ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
Although I reserve comment on some of the specific recommendation offered by the author, this is an otherwise extremely timely, well-articulated view into the history of ICANN to present written by the former Chair of the General Assembly. http://www.icannworld.org P.S. Yes Virgina, the resultant outcome of this mess could actually affect how you configure your router(s) some day.... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Patrick wrote:
P.S. Yes Virgina, the resultant outcome of this mess could actually affect how you configure your router(s) some day....
Which leads me to ask again why large ISPs are taking such passive position? They are the only party with resources, expertise, long history of cooperation, huge interest in keeping Internet stable, and, finally, the power to direct traffic to whatever root nameservers they choose (even if it means injecting few host routes in their BGP tables). A self-appointed "governance" bodies, frankly, have no business in deciding how Internet should be ran. They got no interest in it but as means for self-perpetuating. The whole registration & name allocation process can be completely automated, and very cheap. The silly dispute-resoultion policies are not, in fact, needed if few rules are enforced automatically: 1) first-come first-served registration 2) credit-card payment _only_, with payer's address in the country of the domain, and issued by a bank accredited in the country. 3) publishing of verified payer information (i.e. credit card holder's name and address) 4) exponential fee increments for registering domains with the same payer's physical address and/or name. 5) voluntary re-assignment of domain names. 6) forced reassignment of domain names if owner on record fails to respond to (rate-limited) dispute notifications made by any party through the registry's system. Such responces must include re-validation of payer's name & address (using the credit cards, again). 7) periodic automatic renewal, with e-mail notifications. It is responsibility of the domain holder to keep contact information up to date. The rule 1 is the basic algorithm. The rules 2 and 3 validate contact information and point to a real person or registered corporation, so they can be easily traced down if a dispute arises. Perpetuating "international" TLDs like .COM makes no sense whatsoever; existing foreighn domain name holders may have a grace period to migrate to national domains or to secure a credit card for payment in US. This problem does not exist with ISO-3166 domains. The rule 4 is, obviously, designed to take care of squatters. They can get only as many credit cards with different addresses before triggering alarms of financial supervision bodies. The rule 5 is the usual method of ending a dispute. An appropriate court of law (they know their jurisdictions, and have methods of resolving jurisdictional disputes) issues a transfer order, and the old domain holder complies with the order. If he doesn't this is a contempt of court, and the state has means to enforce futher compliance. One of the recourses against unreacheable parties is invalidation of their payment instruments (i.e. credit cards). The rule 6 takes care of reassignment of dormant domains and non-cooperating unreacheable parties (following court-ordered of invalidation of their payment instruments). Because such invalidation is carried out in the same country as the registry, and registry accepts only payments with instruments issued by banks in the same national jurisdiction, the national courts can take effective measures to force payment-based validation to fail. The rule 7 is also quite obvious. None of those rules require any manual processing or registry's involvement in the dispute resolution. By the virtue of being automatic, they also strengthen registry's protection from liability claims (i.e. registry does not make decisions who should own what while providing a method of recourse through existing legal system). --vadim
4) exponential fee increments for registering domains with the same payer's physical address and/or name.
Yeah so I don't like this suggestion at all. What if a company has several business units each with its own domain name, with the same address, and with a shared accounting department. Or an ISP that offers to pay for its customers domain if they prepay for a year. Or someone like me who owns several domains? Nope I really dont' like this suggestion, the other ones seem to be more thought out. -Vince
What right does the government have in preventing people from having multiple domains and trading/selling them? Thats none of your (or) the government's business. ----- Original Message ----- From: <vince@penguin-power.com> To: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:22 AM Subject: Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
4) exponential fee increments for registering domains with the same payer's physical address and/or name.
Yeah so I don't like this suggestion at all. What if a company has several
Nope I really dont' like this suggestion, the other ones seem to be more
business units each with its own domain name, with the same address, and with a shared accounting department. Or an ISP that offers to pay for its customers domain if they prepay for a year. Or someone like me who owns several domains? thought out.
-Vince
You can always have as many domains as you wish -- inside your zone. Short words is a scarce resource, and therefore their use must be rationed in some way. The pure market approach (i.e. selling them for flat rate) doesn't seem to be sufficient for squatter deterrence (they nearly always lose in court, but this may be prohibitively expensive for those who have legitimate reasons for obtaining those domain names). --vadim On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
What right does the government have in preventing people from having multiple domains and trading/selling them? Thats none of your (or) the government's business.
----- Original Message ----- From: <vince@penguin-power.com> To: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:22 AM Subject: Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
4) exponential fee increments for registering domains with the same payer's physical address and/or name.
Yeah so I don't like this suggestion at all. What if a company has several
Nope I really dont' like this suggestion, the other ones seem to be more
business units each with its own domain name, with the same address, and with a shared accounting department. Or an ISP that offers to pay for its customers domain if they prepay for a year. Or someone like me who owns several domains? thought out.
-Vince
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com> To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog@adns.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:49 PM Subject: Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
You can always have as many domains as you wish -- inside your zone. Short words is a scarce resource, and therefore their use must be rationed in some way.
Thats up to the TLD holder to decide, not for some regulatory body that claims to have the right to control what all TLD Holders do. Thats why we have multiple root server networks now, because ICANN wont recognize established TLDs unless these registries sign their lives away (and the rights/lives of their registrars and registrants) to ICANN. ICANN is a monopoly at the root level. In its current form, it MUST die if the internet is to remain free. The proposed new form is even more hideous. We operate one of the ORSC root servers (H.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC) and have seen a FIVE FOLD increase in traffic since the "big announcement" yesterday.
The pure market approach (i.e. selling them for flat rate) doesn't seem to be sufficient for squatter deterrence (they nearly always lose in court, but this may be prohibitively expensive for those who have legitimate reasons for obtaining those domain names).
Squatter = = someone who swipes a domain name that is someone else's trademark. I'm not talking about those. There are people who register common words like HOUSES.USA and GREEN.EARTH. There is nothing wrong with that. Our registry WILL NOT impose unneccessary restrictions on our customers.
--vadim
John
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote: Vadim, Without sounding condecending, I think your view of this is rather simplistic. The automatic assumption that ISPs can serve this role is wrong at its very basis, since each ISP is first and foremost interested in making money. If not, it wont last. With this set of priorities, an ISP cannot hold this function. I can go on about this topic for quite a long time, but since it's NANOG, I'll spare you all, and Vadim and I can take it to private channels. --Ariel -- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
ISPs have interest in making money, right. To make money they have to provide a useful service to customer. Internet w/o functioning DNS is not useful. Therefore ISPs have quite strong interest in keeping DNS infrastructure running. The ICANN silliness in regard to dispute resolution policies left registrars exposed to various kinds of litigation, which can concievably cause serious disruptions in name service operation. Besides, ISPs spend significant amount of resources helping their customers to deal with Network Solutions and other registrars. It is all costs, and no gain. --vadim On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ariel Biener wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Vadim,
Without sounding condecending, I think your view of this is rather simplistic. The automatic assumption that ISPs can serve this role is wrong at its very basis, since each ISP is first and foremost interested in making money. If not, it wont last. With this set of priorities, an ISP cannot hold this function.
I can go on about this topic for quite a long time, but since it's NANOG, I'll spare you all, and Vadim and I can take it to private channels.
--Ariel
-- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:36:31 PST, Vadim Antonov said:
1) first-come first-served registration
Unfortunately, the concept is totally borked right here, mostly because of the use of DNS as a yellow-pages. Two companies that own trademarks in different fields of business both have to register under .COM (ok, so they *could* register under .US - hah), with the obvious outcomes we've known to love and enjoy (Anybody remember who the *original* owner of abc.com was?) There's no way you can pile 23 million (or however many it is now) things into one level of namespace and actually expect people to play nicely. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
At 12:18 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:36:31 PST, Vadim Antonov said:
1) first-come first-served registration
Unfortunately, the concept is totally borked right here, mostly because of the use of DNS as a yellow-pages. Two companies that own trademarks in different fields of business both have to register under .COM (ok, so they *could* register under .US - hah), with the obvious outcomes we've known to love and enjoy (Anybody remember who the *original* owner of abc.com was?)
That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for identical flat space. This unique naming thing is all fine and good, but it is highly explosive/toxic within a confined space - especially one that is artificially constrained. The name space is fortunately flexible enough to accommodate competing companies and identical marks. The alt.roots have already provided a working proof of concept without all the B.S. I'd even to so far as to say Randy Bush's recent description of an ideal ICANN ("icann only needs to a) coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs, b) maintain the root zone file, c) slowly try to get MOUs with the folk icann actually serves") describes ORSC far better than it does ICANN.
There's no way you can pile 23 million (or however many it is now) things into one level of namespace and actually expect people to play nicely.
Aw... now you're preaching to the choir... ;-) Best Regards, Simon -- ###
Simon, On 2/26/02 11:49 AM, "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com> wrote:
That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for identical flat space.
Most people want to be able to get to the same server when they type the same domain name from two different places. Sorry this doesn't conform with the way you want things to work. Rgds, -drc
David, At 06:13 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On 2/26/02 11:49 AM, "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com> wrote:
That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for identical flat space.
Most people want to be able to get to the same server when they type the same domain name from two different places.
Yes. That's how it's supposed to work. What exactly is your point here?
Sorry this doesn't conform with the way you want things to work.
Um... actually it does. You must be reading the Cliff notes for either Kent Crispin's "Complete Idiot's Guide to Alt.Roots", or Stuart Lynn's "The Emperor's Dress Code." The bottom line is that expanding the name space with additional TLDs solves this problem. Then "Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for identical flat space" - because they are each given unique space. Duh! Holding onto an artificially constrained flat space makes things worse. It's a really bad, bad, bad idea. Why would you even consider supporting such a thing? Best Regards, Simon -- DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:36:31 PST, Vadim Antonov said:
1) first-come first-served registration
Unfortunately, the concept is totally borked right here, mostly because of the use of DNS as a yellow-pages. Two companies that own trademarks in different fields of business both have to register under .COM (ok, so they *could* register under .US - hah), with the obvious outcomes we've known to love and enjoy (Anybody remember who the *original* owner of abc.com was?)
There's no way you can pile 23 million (or however many it is now) things into one level of namespace and actually expect people to play nicely.
Yep, I agree. Replacing DNS completely with hyperlinks from various directories would be a good thing. But, unfortunately, most of the existing software won't work w/o DNS. --vadim
Although debating the latest personal diatribes about ICANN may be entertaining, there's a closer threat on the horizon: HR 1542 is up for vote tomorrow! http://www.newnetworks.com/TauzinDingellisevil.htm Have you called your representative(s)? Have you asked your customers to call/email theirs? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Shouldn't the Tauzin/Dingell Bill really be renamed "2002 Death of the CLEC Act"? This is just plain bad legislation anyway you cut it. -dan "The opinions are mine and not my employer's" -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of William Allen Simpson Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:55 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Tauzin-Dingell (was ICANN) Although debating the latest personal diatribes about ICANN may be entertaining, there's a closer threat on the horizon: HR 1542 is up for vote tomorrow! http://www.newnetworks.com/TauzinDingellisevil.htm Have you called your representative(s)? Have you asked your customers to call/email theirs? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Although debating the latest personal diatribes about ICANN may be entertaining, there's a closer threat on the horizon:
Thankfully it's not an OR operation...
HR 1542 is up for vote tomorrow!
http://www.newnetworks.com/TauzinDingellisevil.htm
Have you called your representative(s)?
I did, and hope all you do too. Took all of 30 seconds(you should have a brief one or two sentences on your position.) There is a link off of the site William offered that will help you locate your representative. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Last week, I told you about the bill allowing ILECs to stop selling us lines for "high speed" networks, HR 1542. http://www.newnetworks.com/TauzinDingellisevil.htm Unfortunately, it passed the House, and now we have to kill it in the Senate. Well, here's what Dingell said about CLECs and ISPs on the House floor: "There has been a great deal of whining and complaining by a group of monopolists, would-be monopolists and parasites who do not want the legislation. " [Congressional Record, Page: H573, Time: 11:45] There is a chance to defeat this joker in the August Michigan primary. Lynn Rivers is redistricted together with him, and she has a small lead in the polling (at this time). Lynn lives near Merit in Ann Arbor, and has been supportive of ISP and Internet issues for as long as I've known her. (I'm very biased, I first met her when she invited Honeyman and I to participate in an Internet privacy roundtable 7+ years ago.) However, Dingell has gotten a lot of money from the big 4 ILECs -- they are his biggest contributors, even bigger than auto companies. Most of his contributions are from PACs (merely 9 individual contributions from people that could vote for him last reporting period). He'll be spending big bucks on TV time. That could turn things around for him. Lynn actually has taken very little PAC money over the years. Most of her donations are from thousands of individuals from her district. ISPs are going to have to step up to the plate and help. I know that ISPs in Michigan are working on this, but we need some sort of national effort to defeat a national problem. It's time again for us "parasites" to swarm together. http://www.rivers4congress.com/ -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
In my earlier message, I used a "political term-of-art" incorrectly. Lynn Rivers has a "demographic" advantage in her race with Dingell. Also, Rivers for Congress does take PAC money and some PACs have been very helpful in past years. But she relies on individual contributions to a greater degree than most Congressional campaigners. There, now the lawyers will rest more easily.... and you were bored with trivia. Sorry. The point remains, ISPs need to band together on these political issues before we are crushed. AFAIK, the only organization we've joined (ISP/C) doesn't do that sort of thing. Is there a group that does? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Both the California ISP Association (www.cispa.org) and the American ISP Association (www.aispa.org) are active on this issue. You can contact/join one of these to coordinate. CISPA is a California group only in the sense that there was a critical mass of ISPs getting steamrolled by SBC Pacific Bell in California that decided they had to work together. Cooperation with ISPs outside Ca. are absolutely welcome. CISPA has a mailing list for members that is active on a daily basis lately with political issues. It's still news to me that Dingell is up for re-election. Brian Curnow SONNET Networking LLC On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, William Allen Simpson wrote:
In my earlier message, I used a "political term-of-art" incorrectly. Lynn Rivers has a "demographic" advantage in her race with Dingell.
Also, Rivers for Congress does take PAC money and some PACs have been very helpful in past years. But she relies on individual contributions to a greater degree than most Congressional campaigners.
There, now the lawyers will rest more easily.... and you were bored with trivia. Sorry.
The point remains, ISPs need to band together on these political issues before we are crushed. AFAIK, the only organization we've joined (ISP/C) doesn't do that sort of thing. Is there a group that does?
-- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
You may think about talking to other types of organizations as well outside of ISP associations. Some of the associations, and whether they supported or opposed the bill, are listed at http://www.cybertelecom.org/legis/legis.htm#hr1542 You may also wish to talk to the Texas ISP Association TISPA Does ISPC still exist? --- bcurnow <bcurnow@sonnet.com> wrote:
Both the California ISP Association (www.cispa.org) and the American ISP Association (www.aispa.org) are active on this issue. You can contact/join one of these to coordinate.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, William Allen Simpson wrote:
before we are crushed. AFAIK, the only
organization we've joined
(ISP/C) doesn't do that sort of thing. Is there a group that does?
===== | Washington Internet Project | | www.cybertelecom.org | | cannon(a)cybertelecom.org | __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/
Thank you both for these excellent resources! For the rest of you, especially the two who didn't think this was a topic for this list, or were too "busy" to read the TauzinDingellisEvil link, please read the rest, where I explain why this directly affects how you configure your routers.... And for those of you in California, you had a primary on Tuesday. Yet, one of the few times you KNOW your legislator is listening, I'm told there were ZERO calls on this issue last week in Bay Area and Marin. Shame on you! This passed the US House by 273 to 157. It was bipartisan (you cannot blame it on a particular party.) Find out what your US Senator's position is on this bill! Robert Cannon wrote:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/legis/legis.htm#hr1542
You may also wish to talk to the Texas ISP Association TISPA
--- bcurnow <bcurnow@sonnet.com> wrote:
Both the California ISP Association (www.cispa.org) and the American ISP Association (www.aispa.org) are active on this issue.
Remember when ISDN was rolled out, the ILECs wanted to charge more for data than voice? So, we (I) defined the IETF standard so that it could run equally well over 56K voice channels.... This bill makes that illegal. For the first time, it says that data is different from voice, and the ILECs can monitor how we use the wires, and charge differently. When setting rates, terms and conditions, "high speed data service shall be deemed a nondominant service." That is, they can require huge installation charges, among other nastiness. With NO oversight by your state, and no recourse other than suing them for years. You don't offer ISDN? Remember, PRIs are ISDN. The ILECs hate the CLECs selling PRIs over unbundled ILEC wires, so this bill says that they no longer have to provision them, until the ILEC offers the same service. So much for our "agility" as small competitors.... Still using ILEC PRI? They no longer have to provision the service. If they do, they no longer have to charge you the same rate that they charge their wholly owned subsidiary, your competitor. Offer DSL? They no longer have to allow you to connect your own DSLAM to their wiring. (However, a late amendment specifically allows you to build your own "remote terminal" next to theirs instead, in their right-of-way. Presumably, you can run your own wiring to your customers.) Running DSL over so-called alarm circuits to bypass the CO? They can refuse to provision, and can charge anything they want. States would no longer be able to regulate. Resell ILEC DSL? You have 3 years. Nice that they allow a special transition period -- for most things it is whatever was "in effect on May 24, 2001," or "the expiration date of the existing current term contained in such agreement on the date of enactment of this section, without regard to any extension or renewal of such agreement". So, get those 2,3,5 year agreements in writing! You only use T1s and above? "The term `high speed data service' means any service that consists of or includes the offering of a capability to transmit, using a packet-switched or successor technology, information at a rate that is generally not less than 384 kilobits per second in at least one direction." Looks like that includes you. Basically, "freedom of choice" is laid out as "access to any Internet service provider that interconnects with such carrier's high speed data service". We are all, by law, about to become resellers of ILEC data service. Just think, you might not need to configure any routers -- forever more. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Bill, I don't think people objected so much to the note about the specific issue relating to the bill as they did you campaigning against a member of Congress. It would be good if you could stick to the issue and not the person. Eliot
Also sprach Eliot Lear
I don't think people objected so much to the note about the specific issue relating to the bill as they did you campaigning against a member of Congress. It would be good if you could stick to the issue and not the person.
I'm honestly surprised that anyone thinks that these two things can be separated on this issue. Sad, but true. William and others: the Kentucky ISP Association has some activity regarding issues along these lines. My co-worker that works with KYISPA is *very* active in regulatory and legislative actions. http://www.kyispa.org I don't feel comfortable posting my co-workers email address on the list as i haven't spoken with him about doing so. Feel free to contact me and I'll get you in touch with him. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:34:59 -0500 From: Jeff Mcadams <jeffm@iglou.com>
I'm honestly surprised that anyone thinks that these two things can be separated on this issue. Sad, but true.
Agreed, alas. What's scary is how short-sighted (IMHO) some of the Congress are... I met Senator Brownback (KS) in 1999 or 2000, and asked some questions re his standing on Telecommunications legislation. In short, his attitude was "let the market forces work things out, just like they did in the last several years". No interest in UNEs, who was classified as an ILEC, etc. -- nor do I think any real understanding. Market forces brought competition? The Bells just opened their networks? Huh? As much as I, too, hate to see NANOG degenerate into a political forum, I think some awareness is necessary. Maybe ISPs should write some "Local ISP Predicts Increasing Cost of Internet Access" press releases? Remember, keep it factual, and attribute opinions to their holders... but the individuals who will be affected -- access and hosting customers -- need to hear more than one "interpretation" of what this legislation means. The funny thing is that many of us NANOGers are skilled enough that, assuming a reasonable market, we _could_ find work in a non-ISP environment if ILECs have their way. Yes, many have more than jobs (read: ownership in a company) at stake, but... all in all, could make it through. Not that I'd like that to happen, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Just that Internet access customers would get the worst deal of anyone... The thing is, we independent "whiners" aren't even asking to be subsidized by tax dollars, to outlaw any competitor that comes to town, or to have Big Brother ensure our profitability. Many of us are just as willing to sell unbundled services as we are to consume them. Is a single standard for all too much to ask? <frustrated thought> Ah, let the bill pass. Everyone just tell your customers "your prices are going up and your service down when we are forced out of business by the RBOC-driven legislation". Have people mark your words, and let people face the consequences of a Congress that was swayed by the Bells. </frustrated thought> Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence -- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Eliot Lear wrote:
I don't think people objected so much to the note about the specific issue relating to the bill as they did you campaigning against a member of Congress. It would be good if you could stick to the issue and not the person.
Actually, very few (2) objected. But I have 5 private thank yous. OTOH that means a couple of thousand of you are uninvolved/apathetic. Whether we like it or not, politicians rarely respond to high minded debate. Bills are sponsored by persons. We have a rare opportunity to help kick one of the biggest fatcats out of Congress, the longest serving member, who has been in Congress longer than I've been alive, and who happens to be in the pockets of our worst "competitors". Also, for me, this is a local race, so I care a lot about its outcome, and hope I can make a difference. I've explained why you should care, too. I rarely tell this group about political issues that directly concern us -- roughly twice a year -- and then only in a week where action is actually needed. Engineers should not bury their heads in the sand, especially when it so severely concerns our livelihood. I wish there was something we could do about Turncoat Tauzin. (He's a party switcher, but his own voters kept him in office, incumbency and name recognition count for more than party identity these days). We _could_ be able to defeat Dingell. It's probably the last time we'll have such an opportunity. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Thank you both for these excellent resources!
thanks to everyone for all of the information on this issue. i for one appreciate the varied discussions on this list, touching on many aspects of network operations, including major political events/actions.
This passed the US House by 273 to 157. It was bipartisan (you cannot blame it on a particular party.)
Find out what your US Senator's position is on this bill!
you can at least check how s/he voted, if you know your senator's name: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=45 deeann m.m. mikula director of operations telerama public access internet http://www.telerama.com * 412.688.3200
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 03:21:06PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
[...] much ranting deleted
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with turning NANOG into a political tirade? Opposing legislation is one thing, turning it into an opportunity to elect your favorite candidate is another. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 03:21:06PM -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
[...] much ranting deleted
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with turning NANOG into a political tirade? Opposing legislation is one thing, turning it into an opportunity to elect your favorite candidate is another.
I agree. I think that NANOG is in no way the appropriate forum for discussion of a particular candidate. I do, however, feel that those in our industry need to be more politically active, especially with regard to legislation such as this. In fact, Mr. Simpson may have a good idea about the formation of ISP political lobby, but NANOG shouldn't be it. -Mike
participants (18)
-
Ariel Biener -
bcurnow -
Daniel Lark -
David Conrad -
deeann mikula -
E.B. Dreger -
Eliot Lear -
Jeff Mcadams -
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) -
Mike Joseph -
Patrick -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Robert Cannon -
Simon Higgs -
Vadim Antonov -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
vince＠penguin-power.com -
William Allen Simpson