Re: [atlarge-discuss] "IPv6 & ICANN is..."

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

James and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Excellent post here James.  Well done!  >;)

  As you obviously know, IPv6 and ICANN's support for it through
Vent Cerf primarily for a number of years now, is and has been part
of the pre-loaded plan before ICANN was formed.  Many discussions
regarding this are still available in some old archives at IAHC.ORG
and gTLD-MoU.org E-Mail archives.

  As I spent several years on the IPv6 IETF working group it became clear
about 2 years ago that IPv6 had security problems/holes that were
of a design nature as well as some serious operational and implementation
problems that also could lead to privacy, ergo security problems.  The
fixes were discussed as some length but were not implemented because
it closed some privacy holes that some within ICANN or pre-ICANN
desired to remain so as to be able to track users.  This was a two
edged sword however as the USG military complex also saw that
IPv6 "As Is" would create also security exposures that they didn't
want.  After 911, these concerns became much more concerning for
obvious reasons...

jkhan wrote:

> Jefsey/Tim,
>
> I will need time to give a precise documentation (citing the proper US
> Court Cases), but for now I will give you an historical example.
>
> [This also take off where Stephen Waters & I last wrote, Thank you for
> waiting Stephen - jk]
>
> Re: IPv6 Issues
>
> I used the Lexus Legal system as an example (Disclaimer: I am not
> accusing/knocking the folks at Mead/Lexus-Nexus, just illustrating an
> example) because it illustrates how a Public infrastructure is
> Privatized and is developed into a VPN at the Publics cost and on the
> Publics infrastructure. And how the Internet is becoming the privatized
> network of Multinational Corporations.
> --
>
> The Judicial Branch of the US government was establish with the
> ratification of the Constitution [K], it's present structure was derived
> by historical and technological events since this establishment. One
> phase of this development was the Circuit Court. Because America covered
> such a large area, Judges were given territories in which they would
> ride (Horse-back) a Circuit, traveling from town to town hearing Cases.
> As a result of this the Judges had to keep case notes and eventually
> hired assistants knows as Court clerks. As demands of the Courts
> increased, Case reporting continued and soon the Judges and clerks had
> no time for reporting and focused most of their efforts on writing
> Judgments, as a result Court Reporters where hired and they would
> 'annotate' the Case's. These reporters were paid a fee by the US Courts,
> and the annotations were collected and the published the case
> Annotations in such editions as: Federal Level Reporters:
>
> Supreme Court: U.S. Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, Lawyer's Edition,
> Courts of Appeals: Federal Reporter
> District Courts: Federal Supplement, Federal Rules Decisions
> Others: Court of Claims Reports, Bankruptcy Reporter, Reports of the
> United States Tax Court, Military Justice Reporter
>
> (They are listed in the Blue-Book or Purple Book if you are a Univ. of
> Chicago Alumni). Most all of these can be found in a well established
> Public Library. Here in the SF Bay Area we have three, University of
> California Berkeley School of Law, Stanford University, and the Ninth
> District Federal Court.
>
> These Case Reports and Annotations are very important, as they reflect
> the 'Precedent' of a judicial decision, and sets the direction of future
> advocacy related to a cause. In a Court Case these 'Precedence' are
> cited from the Reporters and a Judge decides what is relevant and what
> is not.
>
> We have a Bi-furcated system where there are State Courts as well as
> Federal Courts, They are similar some what from State to State, except
> that the Federal Courts are superior. At the State Level similar
> activities were occurring as well to document Cases at that level, there
> are numerous State Court reporters, and there is no need to list them
> here, to make my point. They are both funded by taxes coming from their
> respective level; Federal Income Taxes or State Income taxes.
>
> So here we have the infrastructure of the US Judicial Information-System
> supported and paid by the Tax payers. Think of it rather as the
> Judicial-Internet system.
>
> As Library sciences and Technology developed it was predictable that the
> Computer and Data basing the Documents would become second hand, the
> science of Document Retrieval and Storage is very big business these
> days. Well, during this advent Lexus came along and Database the reports
> into a user searchable system. You say ok, public information
> ("Knowledge") put into an electronic database, fine, Publicly available
> documents "Knowledge" used by an individual/corpus.
>
> But!, During this transition the Publicly available information became
> Proprietary, as it was held in Lexus Databases and Indexes in a
> searchable (One of the first search engines) system. Legal professionals
> and Students were encouraged to use the system initially at little to no
> cost, But in large part Law Firms were required to pay for the
> 'Service'. The Lexus system was one of the first systems available on
> the internet, when internet terminals were only available in Libraries
> and Campuses (both these: State and Federal entities).
>
> As time passed, the Lexus system began to grow in popularity (due to
> marketing with Law Students, nothing new here Apple has done this for
> years), Professional use, and in terms of technology. The Cost of using
> the system also increased over the same period of time. In fact the
> Lexus system is used so widely that it is accepted as a Citable source,
> within Blue-Book fashion (Case's - Style), and subsequently accepted by
> the US Courts. It this respect it has come Full circle, but now with
> Proprietary Ownership.
>
> Here is an example of a Blue-Book Style, which is acceptable:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE ET AL. v. REID
>
> No. 88-293
>
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> 490 U.S. 730; 109 S. Ct. 2166; 104 L. Ed. 2d 811; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2727;
> 57 U.S.L.W. 4607; 10 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1985; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26,425;
> 16 Media L. Rep. 1769
>
> March 29, 1989, Argued
>
> June 5, 1989, Decided
>
> PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
>
> DISPOSITION: 270 U. S. App. D. C. 26, 846 F.2d 1485, affirmed.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> In standard "legal citation" the reference to this opinion becomes
> simply:
>
> Cmty. for Creative Nonviolence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
>
> With economy this identifies the document and allows another lawyer to
> retrieve the decision from a wide range of print and electronic sources.
> The "identifier" of "490 U.S. 730" suffices for a reader who has access
> to the Supreme Court Reporter published by the West Group or to the
> Lawyers Edition, Second Series published in print and on-line by
> LEXIS-NEXIS or to Westlaw or to the other on-line and CD-ROM sources of
> Supreme Court decisions.  It also tells the reader that this is a 1989
> decision of the United States Supreme Court (and not, say, a fifty year
> old opinion of a U.S. District Court).
>
> The task of "legal citation" in short is to provide sufficient
> information to the reader of a brief or memorandum to aid a decision
> about which authorities to check as well as in what order to consult
> them and to permit efficient and precise retrieval - all of that,
> without consuming any more space or creating any more distraction than
> is absolutely necessary.
>
> Back to my point,
> Here is an example of a Public infrastructure that was Privative, made
> Proprietary, and charged back to the User. Actually charged twice!
> (Taxed and for Uses)
>
> In another respect there is a hidden cost that is made when you consider
> the Lack of Competition, that is to say, When the Lexus system was
> patented (incorporated into 'intellectual property' rights) it protected
> its position and fortified its market share by acquiring the
> Competition. Lexus is by no means the only game in town, however it is
> the only 'Recognized' game in town. This is not an unusual phenomena,
> AutoDesk (AutoCAD, Microsoft, etc.. All have engaged in this practice,
> Microsoft has been the one to carry the rap. So the cost increases due
> to a lack of credible Competition and availability is reduced due to
> competitive behavior.
>
> And at last we come to the coming of IPv6, with the deployment of IPv6,
> the ability to deploy a Proprietary Network to distribute/deliver
> information over a Public infrastructure, and extract a fee/profit is
> enabled. The Circle is now truly complete. This is the maximizing of
> Profits at the publics expense, this is the Fleecing of the Tax payers.
> Icann is building a system for the Elite (Professionals &
> Multinationals), not the world at large.
>
> Which is last peg on my discussion today, it is really my foremost
> point.
> If, for example a person in Romania, Bosnia, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, etc..
> should need to have the 'Knowledge' available within the Lexus system to
> use in their defense in a case to advocate their cause. If they even
> have access to the internet how would they afford it? Well, they can't
> afford it, and IPv6 will only lead to the increase in the Cost-of-Entry
> for these Worlds, while the Multinationals continue to raise their
> prices in search of higher ROIs.
>
> --
>
> Jefsey and all,
>
> I hope that I have answered you question by this example, you may find
> similar analogies closer to home. I will be working on this issue in
> detail, if you should come across some helpful information to support my
> argument, please forward it along. If I have made errors in trying to
> conveying the Idea, please allow me to finish. (the example, you get the
> Idea)
>
> Issues, Issues, Issues!!! [Yes Walter, I hear-ya! :-)]
>
> We all need to working on these.
>
> James Khan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@club-internet.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:22 AM
> To: at Large Discuss
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] "IPv6 & ICANN is..."
>
> On 17:51 26/11/02, jkhan said:
> >Do you understand that the cost of "Knowledge" of the information
> >available over the IPv6 system will increase to due to 'proprietary
> >royalties', and that availability decrease due to 'intellectual
> >property' rights, and these cost will increase in an ever increasing
> >manner?
>
> Can you precisely document that?
> thank you . Jfc
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de