Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World
>Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:31:36 -0400
>From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@interlog.com>
>Organization: TELECOM Digest
>Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
>
>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 03:53:17 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Jay Fenello
><Jay@Iperdome.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, some folks are asking, you've created a rule, and a way to
>> enforce that rule, so haven't you actually built both a law and an
>> enforcement mechanism? And if you have a law against cyber-squatting,
>> with a virtual "death penalty" (taking away a name someone is using
>> effectively removes them from the web) why not apply it against other
>> forms of behavior we don't like?
>
>> Please, follow that last link, read what's behind it, and
>> tremble. You've got one law, you've got a process, and you've got a
>> sentence. It was all done with the mildest of intentions. But what
>> you've also got there is the beginnings of a world government, which
>> can enforce all kinds of rules simply by changing the contract you
>> sign when you apply for a domain name.
>
>With all due respect, I believe Jay has cause-and-effect backwards
>here.  More later on in the message.
>
>> And if ICANN won't do it, cyber-vigilantes will.
>
>> If ICANN chose it could ban pornography, simply by stripping such
>> sites of their names, it could enforce product safety standards,
>> prevent the online manipulation of stocks, and stop hate speech in its
>> tracks. By simply denying names to those who violate whatever
>> strictures it chose, ICANN could make the Internet a pure and
>> beautiful place, where no one dared violate any law for fear of
>> virtual death!
>
>Jay believes that ICANN can usher in one world government by such a
>grip on the internet.  


Hi Walter, 

Actually, I believe that the decisions we are about
to make will affect humanity for a very long time to

come.  I believe that ICANN, as currently constituted,
will result in a less-than-optimal scenario for our 
future.  

In many ways, the fight over Internet Governance
is like riding in a train -- it is hard to determine
the destination, simply by watching the scenery go
by.  

But there are tools that can help us to understand 
scenarios, and there are organizations who use these
tools to explore future realities.  Here's one such 
study by the U.S. Air Force:
  http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/af/a-f.htm

Given ICANN's current direction, and given the 
continuing consolidation of media and telecom
interests (i.e. the Viacom/CBS merger), then one 
potentially insightful scenario is the Zaibatsu:

"Zaibatsu is a world dominated by corporate economic interests.
Multinational corporations (MNC) have become extremely powerful and have
loosely bonded together to serve their financial interests. The "zaibatsu,"
as used here, is the informal collection of MNCs cooperating to manage
growth and maximize profits. Though some might view Zaibatsu as being prone
to corporate greed and excess, usually there is peaceful cooperation to
further world economic growth."


>Actually, it would require one world government
>in the first place in order to implement such total control.  That's
>what I meant by cause-and-effect being backwards here.
>
>  The only reason the current system works as well as it does is
>because "everybody" co-operates (sort of).  Zone files don't

>accomplish much by simply sitting on ICANN's computers.  They have to
>be downloaded by authoratative servers, who allow other servers to to
>download from them, etc, and eventually your ISP's nameserver
>downloads at least a portion of the zone files.


This is a similar to the argument used by members 
of the technocracy.  They believe that the current
technology offers some form of resistance against 
the consolidation of power by ICANN.

I don't buy this argument, as summarized in this 
clip from an old correspondance: 

>My reply is that you are ignoring 
>thousands of years of history, about
>how people and organizations consolidate
>power, and what happens after they do.
>
>Your belief that your technical comrades
>can keep ICANN under control is probably
>where we disagree the most.  ICANN is a
>political creature, one that makes deals
>along the way to support its ever increasing
>agenda.  
>
>While the technocracy is strong and unified, 
>you will be catered to by the powers within 
>ICANN, so that pressure can be brought to 
>bear on those targeted by ICANN.  Initially, 
>this will be NSI, then the ccTLDs, then the
>RIRs.  Finally it *will* be the technocracy
>itself.
>
>It is a classic progression whereby ICANN
>uses a divide and conquer approach to assume
>total control.

Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.    770-392-9480
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 

"All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is 
ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, 
it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)


>  Assume that ICANN decides its "the info-highway, my way, or the
>doorway".  Assuming they can survive court challenges in the US, their
>"new and improved" system will affect all the ISP's who continue to
>co-operate with them.
>
>  Nothing to prevent a bunch of ISP's, or for that matter, a bunch of
>countries, from getting together and setting up their own master
>server(s), and disseminating their zone files.
>
>  So your ISP doesn't subscribe to them?  You can always hardcode
>the nameserver IP address into your dial-up settings.  Granted,

>using a nameserver on the other side of the planet will slow things
>down for you, but it will still work.  And in a worst-case scenario
> >http://208.31.42.81 will still reach Pat's web site<g>.
>
>  In case you think this is a pipe dream, remember how the spam
>blacklists DSSL/DUL/IMRSS/ORBS/RRSS work.  You're effectively using
>an auxilary zone file.  Consider a spam received via an open relay
>recently.  With some ugly procmail code I've implemented, I can
>spawn nslookup and check whether 194.184.72.2 is in the RRSS list.
>Note that the dotted quad is reversed.  This not a typo.
>
>> /user/.6/wa/waltdnes >nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com
>> Server:  ns1.interlog.com
>> Address:  198.53.145.18
>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> Name:    2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com
>> Address:  127.0.0.2
>
>  This answer came from my default nameserver, i.e. my ISP's machine.
>If my ISP's nameserver had trouble with the lookup, I could always
>the master server of the database.
> 
>> /user/.6/wa/waltdnes >nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com
some.other.server.com
>> Server:  some.other.server.com
>> Address:  10.11.12.13
>
>> Name:    2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com
> >> Address:  127.0.0.2
>
>This is not recommended, because it defeats the whole load- sharing
>philosophy behind the current nslookup paradigm.  The point I'm trying
>to make is that from here it's a small step to setting up a
>competitive nameserver hierarchy.  Logically similar to getting a
>different 411 operator, depending on which competitive local carrier
>you subscribe to.
>
>If things get to the point where it's illegal to use an unapproved
>nameservers anywhere on the planet, then we'll already have one world
>government.
>
>
>Walter Dnes <waltdnes@interlog.com> procmail spamfilter
>http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm
>
> 

Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.    770-392-9480
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)?   http://www.iperdome.com 

"All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is 
ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, 
it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)