Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  It is no secret nor wonder how AT&T, and now Worldcom/con-MCI
are much maligned and still misleading if not frequently improper
foolish and silly proclamations of various sorts in a serious tone.
Good example is the Marilyn Cade mcade@xxxxxxx delving
into Whois Policy discussion.  This amongst other errant
practices, prompted our board to recomend a boycott
of AT&T which was very well received and supported
by our members, and has lead to a loss in revenue to
AT&T of and estimated $8.2M/month...

  The IAB, under Harald Alverstand's leadership has lead
to creditability problems due in part to his "Cliquish"
behavior and strong support of Censorship.  Hence leaving
many stakeholder/users and IETF participants in a dam if you
do and dam if you don't position.  This is not a good thing...

  The ICANN continued "Dogma" as  you put it Karl, has therefor
been justified and seemingly continues unabated to any noticeable
degree.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> > > ummmmmmmmm. No.
> > > that language permits the board to enact a policy. They can then turn
> > > around and serve notice on Verisign to act. And Verisign can object and
> > > force the matter to go to court whenre ICANN would have to go and
> > > demonstrate that it is:
> > >
> > > "necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registry Services, the
> > DNS or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as
> > narrowly tailored
> > > as feasible to achieve those objectives."
> >
> > For preliminary injunction purposes, the IAB statement is sufficient basis
> > for ICANN to prevail.  In the balance of harms test for the preliminary
> > injunction, ICANN has a clear advantage.  The Security and Stability
> > Committee said it disrupted stability.  There are two Verisign employees on
> > that committee.
>
> I don't think the situation is that clear cut.  My sense is that there
> would be a rather intense fight over the credibility of the IAB.
>
> For example, consider the IAB/ICANN statement about competing roots -
> those reports claimed that the sky would fall, the seas would boil, and
> hell would freeze if competing roots were allowed.  Yet competing roots
> have been here and working for years and years - and the net still works.
> The suggested conclusion being that the IAB and ICANN have shown that they
> are not necessarily immune from wrapping religion and dogma with a wrapper
> that claims technical infallibility.
>
> Also, the fact that Bind patches have been quickly written and deployed
> could be used to argue that an injunction against Verisign would not be
> necessary.
>
> Neither of these are home run arguments, maybe not even first down
> arguments, but they are enough to make an injunction less than a slam dunk
> (ah, I love mixed metaphors.)
>
> The idea that technical reports are deterministic died in 1956 with AT&T's
> unsupportable "technical" claims about the doom that would befall the
> voice phone network if the Hush-A-Phone product were not suppressed.  (See
> http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/hush-a-phone.htm )
>
>                 --karl--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801