Re: The bigoted ad hominem attacks are really annoying!

[Bob Allisat <[e-mail]>]

I wrote:
+ I apologize for any errors in my
+ understanding. Please address my
+ other questions and, if you would
+ like to maintain the appropriate
+ topic, answer my prevous article
+ addressing what myself and other
+ citizens of the Internet consider
+ to be the over-centralized and
+ IMHO highly vulnerable to abuse
+ root name server structure,
+ including potentially harmful
+ interferances by persons like
+ Vixie, Kashpureff, Postel or
+ others. These are very serious,
+ on-topic issues worthy of
+ consideration.


Chet Uber <[e-mail]> wrote
> WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POSTEL THAT ARE RELEVANT 
> TO IETF THAT MR. ALLISAT HAS? His generalized hatred of anyone on 
> the inside of helping develop the greatest communication system 
> undertaken by mankind is appalling. The attacks on people in 
> general remind me of the same sick unfounded hatred I see of 
> African Americans, immigrants, Jews, and homosexuals. Let me say 
> that this behavior does not appear limited to Mr. Allisat alone, 
> I have noticed a large number of people that are just spewing 
> garbage and hatred. Must of this seems to be NOT for the 
> betterment of the community, but done in a self serving manner.

 I have attacked no-one and amply
 apologized for any past errors
 on my part. Jon Postel redirected
 network traffic from it's established
 patterns without any notice and/or
 apparent reason. It appeared to be
 a power play directed against NSI,
 the White House and US executive control
 over IANA and the various root name
 servers. It is extremely germaine to
 address this issue on an IETF mailing
 list. Postel's actions were similar 
 to Kashpureff's political protest re-
 direction of Internic's traffic only
 Mr Postel isn't facing any criminal
 charges. Vixie's behaviour threatens
 the integrity of network e-mail and
 other communications IMHO. No hatred
 here. Just disturbance at what I think
 are negative activities.


Chet Uber continues:
> Did not Jon Postel make the Root Server changes in order to 
> conduct an experiment? If so, were the results favorable to
> his hypothesis?

 Nonsense. He did this to show who 
 was in control. He was informed, as
 a contractor of the US Government to
 return traffic to it's agreed upon
 flow in no uncertain terms. I don't
 know the exact exchange but the White
 House was not amused. To say the least.
 The network was disrupted for no reason.


Chet Uber:
> Does Paul Vixie's Black Hole not make an excellent tool and 
> political lever in dealing with domains which allow allow
> rampant spam?

 Political lever? In terms of technical,
 Network standards such a discussion does
 not place. Indeed it is a political lever.
 Maybe we should take this the newsgroup
 alt.politics.net.totalitarianism... it
 doesn't belong here though.


Chet Uber:
> Does not Fred Bakers involvement at the highest levels with the 
> IANA serve as a positive benefit for the Internet Community in 
> general, and IETF in particular? What is so wrong with the fact 
> that he seems to have Ira's ear?

 Indeed it serves to bring IETF right
 into the middle of the political process.
 That's why Fred's assertion on this list
 (and I quote) that:

= I'm sure the working groups have been occupied with the work  =
= their charters call them to. We don't have any working groups =
= on the politics of the Internet, only its technology.         =

 is all the more ironic. IETF is heavy into
 politics and never allows open discussion 
 of political issues. I have personally
 requested a BOF on New Domain Names, IP
 Addressing and Internet Governance in
 the IETF at the Orlando IETF meeting.
 Fred has not replied. I will make this
 request in an article to follow and 
 hope that you all agree it is essential
 these political issues are openly discussed.
 No need for sneaking around or fibbing.


Chet Uber:
> Did the U.S. Government not indeed provide the funding through
> the DOD for the seminal research on the distributed computing 
> model which eventually became ARPANET, the NSF, and now the 
> Internet? Why should they give away control of something they
> have helped build, and continue to subsidize research in? No,
> they do not currently own the majority (or subsidize) of the 
> backbone; but does this mean they lose the right to protect 
> their interests. The Internet does provide threats to national 
> and international security. It has indeed created an entirely 
> new form of warfare.

 Network Infrastructures are - 
 correct me if I'm wrong -  almost
 wholey commercially owned and 
 operated. The level of government
 involvement has nose-dived since
 the NSF pulled back from supporting
 the Net many moons ago. Now it's
 a public network completely carried
 by commercial entities. Furthermore
 it is an INTERNATIONAL medium. I 
 live in Canada and I, for one, object
 to what can be interpreted as American
 attempts to monopolize an international
 network. Even worse is how the USGOV
 with DoD urgings in the hazy back-
 ground is trying to keep everyone lese
 fully at bay.


Chet Uber:
> Why is it so hard for some people to grasp the idea that there is 
> a difference between a user of Internet and its protocols, and the
> developers of those same protocols? Everyone that has a driver's 
> license is allowed access to the highway and road system 
> infrastructure, but only a small percentage of them were involved 
> in the design of such things as width, speed limits, baking angles 
> in curves, etc. The same is true of the power grids and the POTS. 
> Why should every user of the Internet have a say in the way that 
> numbering and naming occurs? The concept of all users having an 
> equal vote on the Internet Infrastructure and operating protocols 
> is absurd. First of all, most of them don't have a clue as to what 
> is involved; and finally, most of them don't care. It is a vocal 
> minority that claims to speak for the masses.

 Chet, the routing and regulation of
 highways is under the control of elected
 CIVILIAN representatives. Engineers can't
 do a darned thing without previous approval
 of every move by publically accountable
 elected officials. Placing the IETF under
 the control of elected, regular citizens
 is one of my personal goals. And you as a
 professional engineer should not be surprised
 when more and more people realize I may well
 be right. Your attitudes are frightening.
 Your arrogance is greater than any I have
 witnessed. I will save your article as yet
 another reason we must wrestle the IETF
 and all it's affiliates and subsidiaries
 into strict controlling regimes. You
 people have been given a free hand for
 far too long and the consequences are
 rather disturbing. As you have evidenced.

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network . [e-mail] . http://fcn.net