Slashdot Mirror

(For the interested, a detailed chart of freq. allocations.)

Yes, by "double" I referred to the "loan," if you prefer of add'l spectrum to broadcasters. There will be at least a decade before the spectrum returns, assuming the broadcasters don't figure out the political means to squat on it by then. They have to return it in 2006 or 85% market penetration, which clearly won't happen until later, esp. in non-early adopter areas.

There has been some debate over whether stations can exploit additional space within their bandwidth, used for neither digital nor analog signals, for commercial purposes. I'm not sure how that came out.

Your analogy to early TV is inept. The introduction of TV forced no one to buy anything unless they wanted to participate. Same with color, which was cleverly compatible with B&W TV's. Opt-outs did not subsidize early adopters, and improvements did not needlessly obsolete existing equipment. Now, with DTV we face losing our equipment -- unless we buy $$ converters -- and of higher cable fees as they transition to digital, etc. Already digital tuners are supposedly to be required for all new TV's whether you need one or not (most of us have cable). Moreover, HDTV also portends a new round of DRM that may ultimately peel off some fair use rights.

I don't mind the advance to DTV at all, indeed it is probably a good thing. Many people do seem to want it, but -- and this is key -- I'm not at all interested in subsidizing them or the manufacturers in their entertainment or profits, respectively. I would like converting to me my choice, quaint notion though that may be, and will hold off as long as possible until the people who just absolutely positively have to have DTV rigth away have paid for the bleeding edge of technology and the prices drop.

Thankfully we don't just do things that people "want" is offensive. I don't know how you distinguish between "we" and "people," but people were excited as hell about TV's debut. DTV is more ho-hum despite years of promotion and hype. More perceptive souls have questioned whether DTV is a rip-off for the ordinary consumer here or here or here or various other places not preoccupied with how neat DTV is --- or what a favor they're doing for the little "people."

You're right -- technical solutions shouldn't be a substitute for good parenting and supervision. But a little bit of technical wizardry does help. You do keep the cookie jar out of their reach, right?

As for how it's going to be enforced, it's the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration according to the HR Bill.

FYI: Network Associates kept the rights to their eBusiness Server when they sold the rights to the desktop version of PGP to the new PGP Corporation. eBusiness Server is used by many corporations to automate their PGP encryption for batch processes, SOAP servers, etc.

Even when (If!) the Gnu GPG group decides to release a library/DLL version of their privacy tool, I suspect a fair number of companies will continue to use the NAI product in order to avoid having to deal with the Bureau of Industry and Security in the US Department of Commerce for exporting their own compiled encryption software.

Boy is it obvious when the economically-challenged open their mouths.

First, I don't know where this number of $19 million dollars came from, the BEA says that we spent $204.5 billion from 1982-2001 on space.

How much did the government spend on national defense from 1982-2001? $5.773 trillion.

How much did the government spend on interest payments from 1982-2001? $4.09 trillion

How much did the government spend on "income securities" (welfare, diability, etc.) from 1982-2001? $9 trillion.

We have been continuously been in deficit spending since 1979.

The government now spends more per capita per year than what per capita yearly income was in 1978.

In the year 2000, expenditures on national defense was 11.6% of total expenditures, which was $2.77 trillion Income securites was 23.2%.

Currently the effective tax rate (the average per capita tax) is about 33%. In 1913 it was 5%.

Median income for a 4-person family in 2000 was $62,228. In 1982 it was $27,619.

The debt is bad, but the tax burden is the problem. The way to get rid of the debt is to curb spending, but military spending only accounts for about 11%, and let the economy grow out of the debt. Per capita income has been skyrocketting, but so have expenditures and consequently taxes. But you can't blame military spending. Someone has fed you bull and you ate it. I can tell when someone has never taken an economics class, or been in the military.

By the way, if you pay income tax, you are by definition "rich", since the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income tax. Futhermore, ANY reduction in income taxes now by rule will disportionately affect the rich since the rich so disportionately carry the burden.

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy. Note that this isn't just American manufacturers, but all auto manufacturers that sell in the US. In fact, this may be a primary reason that BMW launched the MINI brand: to boost the company's overall fuel economy in its largest single market. With talk of it being pushed over 40 mpg, it could be a real race for fuel economy very soon.

Comparing fuel costs in the US to those in Europe is just short-sighted. I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce.

This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics, Category 4-computers, Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2)-information security, and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes, all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)

I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.

You're confusing three (at least) different things. The nondocumentation of security fixes has to do with the DMCA, which behemoth I'm not even going to get into. Nor was I talking about the encryption export controls.

What I was talking about was the implications of the general US economic embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya. Even with the relaxation of encryption regulations, you still need to watch what gets sent to those countries.

Now, I hate to spoil a good session of "you're wrong" / "No, you're wrong" with actual references, but here goes:

In the general export FAQ there's a question about whether certain embargoes (against Iran, Syria, and the Sudan) have been lifted. (Short answer: they haven't been)

In the Encryption export FAQ, several questions specifically mention how you're allowed to export encryption under various conditions unless it's going to one of those countries I named above.

Now, to show that my speculation about "reason to believe that a piece of software was going to Iran" bit in my initial post wasn't baseless paranoia, here's a quote from an informational memo from the Office of Foreign Assets Control about exports to Iran:

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods,
technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know
such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or
reexportation to Iran. Further, such exportation is prohibited if
the exporter knows or has reason to know the U.S. items are
intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling
with, or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be
directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped or reexported
exclusively or predominately to Iran or the Government of Iran.

Now, that entire document does seem to apply very specifically to people actually in Iran or agents of the Iranian government, so I'd presumably be off the hook in the scenario I initially considered. However, what happens when someone inside Iran submits a bug report?

The next time you are installing some piece of commercial software that comes with a big old lawyerese EULA, search it for references to these countries. I seem to remember that Netscape's old license even made it illegal for any citizen of these countries to ever install or use their software.

You're confusing three (at least) different things. The nondocumentation of security fixes has to do with the DMCA, which behemoth I'm not even going to get into. Nor was I talking about the encryption export controls.

What I was talking about was the implications of the general US economic embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya. Even with the relaxation of encryption regulations, you still need to watch what gets sent to those countries.

Now, I hate to spoil a good session of "you're wrong" / "No, you're wrong" with actual references, but here goes:

In the general export FAQ there's a question about whether certain embargoes (against Iran, Syria, and the Sudan) have been lifted. (Short answer: they haven't been)

In the Encryption export FAQ, several questions specifically mention how you're allowed to export encryption under various conditions unless it's going to one of those countries I named above.

Now, to show that my speculation about "reason to believe that a piece of software was going to Iran" bit in my initial post wasn't baseless paranoia, here's a quote from an informational memo from the Office of Foreign Assets Control about exports to Iran:

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods,
technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know
such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or
reexportation to Iran. Further, such exportation is prohibited if
the exporter knows or has reason to know the U.S. items are
intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling
with, or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be
directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped or reexported
exclusively or predominately to Iran or the Government of Iran.

Now, that entire document does seem to apply very specifically to people actually in Iran or agents of the Iranian government, so I'd presumably be off the hook in the scenario I initially considered. However, what happens when someone inside Iran submits a bug report?

The next time you are installing some piece of commercial software that comes with a big old lawyerese EULA, search it for references to these countries. I seem to remember that Netscape's old license even made it illegal for any citizen of these countries to ever install or use their software.

You're confusing three (at least) different things. The nondocumentation of security fixes has to do with the DMCA, which behemoth I'm not even going to get into. Nor was I talking about the encryption export controls.

What I was talking about was the implications of the general US economic embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya. Even with the relaxation of encryption regulations, you still need to watch what gets sent to those countries.

Now, I hate to spoil a good session of "you're wrong" / "No, you're wrong" with actual references, but here goes:

In the general export FAQ there's a question about whether certain embargoes (against Iran, Syria, and the Sudan) have been lifted. (Short answer: they haven't been)

In the Encryption export FAQ, several questions specifically mention how you're allowed to export encryption under various conditions unless it's going to one of those countries I named above.

Now, to show that my speculation about "reason to believe that a piece of software was going to Iran" bit in my initial post wasn't baseless paranoia, here's a quote from an informational memo from the Office of Foreign Assets Control about exports to Iran:

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods,
technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know
such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or
reexportation to Iran. Further, such exportation is prohibited if
the exporter knows or has reason to know the U.S. items are
intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling
with, or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be
directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped or reexported
exclusively or predominately to Iran or the Government of Iran.

Now, that entire document does seem to apply very specifically to people actually in Iran or agents of the Iranian government, so I'd presumably be off the hook in the scenario I initially considered. However, what happens when someone inside Iran submits a bug report?

The next time you are installing some piece of commercial software that comes with a big old lawyerese EULA, search it for references to these countries. I seem to remember that Netscape's old license even made it illegal for any citizen of these countries to ever install or use their software.

I was there at the commerce committee roundtable hearing on 7/17 with Berman's Committee. Check the transcript. Although some of the comments were left out, all of the comments from NYFairUse, NYLXS, LXNY, Information Producers Initiative were left out, one of the leeches in favor of drm restrictions actually said that P2P users sitting at home can use P2P to upload military secrets. He compared (towards the end of the meeting when everyone was tired, getting ready to go home, and paying less attention) a kid sitting a home trading songs to Wen Ho Lee, Robert Hanssen, and Jonathan Pollard. His first or last name was Myron.(Content Guard I think?)

It should be noted that NYFairUse and NYLXS tactics at the 7/17 meeting (and our unreported by Slashdot YRO attempts to get on the invite list prior to the meeting) were severely criticized by some in a slashdot story prior to all the facts getting out. Now that time has passed, and we have seen direct results of our actions, perhaps it is time to reconsider whether those actions should have been taken or not. Especially in light of this and this, which never would have happened if we had just sat there quietly like some have suggested, and news that the drm bills (all of them, Holling, Leahy, Biden, others) are dead for the year.

However, just to educate yourself, I would recommend sitting down and spending a day combing through the actual laws to get a feel for how they may apply to your situation. Start with the Export Administration Regulations, Part 740:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/740.txt

Basically, the BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) divides the world into several categories:

• USA and Canada(?)
• The "EU+8" "friendly" countries
• Other countries that don't fall into the above two categories, but are not considered terrorist countries
• The "T-7" list of terrorist countries

You'll probably be treating each category of country in a different way. Furthermore, restrictions may be slightly different depending on if you are exporting to foreign government users or foreign non-government users. Also, in some circumstances, you may be required to file reports indicating how various customers are using your crypto.

You'll also want to peruse all the relevent web pages at the BIS:

http://www.bxa.doc.gov/

(Hmm, looks like they've recently changed their name to "Bureau of Industry and Security". They were "Bureau of Export Administration" when I looked earlier this year.)

For practically any kind of commercial crypto you are planning to export, you'll need to file some paperwork with the BIS. Fill out a request form on their web site, and they'll send you the paperwork.

One last recommendation I could make would be to occasionally read the talk.politics.crypto newsgroup.

Whenever I talk to people about crypto export regulations, I usually hear "Oh, you must not have heard, crypto regulations are relaxed, now!" I have to explain that dealing with crypto exports still requires, at least, dealing with a ton of bureaucracy and is still a royal pain in the ass.

Take some time look at the transcript of "Understanding Broadband demand Digital Rights Management Workshop", hosted by Department Of Commerce Technology Administration.

It'll become reality very soon, with Government's support. *sigh*

What else can we do?

The entire broadcast band, TV and radio, occupies about 500 MHz of a 300 GHz spectrum allotment.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Here is the form that Bond spoke of: http://www.ta.doc.gov/comments/comments.htm

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

U-Boot-Klasse U 212

Lautlos, wendig, ausdauernd - die U-Boot-Klasse U-212 A

U 212 - Technologiesprung unter Wasser

German Armed Forces

German Navy

Info on German military by US government

It's funny, politicians had basically the same idea in mind for this country, too. The idea was that, if only we could teach all those f#$%ing people in the slums and ghettoes how to be software engineers, we could cure poverty!

Then the NASDAQ went to hell and people finally started to get a clue: gee, maybe there isn't actually demand for IT workers out there!

I bet this annoys the heck out of Dean Kamen, the guy who designed the "ginger" scooter. He also founded the "FIRST" robotics competition for students, which doesn't allow any robot combat. I think that Battlebots IQ will be much more popular with the average student.

The Technology Administration of the US Dept. of Commerce will be holding a public workshop on DRM on Wednesday, July 17, 2002. There are no details as to time, location, etc. on their site, but there is a public comment form.

So even if you can't do anything on the 17th, feel free to send the government your thoughts on DRM and its place in technology.

Go here.

Check out the CV on Chris Israel, the person who is supposed to be collecting comments for his office to work on.

Seems like Jack Valenti has his hands up all the major puppets these days...

This is not the first such workshop that has been held.

The previous was held on December 17, 2001: http://www.ta.doc.gov/PRel/MA011214.htm

Participants included all the usual suspects including the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, and Intel

Interestingly, one of the participants was Forrester Research who, in their public archives which unfortunatly only has summaries available, include several reports such as:

whose summaries with punch line conclusions like "Media companies turn into eBusiness network" alone would have been enough to curl the nose hairs of any movie / recording industry executive still stuck in the 90s (1990s that is).

here is an email address on that page where the public can send comments. I don't know whether it's the right one, but since that site is collecting comments and has no form you could just try mailing them, if only to ask where the form is.

I would think sending an email to Public.Affairs@ta.doc.gov would work also.

From http://www.ta.doc.gov/Medal/default.htm

The National Medal of Technology is the highest honor bestowed by the President of the United States to America's leading innovators.

Guess who won it in 1992?

William H. Gates, III., Microsoft Corp.
For his early vision of universal computing at home and in the office; for his technical and business management skills in creating a world-wide technology company; and for his contribution to the development of the personal computer industry.

Competition crushing monopolists sure promote innovation.

From http://www.ta.doc.gov/Medal/default.htm

The National Medal of Technology is the highest honor bestowed by the President of the United States to America's leading innovators.

Guess who won it in 1992?

William H. Gates, III., Microsoft Corp.
For his early vision of universal computing at home and in the office; for his technical and business management skills in creating a world-wide technology company; and for his contribution to the development of the personal computer industry.

Competition crushing monopolists sure promote innovation.

Historical Footnote #1: There are no Indian Reservations on the East Coast of USA

This is just not true. There are three or four in the state of Mainewhich last time I looked is on the east coast.

There are plenty of examples of the screwing of the American Indians, you don't have make any more up.

• Is it cost-effective to eradicate bugs? (think: is it cost effective to secure credit card to eradicate fraud? Banks prefer to eat it.)
• Is this amount really damaging to the economy? (ie: $60 billion/year is not much against the GDP)
• Enron market cap. at this top was $60 billion.

BTW, the report seems interesting. I've just downloaded it. It seems that it's got /.'ted (this reassures me that most /. are checking facts before replying...)

One thing I found suprising after skimming the article was the difference between the amount of commerical operators licensed and the amount of amateur radio operators licensed. There's more of us then there are of them.

Being a ham - this was interesting to me when you consider the slivers of bandwidth we are fighting to keep right now.

When I first saw this I was very suprised - ham radio is just a sliver in the ocean of spectrum.

Personally I think its pretty well managed - the FCC is very responsive to needs of people (you can call them up and often talk to a real human in seconds). I don't like the fact that the head of the FCC (currently the son of Colin Powell) is appointed by the bush administration - I think there's definately a conflict of interest between the head of the FCC and the presidents men and the powers of the FCC.

a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located.

My response to the dopey judge:

Now we are all elitist too?

We believe that information should be available without charge to any dooling idiot who bought it.

I'll have to add that to the list - We're all elitist greedy selfish thieves with ulterior motives. Expecially those evil librarians, evil journalists, and evil scientists.

-

To all administrative and technical contacts:

Effective November 28, 2000, VeriSign Global Registry Services ("VeriSign GRS"), a division of Network Solutions, Inc., will assume direct administration of the .US domain. This transition will not result in any technical service-level change. VeriSign GRS services will be available
to domain name registrants for whom VeriSign GRS maintains the .US domain name registration record subject to the terms of its interim service agreement, a copy of which appears below for your review.

Your continued registration of a .US domain name beyond November 27, 2000, and the use of our .US domain name registration services constitutes your acceptance of the terms of the Agreement below.

Best regards,

United States Domain Registry
VeriSign Global Registry Services
www.verisign-grs.com
usdomhelp@verisign -grs.com

To all administrative and technical contacts:

Effective November 28, 2000, VeriSign Global Registry Services ("VeriSign GRS"), a division of Network Solutions, Inc., will assume direct administration of the .US domain. This transition will not result in any technical service-level change. VeriSign GRS services will be available
to domain name registrants for whom VeriSign GRS maintains the .US domain name registration record subject to the terms of its interim service agreement, a copy of which appears below for your review.

Your continued registration of a .US domain name beyond November 27, 2000, and the use of our .US domain name registration services constitutes your acceptance of the terms of the Agreement below.

Best regards,

United States Domain Registry
VeriSign Global Registry Services
www.verisign-grs.com
usdomhelp@verisign -grs.com

Since OpenBSD is based in Canada they can ship their system with strong encryption since they are not subject to the USA's fascist crypto laws.

The USA crypto laws are no longer fascist. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BXA) has lifted most restrictions on exporting free cryptographic software.

The motion picture industry generates about $35 billion in US GDP annually (according to the Dept. of Commerce).

The information technology industry is worth ~$700 billion in GDP annually.

Which industry should we be more concerned about?

• http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/ide x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
• http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
• http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.html , Honda Insight, currently available
• http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
• http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
• http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this

• http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/0mapveh.html, http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/, The EPA's Clean Vehicle Guide
• http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4018922.asp, http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&a ct=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst . mpl, 2002 overall fuel economy results
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml, Vehicle fuel economy by class
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml, Tips to improve your gas mileage
• http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/CAFE.html, Information about the CAFE standards
• http://www.greenercars.org/, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Why don't you get your hand off your dick for 5 minutes and look for some info on EM transmitters.

I like petting kittens.

Do you honestly believe that the same device could transmit frequencies across the ENTIRE FUCKING EM SPECTRUM?!

Both narrowband and UWB can be harmful against lots of stuff, quoting US military sources,

an official from the U.S. Army's Space and Missile Defense Command stated that recent scientific advances in radio frequency (RF) weapons technology by several states raise significant concerns. Broadly speaking, these weapons use high power microwave energy, in either narrow or wideband form, to disrupt or destroy the high-density metal oxide semiconductor devices that are used in modern computers and sensors.....

Current technology has produced a 25-gigawatt ultra-wideband source, a 100-gigawatt UWB device is anticipated within a year, and finally, travelling wave devices are also being explored for UWB applications

I think there are a few things amiss with the pfir plan and I'd like to suggest and comment on some alternatives and have a few comments about our continues use of 20th century DNS.

Look back at the creation of ICANN and it's not difficult to see why it has failed. The timeline goes something like this: when the Wired article came out in 1994 where Joshua Quittner reported he registered mcdonalds.com and McDonalds didn't want it he ended up selling it to Burger King. At the time InterNIC registrations were taking about 3 days. This shot up to 11 weeks in a matter of days. The NSF, who funded NSI to run the InterNIC, did not feel it's role, which is to foster academic and scientific advancement, included subsidizing deodorant.com and the like, so, it asked the FNCAC to do something. What they did was instruct the NSF to tell NSI to begin charging for domains. This caught the Internet community rather off guard and discussion ensued on a "newdom" mailing list (whose archives can be found here). Several forces came into play. First was the rift between the group that felt they too could run a TLD and the group that though this should be run from a great big central registry. The latter became the IAHC/CORE thing while the former became the first alternative root. The US Government shut down the IAHC and began it's own proceedings: the white paper was produced. Other governments, most notably in the form of Paul Twoomey from Australia
and Chris Wilkinson from the EU balked at the plan and the revised plan, the green paper took out the language about creating 5 new TLDs immediately (thereby throwing each conflicted group at least one bone). At the time Mikki Barry and Kathy Kleinman suggested in Becky Burr's office that a set of global meetings take place, not to decide answers to tough problems, but to determine just where there was consensus on the various issues. This became the IFWP forum and 3 meetings were held in Reston Va., Geneva, and Singapore. There was to be a followup meeting to merge these consensus points into a framework for the new corporation that was to replace IANA. While this was happening, NSI and IANA were negotiating, and Ira Magaziner, Clinton's senior science advisor and Roger Cochetti, a VP of IBM were running around selecting a new board. The IFWP wrap up meeting never happened, it was scuttled by Mike Roberts (suspicion is high he had been told be would be president) and the vast amount of time and energy, money, hopes and aspirations that was IFWP went down the toilet - which is a real shame as it was a significant body of work. Three proposals went in to the US government to form the new corporation. The IANA/NSI proposal drafted by Joe Sims and NSI, the Boston Working Group proposal (which is where the wrap-up meeting was to have been) which was a sane version of the NSI/ICANN proposal, and the ORSC proposal which was the BWG plan with greater fiscal responsibility and an existing corporate shell. Citing popular public support for the IANA/NSI plan it was selected - but if you read the public comments on the NTIA site carefully you'll see far less support than implied and much of it was tentative, frankly. A board materialized out if thin air, selected because they didn't know anything about DNS. So what went wrong? Was the original ICANN plan flawed or were the people just the wrong choices? I suggest that if Karl Aurbach and 9 people like him has been the original board we would not now be even talking about DNS; the board appointed from in high did not represent the Internet community whatsoever and instead represented telco, government and trademark special interests. It is believed the concessions made so that foreign government supported the "green paper" was that they got to pick certain members of the board. The first big clue there was trouble was when the board missed it's deadline to define a process for their replacement and simply extended their jobs; they should have been gone over two years ago now.

So what have we learned from this? In my opinion, no group that says "we're in charge" really is; respect is earned, not asserted and I think this was the great failing of both IAHC and ICANN. So while I generally like Weinstein, Newman and Farber, I do distrust the IAB to some extent based on previous debacles like the Boston Tea party where they were thrown out for claiming OSI and not TCP/IP was the way to go. The ISOC is another non-starter, it's wanted to get it's hands on the DNS for over a decade and has been a great supporter of the authoritarian regimes of both IAHC and ICANN. The key, I believe, is not some group claiming they should be in charge or that they have all the answers - nobody does - but the good old fashioned and time proven method of Internet collaborative cooperation. And this means actually doing it, not paying lip service to it like ICANN did. Oh and cut out the 5 star hotels and first class Concorde flights.

Is this about Internet governance? No. Absolutely not. In it's most basic form this is nothing more than an institutionalized debate between Dave Crocker and Karl Denninger in 1986 taken to it's logical conclusion. But it's nothing to do with governance of the Internet. Face it, if all you do is read and write email and/or usenet news, and play on ISC or muck about on the web, you may never have heard of ICANN and it certainly has zero effect on you. This is just about new top level domains, period; the IP addresses have virtually all been handed over to the regional registries and the port allocations are handles by somebody than CAN add one to a number and write it down on a piece of paper.

But didn't ICANN break up NSI ? Nope. That was Ira Magaziners plan executed through the Department of Commerce. You don't really think NSI gave in because ICANN though it was a good idea do you? What has ICANN really done in 4 years? They've knuckled under to WIPO and given us the horribly flawed UDRP and 7 really stupid TLDs that despite $2.$M worth of scrutiny still had huge problems to the point of being dragged into court over it.

What alternative roots exist? Quite a few actually, and while on the face of it you might think this would be a problem, but face it, if you can pick up your mail and get to Yahoo! then they work, and any of them will let you do that. The differences in them are what new TLDs they publish in their root zones. I need to disclaim right away that I coordinate, with Brian Reid's help, the ORSC root, and it's generally believed to have the greatest penetration and is certainly the longest continuously operating one. The barrier to entry it low: show us working TLD servers and we'll list you. Other notable ones are the TINC root which is operated by some old time Usenet people such as Peter da Silva which has a policy of one tld per entity, which I don't like think can be made to work (the now defunct eDNS tried this and it was found to be too easily worked around), PacROOT which in my opinion swings too far the other way with their NameSlinger client - I don't think I know the proper number of TLDS any entity should operate but I do know it's not in the hundreds if not thousands; this raises anti-trust issues, and OpenNIC which is pretty good but only has a small number of new TLDs. There is also NameSpace which believes they should run all tlds. This grates against the notion of the root as a collection of independantly run TLDs in my opinion. But, it doesn't matter to me which one people use as long as they use one of them. Vote with your nameservers - it is in nobody's interest to break anything and using any of these roots will let you see all current DNS names and a whole universe of new ones although how many depends on which one you pick.

Why do we still use root servers? Now this is where it gets interesting. What if the US Government suddenly shut off the legacy root servers? 90% of the net would feel some sort of perturbation immediately especially since at least one TLD (.SE) is name-served directly from the root (not TLD!) servers as are many in-addr.arpa delegations. As the TTLs to TLD servers expired, users of the legacy root would not be able to resolve any DNS names. But, people that use other root servers would be immune to the demise of the legacy roots (modulo one of Swedens 7 .SE nameservers of course) but an even better tactic in my opinion is to primary the root zone for yourself. Then, any or all root servers could be shut off and you wouldn't notice a thing. This would leave you with one remaining problem and that is where could you get the root zone from. Your upstream might be a good place or as DJB has suggested, a cryptographically signed root zone could be posted to usenet periodically. This has the inherent advantage of being out of band of TCP/IP; that is, even a UUCP connection could inject the zone into the news stream. That's one answer to "how do you bootstrap DNS without DNS".

Do I think ORSC should be the next ICANN as the ICANNWATCH poll suggests? No and hell no! Nobody should be in charge, and given that the net and the DNS itself is edge controlled - that is, whoever has the root password to a nameserver determines what dns names exist and what don't - any model that asserts a central authority is doomed to fail. There is need for coordination, but not authority.

Vote with your nameserver; vote early and vote often.

Richard Sexton
March 19, 2002

I think there are a few things amiss with the pfir plan and I'd like to suggest and comment on some alternatives and have a few comments about our continues use of 20th century DNS.

Look back at the creation of ICANN and it's not difficult to see why it has failed. The timeline goes something like this: when the Wired article came out in 1994 where Joshua Quittner reported he registered mcdonalds.com and McDonalds didn't want it he ended up selling it to Burger King. At the time InterNIC registrations were taking about 3 days. This shot up to 11 weeks in a matter of days. The NSF, who funded NSI to run the InterNIC, did not feel it's role, which is to foster academic and scientific advancement, included subsidizing deodorant.com and the like, so, it asked the FNCAC to do something. What they did was instruct the NSF to tell NSI to begin charging for domains. This caught the Internet community rather off guard and discussion ensued on a "newdom" mailing list (whose archives can be found here). Several forces came into play. First was the rift between the group that felt they too could run a TLD and the group that though this should be run from a great big central registry. The latter became the IAHC/CORE thing while the former became the first alternative root. The US Government shut down the IAHC and began it's own proceedings: the white paper was produced. Other governments, most notably in the form of Paul Twoomey from Australia
and Chris Wilkinson from the EU balked at the plan and the revised plan, the green paper took out the language about creating 5 new TLDs immediately (thereby throwing each conflicted group at least one bone). At the time Mikki Barry and Kathy Kleinman suggested in Becky Burr's office that a set of global meetings take place, not to decide answers to tough problems, but to determine just where there was consensus on the various issues. This became the IFWP forum and 3 meetings were held in Reston Va., Geneva, and Singapore. There was to be a followup meeting to merge these consensus points into a framework for the new corporation that was to replace IANA. While this was happening, NSI and IANA were negotiating, and Ira Magaziner, Clinton's senior science advisor and Roger Cochetti, a VP of IBM were running around selecting a new board. The IFWP wrap up meeting never happened, it was scuttled by Mike Roberts (suspicion is high he had been told be would be president) and the vast amount of time and energy, money, hopes and aspirations that was IFWP went down the toilet - which is a real shame as it was a significant body of work. Three proposals went in to the US government to form the new corporation. The IANA/NSI proposal drafted by Joe Sims and NSI, the Boston Working Group proposal (which is where the wrap-up meeting was to have been) which was a sane version of the NSI/ICANN proposal, and the ORSC proposal which was the BWG plan with greater fiscal responsibility and an existing corporate shell. Citing popular public support for the IANA/NSI plan it was selected - but if you read the public comments on the NTIA site carefully you'll see far less support than implied and much of it was tentative, frankly. A board materialized out if thin air, selected because they didn't know anything about DNS. So what went wrong? Was the original ICANN plan flawed or were the people just the wrong choices? I suggest that if Karl Aurbach and 9 people like him has been the original board we would not now be even talking about DNS; the board appointed from in high did not represent the Internet community whatsoever and instead represented telco, government and trademark special interests. It is believed the concessions made so that foreign government supported the "green paper" was that they got to pick certain members of the board. The first big clue there was trouble was when the board missed it's deadline to define a process for their replacement and simply extended their jobs; they should have been gone over two years ago now.

So what have we learned from this? In my opinion, no group that says "we're in charge" really is; respect is earned, not asserted and I think this was the great failing of both IAHC and ICANN. So while I generally like Weinstein, Newman and Farber, I do distrust the IAB to some extent based on previous debacles like the Boston Tea party where they were thrown out for claiming OSI and not TCP/IP was the way to go. The ISOC is another non-starter, it's wanted to get it's hands on the DNS for over a decade and has been a great supporter of the authoritarian regimes of both IAHC and ICANN. The key, I believe, is not some group claiming they should be in charge or that they have all the answers - nobody does - but the good old fashioned and time proven method of Internet collaborative cooperation. And this means actually doing it, not paying lip service to it like ICANN did. Oh and cut out the 5 star hotels and first class Concorde flights.

Is this about Internet governance? No. Absolutely not. In it's most basic form this is nothing more than an institutionalized debate between Dave Crocker and Karl Denninger in 1986 taken to it's logical conclusion. But it's nothing to do with governance of the Internet. Face it, if all you do is read and write email and/or usenet news, and play on ISC or muck about on the web, you may never have heard of ICANN and it certainly has zero effect on you. This is just about new top level domains, period; the IP addresses have virtually all been handed over to the regional registries and the port allocations are handles by somebody than CAN add one to a number and write it down on a piece of paper.

But didn't ICANN break up NSI ? Nope. That was Ira Magaziners plan executed through the Department of Commerce. You don't really think NSI gave in because ICANN though it was a good idea do you? What has ICANN really done in 4 years? They've knuckled under to WIPO and given us the horribly flawed UDRP and 7 really stupid TLDs that despite $2.$M worth of scrutiny still had huge problems to the point of being dragged into court over it.

What alternative roots exist? Quite a few actually, and while on the face of it you might think this would be a problem, but face it, if you can pick up your mail and get to Yahoo! then they work, and any of them will let you do that. The differences in them are what new TLDs they publish in their root zones. I need to disclaim right away that I coordinate, with Brian Reid's help, the ORSC root, and it's generally believed to have the greatest penetration and is certainly the longest continuously operating one. The barrier to entry it low: show us working TLD servers and we'll list you. Other notable ones are the TINC root which is operated by some old time Usenet people such as Peter da Silva which has a policy of one tld per entity, which I don't like think can be made to work (the now defunct eDNS tried this and it was found to be too easily worked around), PacROOT which in my opinion swings too far the other way with their NameSlinger client - I don't think I know the proper number of TLDS any entity should operate but I do know it's not in the hundreds if not thousands; this raises anti-trust issues, and OpenNIC which is pretty good but only has a small number of new TLDs. There is also NameSpace which believes they should run all tlds. This grates against the notion of the root as a collection of independantly run TLDs in my opinion. But, it doesn't matter to me which one people use as long as they use one of them. Vote with your nameservers - it is in nobody's interest to break anything and using any of these roots will let you see all current DNS names and a whole universe of new ones although how many depends on which one you pick.

Why do we still use root servers? Now this is where it gets interesting. What if the US Government suddenly shut off the legacy root servers? 90% of the net would feel some sort of perturbation immediately especially since at least one TLD (.SE) is name-served directly from the root (not TLD!) servers as are many in-addr.arpa delegations. As the TTLs to TLD servers expired, users of the legacy root would not be able to resolve any DNS names. But, people that use other root servers would be immune to the demise of the legacy roots (modulo one of Swedens 7 .SE nameservers of course) but an even better tactic in my opinion is to primary the root zone for yourself. Then, any or all root servers could be shut off and you wouldn't notice a thing. This would leave you with one remaining problem and that is where could you get the root zone from. Your upstream might be a good place or as DJB has suggested, a cryptographically signed root zone could be posted to usenet periodically. This has the inherent advantage of being out of band of TCP/IP; that is, even a UUCP connection could inject the zone into the news stream. That's one answer to "how do you bootstrap DNS without DNS".

Do I think ORSC should be the next ICANN as the ICANNWATCH poll suggests? No and hell no! Nobody should be in charge, and given that the net and the DNS itself is edge controlled - that is, whoever has the root password to a nameserver determines what dns names exist and what don't - any model that asserts a central authority is doomed to fail. There is need for coordination, but not authority.

Vote with your nameserver; vote early and vote often.

Richard Sexton
March 19, 2002

I think there are a few things amiss with the pfir plan and I'd like to suggest and comment on some alternatives and have a few comments about our continues use of 20th century DNS.

Look back at the creation of ICANN and it's not difficult to see why it has failed. The timeline goes something like this: when the Wired article came out in 1994 where Joshua Quittner reported he registered mcdonalds.com and McDonalds didn't want it he ended up selling it to Burger King. At the time InterNIC registrations were taking about 3 days. This shot up to 11 weeks in a matter of days. The NSF, who funded NSI to run the InterNIC, did not feel it's role, which is to foster academic and scientific advancement, included subsidizing deodorant.com and the like, so, it asked the FNCAC to do something. What they did was instruct the NSF to tell NSI to begin charging for domains. This caught the Internet community rather off guard and discussion ensued on a "newdom" mailing list (whose archives can be found here). Several forces came into play. First was the rift between the group that felt they too could run a TLD and the group that though this should be run from a great big central registry. The latter became the IAHC/CORE thing while the former became the first alternative root. The US Government shut down the IAHC and began it's own proceedings: the white paper was produced. Other governments, most notably in the form of Paul Twoomey from Australia
and Chris Wilkinson from the EU balked at the plan and the revised plan, the green paper took out the language about creating 5 new TLDs immediately (thereby throwing each conflicted group at least one bone). At the time Mikki Barry and Kathy Kleinman suggested in Becky Burr's office that a set of global meetings take place, not to decide answers to tough problems, but to determine just where there was consensus on the various issues. This became the IFWP forum and 3 meetings were held in Reston Va., Geneva, and Singapore. There was to be a followup meeting to merge these consensus points into a framework for the new corporation that was to replace IANA. While this was happening, NSI and IANA were negotiating, and Ira Magaziner, Clinton's senior science advisor and Roger Cochetti, a VP of IBM were running around selecting a new board. The IFWP wrap up meeting never happened, it was scuttled by Mike Roberts (suspicion is high he had been told be would be president) and the vast amount of time and energy, money, hopes and aspirations that was IFWP went down the toilet - which is a real shame as it was a significant body of work. Three proposals went in to the US government to form the new corporation. The IANA/NSI proposal drafted by Joe Sims and NSI, the Boston Working Group proposal (which is where the wrap-up meeting was to have been) which was a sane version of the NSI/ICANN proposal, and the ORSC proposal which was the BWG plan with greater fiscal responsibility and an existing corporate shell. Citing popular public support for the IANA/NSI plan it was selected - but if you read the public comments on the NTIA site carefully you'll see far less support than implied and much of it was tentative, frankly. A board materialized out if thin air, selected because they didn't know anything about DNS. So what went wrong? Was the original ICANN plan flawed or were the people just the wrong choices? I suggest that if Karl Aurbach and 9 people like him has been the original board we would not now be even talking about DNS; the board appointed from in high did not represent the Internet community whatsoever and instead represented telco, government and trademark special interests. It is believed the concessions made so that foreign government supported the "green paper" was that they got to pick certain members of the board. The first big clue there was trouble was when the board missed it's deadline to define a process for their replacement and simply extended their jobs; they should have been gone over two years ago now.

So what have we learned from this? In my opinion, no group that says "we're in charge" really is; respect is earned, not asserted and I think this was the great failing of both IAHC and ICANN. So while I generally like Weinstein, Newman and Farber, I do distrust the IAB to some extent based on previous debacles like the Boston Tea party where they were thrown out for claiming OSI and not TCP/IP was the way to go. The ISOC is another non-starter, it's wanted to get it's hands on the DNS for over a decade and has been a great supporter of the authoritarian regimes of both IAHC and ICANN. The key, I believe, is not some group claiming they should be in charge or that they have all the answers - nobody does - but the good old fashioned and time proven method of Internet collaborative cooperation. And this means actually doing it, not paying lip service to it like ICANN did. Oh and cut out the 5 star hotels and first class Concorde flights.

Is this about Internet governance? No. Absolutely not. In it's most basic form this is nothing more than an institutionalized debate between Dave Crocker and Karl Denninger in 1986 taken to it's logical conclusion. But it's nothing to do with governance of the Internet. Face it, if all you do is read and write email and/or usenet news, and play on ISC or muck about on the web, you may never have heard of ICANN and it certainly has zero effect on you. This is just about new top level domains, period; the IP addresses have virtually all been handed over to the regional registries and the port allocations are handles by somebody than CAN add one to a number and write it down on a piece of paper.

But didn't ICANN break up NSI ? Nope. That was Ira Magaziners plan executed through the Department of Commerce. You don't really think NSI gave in because ICANN though it was a good idea do you? What has ICANN really done in 4 years? They've knuckled under to WIPO and given us the horribly flawed UDRP and 7 really stupid TLDs that despite $2.$M worth of scrutiny still had huge problems to the point of being dragged into court over it.

What alternative roots exist? Quite a few actually, and while on the face of it you might think this would be a problem, but face it, if you can pick up your mail and get to Yahoo! then they work, and any of them will let you do that. The differences in them are what new TLDs they publish in their root zones. I need to disclaim right away that I coordinate, with Brian Reid's help, the ORSC root, and it's generally believed to have the greatest penetration and is certainly the longest continuously operating one. The barrier to entry it low: show us working TLD servers and we'll list you. Other notable ones are the TINC root which is operated by some old time Usenet people such as Peter da Silva which has a policy of one tld per entity, which I don't like think can be made to work (the now defunct eDNS tried this and it was found to be too easily worked around), PacROOT which in my opinion swings too far the other way with their NameSlinger client - I don't think I know the proper number of TLDS any entity should operate but I do know it's not in the hundreds if not thousands; this raises anti-trust issues, and OpenNIC which is pretty good but only has a small number of new TLDs. There is also NameSpace which believes they should run all tlds. This grates against the notion of the root as a collection of independantly run TLDs in my opinion. But, it doesn't matter to me which one people use as long as they use one of them. Vote with your nameservers - it is in nobody's interest to break anything and using any of these roots will let you see all current DNS names and a whole universe of new ones although how many depends on which one you pick.

Why do we still use root servers? Now this is where it gets interesting. What if the US Government suddenly shut off the legacy root servers? 90% of the net would feel some sort of perturbation immediately especially since at least one TLD (.SE) is name-served directly from the root (not TLD!) servers as are many in-addr.arpa delegations. As the TTLs to TLD servers expired, users of the legacy root would not be able to resolve any DNS names. But, people that use other root servers would be immune to the demise of the legacy roots (modulo one of Swedens 7 .SE nameservers of course) but an even better tactic in my opinion is to primary the root zone for yourself. Then, any or all root servers could be shut off and you wouldn't notice a thing. This would leave you with one remaining problem and that is where could you get the root zone from. Your upstream might be a good place or as DJB has suggested, a cryptographically signed root zone could be posted to usenet periodically. This has the inherent advantage of being out of band of TCP/IP; that is, even a UUCP connection could inject the zone into the news stream. That's one answer to "how do you bootstrap DNS without DNS".

Do I think ORSC should be the next ICANN as the ICANNWATCH poll suggests? No and hell no! Nobody should be in charge, and given that the net and the DNS itself is edge controlled - that is, whoever has the root password to a nameserver determines what dns names exist and what don't - any model that asserts a central authority is doomed to fail. There is need for coordination, but not authority.

Vote with your nameserver; vote early and vote often.

Richard Sexton
March 19, 2002

I think there are a few things amiss with the pfir plan and I'd like to suggest and comment on some alternatives and have a few comments about our continues use of 20th century DNS.

Look back at the creation of ICANN and it's not difficult to see why it has failed. The timeline goes something like this: when the Wired article came out in 1994 where Joshua Quittner reported he registered mcdonalds.com and McDonalds didn't want it he ended up selling it to Burger King. At the time InterNIC registrations were taking about 3 days. This shot up to 11 weeks in a matter of days. The NSF, who funded NSI to run the InterNIC, did not feel it's role, which is to foster academic and scientific advancement, included subsidizing deodorant.com and the like, so, it asked the FNCAC to do something. What they did was instruct the NSF to tell NSI to begin charging for domains. This caught the Internet community rather off guard and discussion ensued on a "newdom" mailing list (whose archives can be found here). Several forces came into play. First was the rift between the group that felt they too could run a TLD and the group that though this should be run from a great big central registry. The latter became the IAHC/CORE thing while the former became the first alternative root. The US Government shut down the IAHC and began it's own proceedings: the white paper was produced. Other governments, most notably in the form of Paul Twoomey from Australia
and Chris Wilkinson from the EU balked at the plan and the revised plan, the green paper took out the language about creating 5 new TLDs immediately (thereby throwing each conflicted group at least one bone). At the time Mikki Barry and Kathy Kleinman suggested in Becky Burr's office that a set of global meetings take place, not to decide answers to tough problems, but to determine just where there was consensus on the various issues. This became the IFWP forum and 3 meetings were held in Reston Va., Geneva, and Singapore. There was to be a followup meeting to merge these consensus points into a framework for the new corporation that was to replace IANA. While this was happening, NSI and IANA were negotiating, and Ira Magaziner, Clinton's senior science advisor and Roger Cochetti, a VP of IBM were running around selecting a new board. The IFWP wrap up meeting never happened, it was scuttled by Mike Roberts (suspicion is high he had been told be would be president) and the vast amount of time and energy, money, hopes and aspirations that was IFWP went down the toilet - which is a real shame as it was a significant body of work. Three proposals went in to the US government to form the new corporation. The IANA/NSI proposal drafted by Joe Sims and NSI, the Boston Working Group proposal (which is where the wrap-up meeting was to have been) which was a sane version of the NSI/ICANN proposal, and the ORSC proposal which was the BWG plan with greater fiscal responsibility and an existing corporate shell. Citing popular public support for the IANA/NSI plan it was selected - but if you read the public comments on the NTIA site carefully you'll see far less support than implied and much of it was tentative, frankly. A board materialized out if thin air, selected because they didn't know anything about DNS. So what went wrong? Was the original ICANN plan flawed or were the people just the wrong choices? I suggest that if Karl Aurbach and 9 people like him has been the original board we would not now be even talking about DNS; the board appointed from in high did not represent the Internet community whatsoever and instead represented telco, government and trademark special interests. It is believed the concessions made so that foreign government supported the "green paper" was that they got to pick certain members of the board. The first big clue there was trouble was when the board missed it's deadline to define a process for their replacement and simply extended their jobs; they should have been gone over two years ago now.

So what have we learned from this? In my opinion, no group that says "we're in charge" really is; respect is earned, not asserted and I think this was the great failing of both IAHC and ICANN. So while I generally like Weinstein, Newman and Farber, I do distrust the IAB to some extent based on previous debacles like the Boston Tea party where they were thrown out for claiming OSI and not TCP/IP was the way to go. The ISOC is another non-starter, it's wanted to get it's hands on the DNS for over a decade and has been a great supporter of the authoritarian regimes of both IAHC and ICANN. The key, I believe, is not some group claiming they should be in charge or that they have all the answers - nobody does - but the good old fashioned and time proven method of Internet collaborative cooperation. And this means actually doing it, not paying lip service to it like ICANN did. Oh and cut out the 5 star hotels and first class Concorde flights.

Is this about Internet governance? No. Absolutely not. In it's most basic form this is nothing more than an institutionalized debate between Dave Crocker and Karl Denninger in 1986 taken to it's logical conclusion. But it's nothing to do with governance of the Internet. Face it, if all you do is read and write email and/or usenet news, and play on ISC or muck about on the web, you may never have heard of ICANN and it certainly has zero effect on you. This is just about new top level domains, period; the IP addresses have virtually all been handed over to the regional registries and the port allocations are handles by somebody than CAN add one to a number and write it down on a piece of paper.

But didn't ICANN break up NSI ? Nope. That was Ira Magaziners plan executed through the Department of Commerce. You don't really think NSI gave in because ICANN though it was a good idea do you? What has ICANN really done in 4 years? They've knuckled under to WIPO and given us the horribly flawed UDRP and 7 really stupid TLDs that despite $2.$M worth of scrutiny still had huge problems to the point of being dragged into court over it.

What alternative roots exist? Quite a few actually, and while on the face of it you might think this would be a problem, but face it, if you can pick up your mail and get to Yahoo! then they work, and any of them will let you do that. The differences in them are what new TLDs they publish in their root zones. I need to disclaim right away that I coordinate, with Brian Reid's help, the ORSC root, and it's generally believed to have the greatest penetration and is certainly the longest continuously operating one. The barrier to entry it low: show us working TLD servers and we'll list you. Other notable ones are the TINC root which is operated by some old time Usenet people such as Peter da Silva which has a policy of one tld per entity, which I don't like think can be made to work (the now defunct eDNS tried this and it was found to be too easily worked around), PacROOT which in my opinion swings too far the other way with their NameSlinger client - I don't think I know the proper number of TLDS any entity should operate but I do know it's not in the hundreds if not thousands; this raises anti-trust issues, and OpenNIC which is pretty good but only has a small number of new TLDs. There is also NameSpace which believes they should run all tlds. This grates against the notion of the root as a collection of independantly run TLDs in my opinion. But, it doesn't matter to me which one people use as long as they use one of them. Vote with your nameservers - it is in nobody's interest to break anything and using any of these roots will let you see all current DNS names and a whole universe of new ones although how many depends on which one you pick.

Why do we still use root servers? Now this is where it gets interesting. What if the US Government suddenly shut off the legacy root servers? 90% of the net would feel some sort of perturbation immediately especially since at least one TLD (.SE) is name-served directly from the root (not TLD!) servers as are many in-addr.arpa delegations. As the TTLs to TLD servers expired, users of the legacy root would not be able to resolve any DNS names. But, people that use other root servers would be immune to the demise of the legacy roots (modulo one of Swedens 7 .SE nameservers of course) but an even better tactic in my opinion is to primary the root zone for yourself. Then, any or all root servers could be shut off and you wouldn't notice a thing. This would leave you with one remaining problem and that is where could you get the root zone from. Your upstream might be a good place or as DJB has suggested, a cryptographically signed root zone could be posted to usenet periodically. This has the inherent advantage of being out of band of TCP/IP; that is, even a UUCP connection could inject the zone into the news stream. That's one answer to "how do you bootstrap DNS without DNS".

Do I think ORSC should be the next ICANN as the ICANNWATCH poll suggests? No and hell no! Nobody should be in charge, and given that the net and the DNS itself is edge controlled - that is, whoever has the root password to a nameserver determines what dns names exist and what don't - any model that asserts a central authority is doomed to fail. There is need for coordination, but not authority.

Vote with your nameserver; vote early and vote often.

Richard Sexton
March 19, 2002

The only sanctions remaining on India and Pakistan are restrictions on exports to Indian and Pakistani entities of nuclear or missile proliferation.

In case you think your copy of Mozilla supports view source correctly you might want to try this. Just click Go! and select view source. Does the source look like it belongs to page you're viewing? Please don't go to bug #55583 unless you really have to. We don't want bugzilla to be slashdotted again.

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

Hey, I just sent an email message to this guy email pointing out that Verisign is cybersquating and the Dept of Commerce has an obligation to do something about it or else they are breaking US law.

My proposal was that they should release names on a published schedule.

Hey, I just sent an email message to this guy email pointing out that Verisign is cybersquating and the Dept of Commerce has an obligation to do something about it or else they are breaking US law.

My proposal was that they should release names on a published schedule.

A 500mhz G4 (PPC 7400) can do 3084 MTOPS.
A 733mhz G4 (PPC 7450) can do 9406 MTOPS.

Ok, so this is technically from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, but it's rather interesting, it's called 'Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion' and examines the statistics of internet and computer use among various groups (income, geography, education, and so on) which includes those with some sort of disability.

Anyways, this link (it's a large page, be patient) is the start of the section on people with disabilities. Scroll down a bit and you'll come to the section labeled 'Definitions' which states that an estimated 45 million (21.8% of the estimated population 16 and over) had some sort of disability.

Ok... so big numbers... You truly don't know that many blind people or people in wheel chairs? Right? Well, scroll down a bit more to Box III-2 (or use this link as it's a GIF) and you'll see that disabilities isn't all that you think.

Ok, so some are going a bit far (I'd personally say the second last item about stress should apply to me :) but as you can see, they aren't necessarily readilly apparent.