Subject: Ietf ITU DNS stuff

From: [email-masked] (Dan Kolis)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:22:21 -0500

Dean said:
>But of course, governments have the sovereign right to control the
>communications of their citizens...

Dan says:
Well, I don't agree. If you believe in speech divorced from action; (ex.
Commercial speech, inciting to riot, fraud), in which speech is a component
of an act...

Just simple communications. I don't believe: "governments have the sovereign
right to control the communications of their citizens". They do
(goverments), I guess. I can't think of any good that's come of this so far. 

It seems to me the subtext of less control in telecomm is a newly evolving
civil right.

Interesting how much people can differ in what is to them an obvious first
principle.

This existing structure isn't broken, and recalling its mostly about bare
faced power to repress ideas helps understand the motives, however. Weird
how indirect and bogusely indirect it all is. I mean, the excuse factory has
to run full blast to justify some of all this.

regards to all,
Dan

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:30:57 -0500 (EST)

I don't mean to say I think excessive government control is a good thing.  
Rather, this is a political question that ICANN/IETF/IANA has to avoid.  
The ITU has avoided this studiously for decades, throughout the cold war
even.  As I think you note, its just is the way it is.  As the saying goes
'we give functionality, not policy.' 

There are, though, good reasons to have some government controls on
telecom.  Whether these controls are too excessive or too lax is not up to
ICANN or the ITU.  I can think of cases were some good has come of it.  
E911, for example. Radio, TV, cellphone allocations. Ham Radio licences.
If license-free wireless operation weren't restricted in power, few people
would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at
hundreds of watts, etc.

		--Dean

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Dan Kolis wrote:

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike S)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:17:47 -0500

At 07:30 PM 12/3/2003, Dean Anderson wrote...
>would be able to use 802.11 because one company would be broadcasting at

None of what you mention is even remotely comparable to the Internet. RF spectrum is a naturally shared, limited medium. Because physical law cannot be changed, manmade laws must be used to regulate it for efficient use.

No such case can be made for the Internet, which is not bounded in either bandwidth or number of connections in any practical sense. It is also not something which can be subjected to any sort of control, as it is not a "thing." The Internet is strictly an intellectual construct, nothing more. There is nothing physical or real to control. It's a bunch of network operators who have agreed to interconnect using agreed-upon protocols. 

Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of reconfiguration.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike S)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:06:26 -0500

At 10:45 AM 12/4/2003, Steve Silverman wrote...
>The Internet is _in part_ an intellectual construction but so is
>the telephone network. 

I disagree.

>It doesn't do much without a physical implementation.

Cognitive thought doesn't exist without a brain. That doesn't mean that thought is only "_in part_ an intellectual construction." :-)

>Whatever rights you, I, or anyone else may think are
>inalienable, in many parts of the world, the only rights anyone has
>are what the
>government allows. I'm not saying I like with this but as a practical
>matter,
>if the government controls the switches and can throw people in jail
>(or simply shoot them), it can
>also restrict what is implemented on the network equipment.

Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech, and none has been successful for any extended period of time. The Internet is no different, as it is easily re-configured and is by design self-healing.

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:45:44 -0500

the telephone network. It doesn't do much without a physical
implementation.

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Mike S
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Dean Anderson
> Subject: Re: Ietf ITU DNS stuff
>
>
> None of what you mention is even remotely comparable to the
> Internet. RF spectrum is a naturally shared, limited
> medium. Because physical law cannot be changed, manmade
> laws must be used to regulate it for efficient use.
>
> No such case can be made for the Internet, which is not
> bounded in either bandwidth or number of connections in any
> practical sense. It is also not something which can be
> subjected to any sort of control, as it is not a "thing."
> The Internet is strictly an intellectual construct, nothing
> more. There is nothing physical or real to control. It's a
> bunch of network operators who have agreed to interconnect
> using agreed-upon protocols.
>
> Sure, some governments can try to control some of the
> physical media which the Internet makes use of, but getting
> around that is simply a matter of reconfiguration.
>
>

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:29:35 +0100

At 15:17 04/12/03, Mike S wrote:
>Sure, some governments can try to control some of the physical media which 
>the Internet makes use of, but getting around that is simply a matter of 
>reconfiguration.

Dear Mike,
I am only interested in technical issues in here. You may realize that the 
very possibility of what you say is a concern for every user. Who is to 
carry that reconfiguration? from which authority? with which responsiblity 
for the consequences? for he people who may be hurt or die from it? for the 
econmies which can be hurt? Will only be that reconfiguration signed?

You may realize that the hacking you describe is act of terrorism if you 
perform it as a private citizen, and an act of war if you are ordered to 
carry it.

My interest is in hearing about the ways:
- to prevent, address and correct such unconsidered moves through practical 
"patches" of any nature (people to protect).
- to study the solutions to prevent, to make them impossible

Why? Because, no one can take seriously a technology/a system of which the 
designers may write what you write and be technically approved by its 
technical community. And we all know you are true.

I am not in favor if ITU or not in favor if ITU. I am for my secure, safe, 
stable, innovative use of my own network resources, in a consensual way, 
with you and others. And I am strongly in favor of an ITU-I - to be shaped 
by us in common - should ITU be involved. But the first role of the ... 
1867 ITU is to make sure for you to use your phone and TV even with 
countries at war. The same as the Postal Union is to make sure that you can 
send mail to countries at war. When I see the size of my spam junker in 
peace time, I am not sure the Internet currently got the same kind of 
solution. I am not sure the Internet continued operating in Iraq.

Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see here is 
"please, call in the law"....But law is not the USG outside of the USA. Law 
is necessarily ITU. Because Law is States and for 136 years States use ITU 
to address/fight their communications related issues. The 190 of them. That 
helps and serves the citizens of every of them. You would be surprized to 
learn that ITU (Embassador's Lounge) is probably the place in the world 
where the more open or undercover military actions were decided ... to free 
the telegaph, the telex, the telephone during wars, revolutions, for 136 
years. For you to be able to use them as much as possible 24/365.

Again, I am not interested in political comments. But in technical 
responses about technical or archtectural ideas to make sure the Internet 
cannot be used as the terrorist bomb you describe. Every idea welcome.
jfc

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:00:44 -0500

--On Thursday, 04 December, 2003 18:29 +0100 jfcm 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Is there a technical way against spam for example? All I see
> here is "please, call in the law"....But law is not the USG
> outside of the USA. Law is necessarily ITU. Because Law is
> States and for 136 years States use ITU to address/fight their
> communications related issues. The 190 of them.

Jefsey,

ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only. 
Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual 
government.  They also insist that they have never, and do not 
intend to try, to extend or interpret the provisions of the 
radio frequency treaties that permits the Radio Bureau (and 
WARC) to make binding regulations about, e.g., frequency use, to 
extend to telephony, the Internet, or similar topics.

That is in sharp contrast to your "Law is necessarily ITU" 
assertion... sharp enough that, if logic is applied, there are 
only two possibilities:

(1) The senior ITU personnel who fairly regularly make those 
statements are trying to obscure their real power and plans, if 
not outright lying about them.  If that were true --and, for the 
record, I don't believe it is-- it would be irrational to trust 
them with the Internet or anything else.

(2) You are speaking nonsense, to the extent that it is probably 
irrational for any of us to continue reading or responding to 
your messages.

    john

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:05:21 +1100

Mike S wrote:
	[..]
> Many governments have over time attempted to control thought and personal speech,
> and none has been successful for any extended period of time.

OT, but in my more cynical moments i'm inclined to think govt (societal) control of
thought and speech has been far more common throughout human history than the alternative.

(insert ob. "in the long run we're all dead")

gja

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:00:30 +0900

John C Klensin;

> ITU-T is quite insistent that they make _Recommendations_ only. 

W.r.t. enforcement, ITU-T makes "standards", regardless of whether
it is called recommendations or requests for comments.

> Interpretation and enforcement is up to each individual government.

No. WTO agreement helps a lot for them to enforce ITU standards.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:13:58 +0100

At 22:00 04/12/03, John C Klensin wrote:
>That is in sharp contrast to your "Law is necessarily ITU" assertion... 
>sharp enough that, if logic is applied, there are only two possibilities:
>
>(1) The senior ITU personnel who fairly regularly make those statements 
>are trying to obscure their real power and plans, if not outright lying 
>about them.  If that were true --and, for the record, I don't believe it 
>is-- it would be irrational to trust them with the Internet or anything else.
>
>irrational for any of us to continue reading or responding to your messages.

Dear John, ...
this is very poor and such flaming risks to back fire. Why to use it? Again 
you want me to tell the opposite of what I say. I say "law is necessarily 
the ITU", I do not say "ITU is necessarily the Law". If you are not sure 
about the diference it impliers, may I suggest you to discover the 3rd 
possiblity in watching TV next week - unless you do not trust TV frequency 
allocation and gave up that ITU related device.

You will decide if Bush, Fidel Castro, Chirac or Putine fall in (1) or (2). 
You may also want to read the documents they are going to sign with 50 
other heads of State, that some people are going to discuss very seriously 
in the coming two days, settling the future of the DNS. Michel Geist 
published something  very documented on that subject today.

Governments and ccTLDs: A Global Survey at
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/geistgovernmentcctlds.pdf
Column at <http://shorl.com/fastokobruhako> [Toronto Star]
Think Web's virtually government free? Think again
MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES

Let me address this however,... Local laws will never been consistently 
voted and enforced on spam, with some chance of success, unless there is an 
international understanding and effot. As you may have read from your own 
mail,  ITU (it is a mystery for me why you want to keep the T and not to 
push for the common desire of an ITU-I)  proposes recommandations. The 
chance we have that countries do not authorize signed spam (like the USA?) 
will be through that kind of recommandation. And if I juge by this thread, 
I am afraid it is going to call for a very long time.
Good evening, John.
jfc

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:47:08 +0100

Jeffrey,

This study is seems flawed. Here are a quote from someone who read
this:
  
  I skimmed through it only briefly, but this so-called survey and the
  conclusions that the (I am tempted to say: so-called) professor draws from
  it are downright ridiculous.
  
  So, Mr Geist got answers from the governments of 56 countries out of about
  250 countries that have ccTLDs. That amounts to an impressive 22 per cent.
  Of these 22 per cent of all ccTLDs, 47 per cent are government run which
  equals a shocking 10 per cent of all ccTLDs.
  
  It is beyond me how Mr Geist concludes from 10 per cent of all ccTLDs being
  government run that governments are generally "deeply involved in domain
  name administration", even more so as it is pretty safe to assume that the
  governments that did not answer are those that are not involved in domain
  name administration and have no interest in getting involved. Also, Mr
  Geist obviously ignored those countries for which not the government, but
  the registry answered his survey - as it was the case for XXXXXXX.
  
  If Winston Churchill had seen this, I am sure his famous quote would have
  been: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics - and surveys tampered with
  by Mr Geist ;p
  
	jaap