TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control

Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control

Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU)
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:17:35 -0800

I know that I am making a mistake by contradicting the tin-foil hat crowd
in public, but this latest bit of nonsense from Scott and Pat was far over
the top.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The same thing that SRI did, before ICANN existed. Disconnect sites
> that refuse to control their problem customers.

SRI *never* managed the Internet (or the ARPAnet before it). The only
thing that was at SRI was the Network Information Center (NIC) which
held the RFCs, the "official" (but widely disregarded) host table, and
later the master files for the root. That all ended over 15 years
ago.

The management of the network was in the hands of the US Department of
Defense, which could (and *did*) disconnect sites which failed to toe
the line. The first erosion of this was when ARPAnet and Milnet split
about 20 years ago, with DoD running Milnet as before and the rump
ARPAnet being run by civilian branches of the US government.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) took over that authority when
NSFnet started about 18 years ago; and promptly refused to exercise
it.

NSF presently took itself out of the loop in favor of for-profit
entities, and the US government disclaimed any authority over who
could connect to the network (there was quite a bit of discussion when
China was connected).

Then nobody ran the network.

> Very simple. The reason that spam exists is because some ISPs permit it.
> The reason that some ISPs permit it is because backbone sites permit it.

People who use such phrases as "very simple" tend to have more hot air
than knowledge at their disposal.

> Shutting off connectivity to kornet and thrunet would about halve
> the spam problem, right there.

Bullshit.

Not just bullshit, but irresponsible and smacking of racist bigotry.

Refer to:

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks.lasso

MCI is #1, more than two and a half times greater than #2 (SBC). Kornet
is down at #9, and thrunet isn't in the top 10.

More to the point,
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso
shows that the USA is the #1 spam origin country, at five times #2 (China)
and nine times #3 (South Korea).

> If ICANN took spam seriously, backbone sites would have to.

More bullshit. ICANN has no authority to decide who is or is not
connected.

Much of the paranoia about the US government and the Internet has been
over the specious claim that the US government would attempt to
exercise such authority over foreign networks. Never mind that the US
government essentially gave up any pretense of such authority in the
early 1990s.

The US government will not pull the plug on Iran or North Korea, much
less South Korea.

It needs to be emphasized to the international community (who have
expressed worries about the possibility of the US government pulling
plugs) that Scott and Pat are cranks whose opinions are not taken
seriously by either the US government or the US Internet community.

> Yes. [ICANN] can say "your service is not appropriate and therefore we
> refuse to allow bulkemail.com (a former uunet customer) to receive
> DNS." Furthermore, they can shut off the uunet dns until uunet gets
> their spam problem under control.

Please point to the clause in ICANN's charter from the US DOC that
gives it that remarkable level of authority.

> JUST like Postel did with problem customers back in the days when he
> ran the name server.

I knew Jon Postel personally. He did no such thing.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: __Thank you very much__ for speaking
> the truth on this, something which seems to be in very short
> supply where the liars at ICANN and their mouthpiece Vint Cerf are
> concerned.

Pat, take off your tin foil hat. It isn't shielding you from the
"rays". If anything, it's amplifying them.

By using TELECOM as your personal political forum, you are ruining its
credibility and usefulness as a resource.

> I have said time and time again that spam could be cut
> back considerably if ICANN would just make it happen.

Repeating nonsense "time and time again" does not make it true.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How _very_ typical it is, that when
one disagrees with these 'experts' they respond furiously, with
insult after insult. Mark, are you _certain_ (as your .sig notes) that
'science does not emerge from voting, party politics or public
debate'? How odd ... considering the number of scientists in the
employ of various government agencies, and universities, etc. But
thanks very much for writing. I needed the abuse today. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Seth Breidbart: "Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control"
Go to Previous message: John McHarry: "Re: Voicepulse Owns Your Number"
May be in reply to: Andy Sullivan: "Showdown with USA Over Internet Control"
Next in thread: Seth Breidbart: "Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page