend part in the system of internet
selfgovernace but not "the brain" of it -you have to show us little 
more for that :-)

thanks
sascha
ps.this are mine vuews and dont represent the wholle internet :-)

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:00:33 +0000 (GMT)

> euroispa is a closed club of isp and isoc is a open 

EuroISPA is a trade association.  Any organisation in Europe with
an interest in the Internet can join.

> do you claim isp's or euroispa represents the internet ?

If governments seek opinions on medical policies, they go to medical
associations.  If governments in Europe seek opinions on Internet 
issues, they can go to their national Internet trade associations.
EuroISPA was formed to represent the European Internet industry in
Brussels.  

We do not claim to "represent the Internet" -- nor am I sure what 
such a claim would mean.
 
> internet from 0  so therefor they represent the internet as a CONCEPT 

I see.  Sort of a natural aristocracy of the Internet, is that it?
  
> sory..  who represents the users of the internet ?

No one, Sascha, no one.
 
> internet but by this you could not become the ruling autorithy for the

Personally I don't believe that the Internet can or should be ruled.
We don't need any self-selected ruling authority.  
 
> so you dont have the global autority 

An ISP doesn't "represent" an end user in any normal sense of the
word.  But ISPs, software manufacturers, etc, come closer than anyone
else.

The Internet is among other things a commodity.  This is how users see
the Internet: it's something that they can get and use, something very
similar to a hamburger.  Users express their preferences about hamburgers
by going to McDonalds or Burger King or Wendys or whatever.  They 
express their preferences about what the Internet should be like by
choosing an ISP, using Netscape instead of MSIE, downloading this or 
that piece of software.

We see the Internet as something else.  But that is the end user view
of the Internet.  Do we represent Internet users?  No.  Does ISOC?  Not
at all.  
 
> becouse you offer some access to the internet wich was builded by others?

The Internet today is overwhelmingly commercial.  Most of it was built
within the last year or two by the Internet service providers and 
others in the Internet industry.
 
> becouse europeans are not so advanced as americans :-)

No.  Because the telecoms industry in the United States is substantially
deregulated whereas very large chunks of the industry in Europe are run
by monopolies and cartels.
 
> why not let the isoc and euroispa work together to achive this goal !!??

Is this a formal approach from ISOC?  :-)

> GOVERNMENT OF THE INTERNET and RULE them of course ?

The Internet does not need a government.
 
> selfgovernace but not "the brain" of it -you have to show us little 

I see.  You represent the brains, do you?

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:47:43 +0100 (MET)

> Is this a formal approach from ISOC?  :-)

mr.dixon i am unfortunately dont represent the isoc but some people who 
reedeing this list do and i hope that they would get this chance to 
establish some fine contacts with you and the euroispa and work in 
many fields together

speack horend sums wich hase to be payed to telcos hier in europe and also 
some where else are a problem for you us as user but also for the isoc
and with your representation and competence and isocs diplomatic contacts 
i hope the telcos could become a VERY good partner to all of us-is at
least what the internet is about = COOPERATION -the only thing wich is
by itself based on cooperation on this earth :-)

> I see.  You represent the brains, do you?

no it was a joke from me :-)
i have some brain problems becouse sleeping to less and working to long :-)
and i was wishing that you also try to contribute in postive way
something wich can bring us forward  and so to minimize our work 

i see your previous "?:-)" contribution very useful

thank you very much for that

sascha

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:30:48 -0500

Mr. Ignjatovic worte:
>(snip)

 I thank the good fellow Sascha for such
 a fine compliment. I take heart from the
 old WWII bomber pilot's saying: "You only
 take flak when you're on target". I must
 say I have always disliked the cloying,
 ass licking behvaiour of our Viennese ISOC
 friend here probably as much as this
 sanctamoneous prig dislikes my words.
 Generally I delete Sascha's insufferable
 nausia inducing vomita and encourage
 my non-fans to do the same to my messages
 should they dislike the contents. I am...

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 16:02:19 +0100

At 06:13 14.02.98 -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:

> selves to be above any law.

Hey, I'm subject to *Norwegian* law!

At least when I'm home.......

              Harald

NOTE: New Email address: [email-masked]
I am working for Maxware (www.maxware.no) as of Dec 1, 1997

---

From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:56:54 -0400 (AST)

> an interest in the Internet can join.

Ah, changes here maybe? A while back (some months?) you said that EuroISPA
was a sort of meta-organisation of regional ISPAs made up by one AND ONLY
ONE ISPA-type-organisation from each country (I am NOT quoting your words,
just relaying the information as I understood it, hence this post requesting
clarification).
Have these conditions now changed? Does EuroISPA accept "stand-alone" ISP's?
Does EuroISPA accept other ISP assocs from the same country? (The problem
apparently appeared in Spain where there is NO representative ISP assoc, and
you seemed to want to choose one above others...).

Certainly looked like a VERY closed club back then.

Yours, John Broomfield.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:59:30 +0000 (GMT)

[If you have no interest in Internet politics in Europe, please 
remember that you do have a delete key :-]

> just relaying the information as I understood it, hence this post requesting

EuroISPA is an European Economic Interest Grouping, a special form 
created by the Commission for associations of trade associations.  
There are several membership categories:

*	full members: must be trade associations
*	associate members: must be associations, pay less
*	sponsors
*	corporate sponsors

The rules allow one full member for each state of the European Union.
Only full members have a vote.

> Have these conditions now changed? 

The first two categories are unchanged, except that we agreed on 
the fee structure at our last meeting.  We also added the other
two categories.

>                                   Does EuroISPA accept "stand-alone" ISP's?

There is a dispute in Spain over who should provide representation 
to EuroISPA.   Representatives of two parties signed the EuroISPA
MOU.  Only one appeared at the meeting at which the EuroISPA articles
were signed.

The contributions of AnProTel, which currently represents Spain at 
EuroISPA, are warmly appreciated by the other members.  We have had 
prolonged discussions with other groups in Spain.  We would of course 
prefer that the Spanish decide among themselves which association 
is Spain's primary representative in EuroISPA.  We would also welcome
all Spanish Internet associations as associate members.

> Certainly looked like a VERY closed club back then.

Many people see what they want to see.

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:21:50 -0500

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:46:15 -0500

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:51:09 -0500

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:39:16 -0500

Valdis replied

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net