| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Anonymous ICANNwatch Messages Considered Harmful?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 65 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
ICANNwatch Should Convert to WIKI Format
For people like Mr. Tobias, who apparently choose
to live in a small, narrow-minded, world where only
that which HE KNOWS exists, a WIKI Format is a
collaborative web-site where people can edit the
messages, notes, etc. and easily link them to
each other. The Time-of-Posting Dominance is
removed. The usefulness and linkages become what
help preserve the Best-of-Breed information.
Vanity Blogs have the similar Time-of-Posting
Dominance attribute. Some important piece of
news, posted last month, can be lost by the
latest author's drivel about their summer
vacation.
Since WIKI is a 4-letter word, and since
Mr. Tobias can not imagine any TLDs not blessed
by Jon Postel's cronies, one has to hesitate
mentioning the .WIKI TLD, where web-sites are
AutoMagically Converted to WIKI Format.
See http://www.ICANNwatch.WIKI
Oooops, so sorry, Vinton Cerf has decided that
4-letter TLDs do not work. The .WIKI TLD has
been banned from the root zone.
See http://www.ICANNwatch.CAT
to see a plain-text ASCII dump of the ICANNwatch
web-site contents, using the UNIX "cat" command.
"cat" stands for conCATenate.
Ooooops, so sorry, Jon Postel's cronies have
decided that the .CAT TLD is not to be used in
that manner. The name ICANNwatch.CAT is not
allowed in the DNS. The empire has been saved.
Can you imagine what a "cat" command of the
ICANNwatch web-site would look like ?
Ah, that's right, Mr. Tobias does not allow
anyone to have any imagination. All innovation
only comes from "the Society".
We now resume your normal programming.
You will all eat stale bread, but the same stale bread.
Dave Farber's 23 TLDs are the only ones on your menu. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
"People who do not want to read anonymous comments need only set their comment reading preferences to +1, and they will never see an anonymous message"
My score is 0 - despite not being anonymous.
I have been hounded by anonymous poster - but would still not rid them of right to remain anonymous.
I would however like them to take an anonymous handle - so that I know when it is same anonymous person.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
.ORG is Still Available for an EXTRA Monthly Fee
The new cable-tv-like boxes also Wildcard .COM
and .NET for FREE. Viewers are directed to
Accredited Registrars that sell .XXX and .TRAVEL
names, along with .COM and .NET
There is also a .TV TLD, which is not a country.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
"As long as such things can be posted anonymously, we have no way of knowing whether they're all being written by a single mental-institution escapee, or if there's a groundswell of militant ignorance out there."
Okay asshole, if an institutionalized mental patient says "Network Solutions is the worst registrar on the planet.", is the statement untrue because it came from a mental patient? No.
If you want to start a forum where only those persons whose backgrounds you can investigate are permitted to post ... no one is stopping you.
You're a jerkoff, a scumbag, a paranoid little twerp. Yes, you suck. See how it works, asshole? I am comfortable being 100% truthful because (in part) I remain anonymous. If I ever meet you face to face, I will be less truthful, out of politeness.
Later, you f'n dweeb.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
"... and seem to have chased off practically all the rational commentators who once made the discussions here interesting and informative."
I don't think so. "Interesting and informative" discussions come from interesting, exciting topics. Lately (at least several months), topics here (and other venues like icbtollfree.com) have little stimulating news to report and discuss.
New TLDs were the hot topic back in 2000, but now it's ho-hum, ho-hum.
If not for John Berryhill's stellar contributions, this place would be about as stimulating as the old indian-head TV test pattern ... when there wasn't enough content to fill TV airtime.
The Internet has a built-in 24 hour news cycle. One must be creative to keep everything interesting, all the time.
Ban anonymous posters and you'll have a real sleeper here.
Some anonymous posters here have deeper insight than the narrowly-focused Mr. Tobias. Grow up Dan.
It would be nice to follow up on ICANN spreading viruses through comment forum(s). If true, it's really very troubling. If not true, ICANN should vociferously reassure the rest of us.
No, I'm not John Berryhill.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
By Paul Vixie | Posted on May 20, 2004 @ 10:54 PM PST
Karl is smart enough to know the difference between an A RR and an NS RR, so his apparently-deliberate mincing of those terms mystifies me. Any network owner can control their own DNS simply by ensuring that their clients all use a local "root cache" file which points only at local "root name servers". And Karl knows that I am a passionate champion of the right of network owners to exercise this kind of control.
On the other hand, f-root's address (192.5.5.241) is part of ISC's netblock (192.5.4.0/23) and if a network owner decided to pirate that address because they lacked control over their customers' "root cache" files, then ISC would treat this as an unlawful communications intercept and we would take action.
Communications between consenting parties should never be prevented. But the only reason a network owner could have for pirating 192.5.5.241 (f-root) is if they do *not* have the consent of their own customers to operate a modified DNS namespace.
If Karl believes that all root name servers ought to live on pirateable addresses then let him petition IANA to renumber the root name servers onto such addresses. But it's very odd to see Karl imply that because f-root's address is used for root name service, it ought to be legal to pirate it.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
OK, anonymous coward... if you want to be taken with even the most microscopic fragment of seriousness, it's time to put up or shut up... provide some documentation for the more bizarre claims you've made, most notably:
1) Please give a specific company, product, or service name, and contact info such as a Web site, e-mail address, phone number, or snail-mail address, for the supposed "cable-TV-like" Internet service that makes .ORG addresses accessible only upon payment of an extra fee.
2) Please give a specific citation (URL) for any official statement by an official of ICANN or other organizations involved in Internet governance to the effect that there is any plan in progress, or even being considered, to discontinue any currently-existing TLDs, including .ORG and the four-letter TLDs like .INFO and .NAME.
If you can't do any of this, please crawl back into your hole and stop bothering people with your psychotic ravings.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Hummer Tracks Discovered on .MARS
Hummer Tracks have been discovered on .MARS
Apparently, the red planet is inhabited.
The tracks lead to a cluster of solar arrays
and server farms that apparently house the
TRUE.ROOT.
Dan Tobias is being hired by the U.S. Government
to help craft a wide-spread cover-up. The Internet
Society wants to be the first group to populate .MARS and they need to brain-wash the people on .EARTH, that .MARS does-not-exist.
Dan is handing out tin-foil hats at the IETF
and ICANN meetings. He claims those will prevent
people from reading .NEWS, which also exists.
Dan has rallied the Governor or Florida, Jedi
Bush, to have all cable TV channels censor the
photos coming from .MARS of the Hummer Tracks.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
democracy flourishes with the secret ballot.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
"As long as such things can be posted anonymously, we have no way of knowing whether they're all being written by a single mental-institution escapee, or if there's a groundswell of militant ignorance out there."
How about logging the source IP address (or network) for each anonymous posting? That way, some idea can be gathered if there is one mental patient out there!
Or alternatively, limit the number of anonymous postings by IP address per day to (hopefully) improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
If your ISP or up-stream or company or sys-admin
gives you a different opinion on the "dot" servers,
then your DHCPd config will dynamically change.
192.147.236.1
199.166.24.1
199.166.24 .12
199.166.26.100
199.166.27.4
199.166.27.6
1 99.166.28.10
199.166.29.2
199.166.31.3
38.113.2 .100
ddns-update-style ad-hoc;
subnet 192.147.236.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 192.147.236.1 192.147.236.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 192.147.236.1 ;
option routers 192.147.236.1 ;
}
subnet 199.166.24.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.12 ;
option routers 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.12 ;
}
subnet 199.166.24.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.12 ;
option routers 199.166.24.1 199.166.24.12 ;
}
subnet 199.166.26.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.26.1 199.166.26.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.26.100 ;
option routers 199.166.26.100 ;
}
subnet 199.166.27.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.27.1 199.166.27.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.27.4 199.166.27.6 ;
option routers 199.166.27.4 199.166.27.6 ;
}
subnet 199.166.27.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.27.1 199.166.27.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.27.4 199.166.27.6 ;
option routers 199.166.27.4 199.166.27.6 ;
}
subnet 199.166.28.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.28.1 199.166.28.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.28.10 ;
option routers 199.166.28.10 ;
}
subnet 199.166.29.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.29.1 199.166.29.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.29.2 ;
option routers 199.166.29.2 ;
}
subnet 199.166.31.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 199.166.31.1 199.166.31.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 199.166.31.3 ;
option routers 199.166.31.3 ;
}
subnet 38.113.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 38.113.2.1 38.113.2.254 ;
option domain-name-servers 38.113.2.100 ;
option routers 38.113.2.100 ;
}
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Where did the ICANN Board Approve Any-Cast Roots ?
Does ICANN have the Staff and Experts to test
changes to how the Root Servers are configured ?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
