Re: [ga] VeriSign fends off critics at ICANN confab and ALAC's ligitimacy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

leah and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Excellent response's here Leah!  Well done and oh so true!

  I hope other stakeholders/users as well as industry folks will take
note of your remarks in response to Joop below.  In fact I was
just yesterday talking about some of this to Howard Berkowitz
from the ABA-ISC forum.  I hope he carefully reads your remarks
below.

L. Gallegos wrote:

> You're leaving out one major factor.  Regardless of what ICANN or the USG may do
> to restrict or control things, it is really the telcos that have the strangle hold, along
> with the RIR's.
>
> On 12 Oct 2003 at 16:13, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 01:41 p.m. 12/10/2003, Don Brown wrote:
> > >Joop,
> > >
> > >I can't state it more simply, but I do not desire to offend you - You just
> > >do not understand.
> > >
> > >The Internet was born out of a U.S. defense initiative. Don't hold
> > >your breath for the Congress, Senate, Executive or Judicial branch of the
> > >U.S. government to donate it to to the world. It's not going to happen.
> > >That's the reality of it.
> >
> > Don,
> >
> > I am pleased that you make the argument so openly. You may be right with
> > your assessment of the current mood in the United States. I don't know.
> >
> > But there is also another reality. The Internet choke-points and DNS
> > policymaking  are not susceptible to "donation" .
>
> This is true where the TCP/IP protocol is concerned.  Yes, it is edge controlled.
> However, the numbering is where things can get rough.  If the RIR's wanted to
> capture things and pander to special interests, they could do so and cut off much of
> the user base from establishing networks, along with the telcos cooperation.  ISPs
> are already restricting the use of their networks by restricting ports to individual
> subscribers.  This is effectively narrowing the number of web and mail servers run by
> individuals and small businesses who use broadband.  Soon, some of the laws
> being passed will restrict the use of VPNs, NAT and other security measures.
> Present laws could do that now if courts chose to interpret them broadly.  They
> would make criminals of individuals and small businesses who can't obtain multiple
> static IPs and use NAT behind firewalls and also those who connect to remote
> company servers or telecommute, etc. using secure VPN's.
>
> So they don't have to "donate" anything.  All they have to do is make it difficult to use
> networks.
>
> >
> > "The internet" cannot be donated by any party to anyone,  because the whole
> > is made up by those who populate its DNS.
>
> Only to a point.  See above.  Telcos are regulated.  The government could restrict
> the use of lines, which would restrict the use of the internet.  The major ISPs would,
> in turn, increase the restrictions on the use of their networks and the IP's they
> allocate to subscribers.  They're doing that now.  Users go to NAT due to restrictions
> on the use of IPs and NAT can be construed as criminal use of the ISPs network
> because is masquerades.  ISPs are not using the law in this fashion - yet - but they
> could.
>
> >
> > It is a network formula between them. It is a public protocol. It is out of
> > the bottle. Its value and composition are a result of global participation.
>
> What good is the protocol if you can't connect or use ports?
>
> >
> > Impose too high cost or too many restrictions on Naming and Numbering and
> > the demand will route around you. In other words, any single Nation's grip
> > on the Net must remain gentle or it evaporates.
>
> A new global system would have to be implented and used by the entire world
> simultaneously to achieve this.  It's not that it cannot be done.  It's just a gargantuan
> undertaking, including the establishment of new ways to connect - new telcos- which
> are regulated by government.  Circular argument.
>
> >
> > Clinton and Magaziner recognized that.  They were not giving up anything
> > with the  White Paper.
> >
> > >Besides, why should they - what margin is in it for them?  Making
> > >non-US citizens pleased is not on their agenda.
>
> Eventually, it will.  Commerce is global now, so there will be much more pressure
> coming from outside the US than there is now.  It's already happening with the EU
> imposing things like Safe Harbor, VAT, etc.  These pressures will come to bear on
> the use of networks, the root operations, TLDs, etc.  The US can ignore the global
> climate for only so long.
>
> Don't get me wrong.  I would not be happy to see control of any part of the core
> handed over to any authority that could be captured like ICANN has been.  I would
> also not wish to see the internet handled in any way by the UN, ITU or any
> governmental organization.  That would be worse than what we have now.
>
> >
> > ouch :-)
> >
> > >With that said, you can be instrumental in making a positive change.
> > >We all know that ICANN is dysfunctional and fully controlled by the
> > >insider cliche.  We can all write to members of Congress and to
> > >Senators to show our disdain.  The number of similar letters from U.S. and
> > >non-U.S. citizens should get some attention.
> >
> > OK. Here I am with you. We can help with web-form petitions and email or
> > paper letters and see if by presenting massive numbers ICANN can be morphed
> > into something more transparent and answerable  by US politicians. It
> > might.
> >
> > >That is our shot -- to make things right.  I don't know of any better way
> > >to slay the dragon, do you?
> >
> > Work seriously on an alternative and better structure. Then lobby for that
> > structure. Spend personal money. Volunteer time. Aim for surviving long
> > enough that natural selection can do its work. Internet time runs too fast
> > for dragons.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's easy.
>
> If you're thinking of lobbying government, you must think major dollars.  Think votes
> and what will convince voters to join in an effort to lobby along with non US
> individuals.
>
> 15k plus signers of a petition received considerable notice regarding Verisign, but
> that company can still implement its SiteFinder if it chooses to do so and just wait for
> the court battles to settle it.
>
> To get Congress to pass legislation takes a monumental effort (doable but costly)
> and then we face the legal challenges when entities claim it's unconstitutional.
> Getting injuctions is also doable, but only when an action causes immediate harm to
> the public (prove it) or to business (prove it).
>
> So this is truly an uphill battle that will take an enormous number of signatures and
> well written petitions that the US voting public will support.  Any effort will have to be
> published by mainstream media as well, and a serious marketing effort will have to
> be in place for outreach globally.  Make it public enough and congresscritters take
> notice.
>
> It's easy to say "use your own money" and time and effort, but it will take an army of
> people doing that to succeed.  It's called a grassroots movement.  Ross Perot did it.
> We can, too, but at great cost.
>
> Be careful what you fight for.  You might not like the win if it results in even greater
> restriction and/or regulation.  When you lobby congress for such changes, you face
> just such a danger.
>
> >
>
> Leah

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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