Re: FW: APNIC's Censorship (Was: Re: Removal from APNIC lists)

[Karl Denninger <karl at mcs.net>]

On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 11:40:13AM -0400, Bob Stewart wrote:
> At 10:30 AM 20-05-98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >Frankly, Bob, you have to know you're misrepresenting things here.  I simply
> >fail to believe that you, or anyone else who meets your "clueful" criteria
> >is incapable of applying their own filters to prevent Mr. Fleming, or anyone
> >else, from taking up their time UNLESS THEY WANT TO.
> 
> If I were inclined to take insult you'd be receiving a glove in the face
> and a demand for satisfaction for calling me dishonest.  But taking insult
> is unproductive.  Cutting statements are either true and should be
> considered or false and should be dismissed.  Yours nicely fits the latter.

On the contrary; I still refuse to believe that anyone who (1) doesn't want 
to read Jim's material, and (2) is clueful is in any way FORCED to read 
Jim's material.

> I found Noel's concern for "good men doing nothing" in the face of
> misleading noise perfectly clear.  You apparently missed it and its deep
> implications.

There's nothing misleading about Jim's REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.

You may disagree with his politics.  You may even think he's a nutcase.
That's your right, as it is everyone else's, to formulate their own
opinions.

HOWEVER, there are questions that he has asked that I believe deserve a
response.  Some of them are, IMHO, very serious indeed.  Issues of lack 
of transparency, funding irregularities (if they exist), asset allocation
and governance concern all of us on the Internet.

These are essential facilities that are being debated here Bob, not private 
resources.

You simply cannot disagree with this FACT - because it is a fact.  If you 
wish to claim that the IPv4 space under which your systems are connected 
is not in fact essential to your continued ability to use the Internet, 
please return all of it forthwith to avoid being considered a hypocrite.

Of course, I don't expect you to do that.  

But I do expect you, and the rest of the people in this debate, to acknowledge
that IPv4 numbers ARE in fact an "essential resource", and for that reason 
their utilization, delegation, and control must be managed in the public 
trust - with full public transparency of action, both past and present, by 
all bodies so involved.

Note that Mr. Magaziner has, several times, made PRECISELY this point 
in relationship to IANA II and its delegate organizations.

He's right Bob, and further, he has the means at his disposal to enforce 
that point of view.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost