On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Robert West wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:56 PM
To: 'Tarig Yassin'
Subject: RE: Who controlls the Internet?
Each individual government seems to control the information the
Internet filtering in Australia is yet to come in, however give it time and
Australia will have filters in place to block all content that the government
deems inappropriate! Just do a google for filtering in Australia!
Kindest Regards,
Jared Hirst
Sent from my iPhone
On 26/07/2010, at 5:06
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:41:05PM -0400, Robert West wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert West [mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 10:56 PM
> To: 'Tarig Yassin'
> Subject: RE: Who controlls the Internet?
>
> Each individual government seems to co
On Jul 25, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
Deal all
I want to show you some obstacles that some countries face them
every day.
For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site
they will get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some messages say: you are fo
Bill,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
inherited the role IANA staff performed prior to ICANN's creation. As far as I
am aw
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
>
> ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
> inherited th
On 7/25/10 8:24 PM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
I would like to issue a question here, who controls this Internet?
Vix does, who else?
:)
Gadi.
- Original Message -
> From: "Tarig Yassin"
>
>
> I would like to issue a question here, who controls this Internet?
>
The elders of the Internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Bill,
I suspect this thread has degenerated to the point of irrelevance, so this will
be my last comment. Feel free to have the last word.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:30 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA _never_
> ran
Any 3com switching geeks out there?
Contact me offlist if you don't mind a question or two.
thanks
On Jul 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Robert West wrote:
> Each individual government seems to control the information the enters or
> leaves their borders.
No, each individual government can have laws restricting information entering
and leaving their borders.
Few gov'ts actually control said info. T
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that
matter, see also my July 2nd post: I went so you don't have to --
ICANN Bruxelles pour les nuls.
The initial report of the 65 person VI WG is published. Regist
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more than happy to sell the name ...
Get your d
On 7/26/10 12:45 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more
> Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
> before coming up with "the fifth option"?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut &
past of discussions/text circulated throug
On July 26, 2010 at 14:42 brun...@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) wrote:
>
> When Hewlett-Packard wrote to ICANN earlier this year that it should
> get .hp, the obvious rejoinder was "Buy a country like everyone else,
> submit a change request to the iso3166/MA, and do business under .h
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with "the fifth option"?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut&
past
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back would be impossible to answer. (that would require L2
On 07/26/2010 01:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy
addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3
months back would be impossib
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:48:13 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
... Very Interesting Times for ISPs that deploy LSN and are subject to
CALEA.
CALEA is not a time machine. When an order is received, the "collection
agency" starts receiving traffic; nothing (or at most, very little) is
known prior
> CALEA is not a time machine. When an order is received, the
> "collection
> agency" starts receiving traffic; nothing (or at most, very little) is
> known prior to the wiretap order. Put another way, you cannot be
> ordered
> to produce tapes of phone call that happened a month ago. (CALEA only
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:36:08 -0400, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
say, i wonder how many actual calea requests have been sent out
anyway?? (I know one very large network has yet to get a single one,
or so the grape vine tells me.)
I see this asked a lot...
http://www.askcalea.net/reports/wiretap
> I see this asked a lot...
>
> http://www.askcalea.net/reports/wiretap.html
>
> [2009] http://www.askcalea.net/reports/docs/2009wiretap.pdf (warning:
> 314pg verbose report)
To save yourself the trouble (pg 8 of the slow 5MB download):
Telephone wiretaps accounted for 98 percent (1,720
case
> Between e-discovery and RIAA issues, retention times are probably shrinking
> even though capacity for retention is growing.
Capacity for retention has grown but one still needs fast searching of
data, or a few LEA requests on the same day or week will overflow your
capacity to answer them. Dis
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:09:55 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
I think it's safe to say CALEA is a non-issue for this crowd.
That's true for now. But with an increasingly data hungry world, and VoIP
popularity, ISPs aren't going to escape CALEA forever. There are reasons
IOS has provisions for C
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
j
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
> Actually the alliances visible at present are:
>
> JN2 proposal: Verisign, NeuStar, Ne
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
- Original Message -
From: "Joly MacFie"
To: "Eric Brunner-Williams"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 27 July, 2010 10:00:03 AM
Subject: Re: I slogged throu
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position i
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly a
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
> decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
> "collaborative marketing" ploy of 2001.
Or eNom's .cc/.com ploy from 1999-present. D
On 7/26/10 7:50 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
"collaborative marketing" ploy of 2001.
Or eNom
> Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
> have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the entities at the table don't like or want a
On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the ent
33 matches
Mail list logo
