Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
Eric - the answer is simple - the governments of the world force the Long
Lines Provides and Inter-country providers to use NAT Gateways instead of
Big Cisco Routers as their points of national demarcation and then it
becomes much easier.
The problems with the Internet and its lack of enforceability are mostly due
to the mechanical aspects of how it was put together and that the
ISP's/carriers have been let to run openloop, including ICANN's Protocol
Standards Orgs., which also run open loop. Now in the interest of national
security and real eBorders this is something that must change.
----- Original Message -----
To: "Joe Baptista" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "todd glassey" <email@example.com>; "Jeff Williams"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "vinton g. cerf" <email@example.com>;
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Lynn" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Nancy J. Victory"
<email@example.com>; "Don Evans" <DEvans@doc.gov>; "cathy Handley"
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform
> Dear Dr. Joe,
> How do we block this threat of kiddie porn, or should we?
> I stand high on the principle of choice but not to that degree.
> I do not think Jim is working to create a bad scenario.
> Thinking especially outside of ICANN what can we do to make it all better?
> My three teenagers have a hard driven sense of morality that is more
> than mine but meets with general standards. We speak frequently and
> frequently about right and wrong. I do not think we can dictate morality
> ethics to those who do not engage in discourse about life in general.
> You normally stay the technical course but you have swayed into my area of
> You speak now of facts but do not offer guidance.
> What is your suggestion?
> Joe Baptista wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> > > If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for,
> > > they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> > > point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
> > > only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will
> > > the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is
> > > rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy
> > > If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4
> > > by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of
> > exactly. and i support your view of the chiness position. now i know
> > chiness are twice as smart as we give them credit for. so i would say
> > they would put some added catch 22 into the works that would favour
> > and possibly use a terrorist angle - which is all the fashion rage this
> > year i hear.
> > > Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
> > > oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon
> > > Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that
> > > is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
> > > despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to
> > i don't know about the right and need to do. in a perfect democracy no
> > eboarders are required.
> > > The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
> > > impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a
> > > boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint
> > > understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet,
> > > the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing
> > exactly and with satellite technology routing around governments is
> > elementary.
> > > If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not
> > > anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this
> > > Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.
> > i have some bad news. i have examined jim flemmings ipv8 and i would
> > be surprised if that protocol ends up as kiddie porn heaven. in fact
> > any group who does not want to be traced can use ipv8 to communicate
> > securly in secure user communities. it would put the power of napster
> > into the hands of kiddy porn sites and of course anyone else with an
> > interest in privacy. impossible to trace.
> > we live in interesting times. i understand thats a chiness curse too.
> > regards ;)
> > joe
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> > Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html