Subject: Re: Renew Your Commitment to the Internet ...

From: willi uebelherr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:56:00 -0300

Dear Andrew,

i agree with you and your presentation in many points. Especially when 
it comes to the potentials of an InterNet. I focus my disagreement on 2 
issues:

1) There is no Corona/Covid pandemic, only a plandemic, i.e. a staged 
Corona theater.
2) There is no InterNet on our planet, only TnterStar systems.

to 1) Corona/Covid

This topic is simpler for this receiver circle. From the regional 
statistical data for all regions on our planet it is true that there was 
no over-mortality compared to the last years. But for this we cannot use 
absolute numbers, we have to look at the percentage per age group.

And there are no Sars-Cov-2 infections, because a Rt-PCR test cannot 
detect infection and infectivity. For that, any person with symptoms of 
disease must undergo a clinical examination.

Today there is no flu and influenza. All respiratory diseases today are 
declared as covid-19.

And we have no Covid deaths, because with very few exceptions in 
Germany, there are no autopsies worldwide that can prove an actual 
Sars-Cov-2 virus, if such a virus exists at all, and can justify it as 
the cause of death.

to 2) InterNet

The name Internet goes back to "Inter-connection of local Net-works". 
And there is no such thing, because there are no local networks either. 
Strictly speaking, each community, small or large, must build its own 
local and autonomous network, which then connects to its neighbors 
around it. If the communities do this, an InterNet can be created.

Furthermore, we must move away from the privatization of addresses and 
names. My proposal for this: 128 bit IP address (like IPv6), divided 
into 2 x 64 bit addresses for global and local. The global address rests 
on the GeoLocation of 2 x 32 bit angles from WCS84. The local address 
structure is insignificant in the global and must be understood only in 
the local network.

Accordingly, only ccTLDs are used in the DNS system and managed regionally.

The problems of your InterStar system are due to the private and 
governmental control and occupation of these systems and can only be 
solved if the communities generate a telecommunication in the form of a 
TnterNet themselves.

with many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay

Am 14.01.2021 um 10:44 schrieb Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society:
> from Internet Society has sent you an email but it appears that your email client only allows plain text.
> 
> Please copy and paste the following link to view the contents of this email:
> http://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/bulletin/ViewSent/...

Dear willi,

The beginning of a new calendar is often a time to start afresh, and to 
look forward with hope and anticipation. For many, this year is perhaps 
not quite so fresh. Many of us are living with various degrees of 
political uncertainty, historical injustices, or both. Many of us are 
still uncertain of the long-term economic effects of COVID-19. And 
almost all of us remain under the shadow of the pandemic itself, with 
anticipation of vaccination battling with anxiety from new variants and, 
in many places, indifferent management of the crisis.

Yet there is reason for us to look forward with hope, and to renew our 
commitment that the Internet is for everyone.

For perhaps 100,000 years, people have been using tools and symbols to 
extend our reach, expand our capabilities, and work together to make our 
societies better. The Internet is a profoundly human tool. It is made to 
let us communicate and collaborate. And it works! When the pandemic came 
and we were unable to be together in person we could still reach one 
another to work, to learn, and to express our love and frustration and 
loneliness.

The Internet made this possible. It did so without any central 
authority, and without needing involvement from people keen to invent 
ways to tell the Internet to do what it already does by design. This is 
the first lesson we, the Internet Society, must take from 2020. The 
Internet way of networking must be promoted and defended. It works. When 
we do things the Internet way, we put power and control in the hands of 
people and communities who can build what they need with remarkably 
modest resources. With such a clear example of the importance of the 
Internet, governments and societies around the world are having another 
look at it. Some of the things people propose would damage or splinter 
the Internet, or permanently undermine it. Other proposals will make the 
Internet better for everyone. The Internet Society must encourage 
proposals that promote the critical properties that give us the Internet 
and discourage proposals that work against those critical properties. 
There are people all over the world, private corporations and 
governments alike, who want the Internet to be turned into a 
centrally-controlled, tightly managed, but sterile service that would 
leave all humanity poorer. We, the Internet Society, advocate the true 
Internet instead.

The true Internet brings us to the second lesson from 2020. For too 
many, the promise the Internet offered was a false one because they had 
inadequate access or no access at all. This is unacceptable. We must 
continue our work until every single person who wants access to the 
Internet can have it. And it must be the open, globally-connected, 
secure, and trustworthy Internet — the one that does not stop at a 
country's border or provide access to only selected services. It must be 
the Internet that invites us to create new possibilities with it.

This is what we work for. For 2021 we have produced a plan of concrete, 
measurable actions we will take in the service of these aims. We will 
keep working to bring together the people and technology that are needed 
to give everyone the access they want. We will not stop our efforts to 
strengthen the Internet — through initiatives that support and enhance 
its open architecture, and that preserve the model on which it was 
built. We will redouble our efforts to do more with others, and to build 
up our community's strength, to bring to reality our vision that the 
Internet is for everyone. Join us at 13:00 UTC on 28 January, when we 
will come together as a community to explore this plan.

Regards,
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO
Internet Society

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:31:41 +0100

While a debate on the COVID pandemic is outside the scope of this list, I feel obliged to make an observation regarding point (1) below.

I attach the excess mortality graph for Geneva, which is similar to that for Switzerland as a whole (and also for other countries). This shows the total number of deaths over time, without attributing the deaths to any particular cause.

So if it is not COVID that caused the deaths, then it must be something else which is also highly correlated with results of COVID tests.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: InternetPolicy [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy
> Sent: Thursday, 14 January, 2021 19:56
> To: ISOC Internet Policy; IETF discussion; IRTF discuss; IGF governance
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Renew Your Commitment to the Internet ...
> 
> 
> Dear Andrew,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 08:49:08 +1300

Richard,

Thanks for contributing some facts, but I don't believe that any of these lists should tolerate the propagation of blatant and dangerous untruths, so I request the various list managers to take appropriate actions to prevent any recurrence.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:27:34 -0500

Dear Dean, Willi, et al.:

0)    Happy New Year! The GeoLocation terminology caught my attention. I 
would like to share a couple of findings from our work.

1)    To evaluate the Internet performance, GeoLocation technology may 
be characterized in terms of its physical grid resolution. The finer the 
grid, the less the user privacy. On the other end of the spectrum, the 
coarser the GeoLocation grid, the better the user privacy. However, at 
the same time, the latter elevates the system vulnerability to cyber 
attacks because the perpetrators also become harder to track down. This 
is natural science. We can't change this generic system characteristics 
by marketing type of arguments.

2)    Due to the interest for more privacy, the general trend of 
Internet GeoLocation consideration has been coarser grid resolution with 
dynamic identification assignments. After many years of going on this 
track with cyber attacks growing without the end in sight, however, we 
really should review this practice from the ground up, now.

3)    Most people are with the belief that dynamic addressing (including 
privatization of the addresses, etc.) schemes improve the privacy. There 
was a research paper (see URL below) that found most law abiding 
Internet users, even when using dynamic and/or mobile addresses, could 
be easily located utilizing available tracking tools. On the other hand, 
the perpetrators could take advantage of the same technology to 
successfully evade the detection. Their basic message was, trusting 
dynamic addressing schemes for privacy might be an ostrich belief. 
Although it was an almost two decades old study, I have no doubt that 
the same "cat vs. mouse" game is still actively going on, judged by how 
pervasive that businesses have been able to target potential customers 
by physical locations practically in real-time, while cyber attacks 
appear to be unstoppable.

https://www.ccsl.carleton.ca/paper-archive/muir-computingsurveys-09.pdf

4)    As to "... a hard coding of IPv4 Class system, that was abandoned 
...   ", the advance of science and technology is largely due to the 
willingness to question established facts and to revisit failed 
experiments. It is always prudent to utilize newly acquired knowledge 
and discovered resources to enhance a system, even if it was an approach 
that was judged inappropriate in the past. We need to keep an open mind 
for the best solution in the interest for a better future Internet, 
especially since some of the current approaches have shown limitations.

Regards,

Abe (2021-01-18 11:26 EST)

On 2021-01-14 21:09, Dean Norris via InternetPolicy wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:56, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> Seems like a hard coding of IPv4 Class system, that was abandoned 
> (except for Class D/E addresses). And forcing IP to match local 
> coordinates seems too restrictive for general use and growth.
>
> I am not sure of the problem you are solving.. but if it is reserving 
> “IP addresses” for future growth in geolocations that have little 
> usage based on their projected use. Perhaps there are other answers 
> that offer continuous optimization of resources without need for 
> change or upgrades.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> d.
>
> —
> Dean Norris
> e: [email-masked]
> m: +1 415 860 3326
> l: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannorris
>
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:56, willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> > from Internet Society has sent you an email but it appears that 
>> your email client only allows plain text.
>> >
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus