Re: Showdown with USA Over Internet Control

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:

formatting link

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,

formatting link

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 --

formatting link

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]