From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Sep 4 11:16:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD9C21E804D for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:16:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.983, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esoc4Gokf3oi for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27AC11E80E7 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:50339 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VHHd7-0004Qw-A4; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:16:37 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:16:32 +0200 To: John Curran From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130904181638.D27AC11E80E7@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org, "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" , iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:16:45 -0000 Dear John,

Thank you for this clarification of yours.

We all accept that RFC 6852 is a pragmatic political evolution from RFC 3869 within the statUS-quo, in line with the USG position that I found to be best described in the last page of Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard": world peace and development can only result from a global cooperation coordinated by the US.

This doctrine has led the USSR to run out of steam, but also, in the aftermath of the cold war, to the US and Europe calling for a relative break. This is the statUS-quo (and the global financial crisis) strategy.

This makes the core issues:
- survival for the US in leading world development,
- for the rest of the world to survive the US.

Survival of the US in leading world development

In RFC 3869, IAB requested the USG to continue to be the source of R&D non-commercial funding. This was in order to protect the technology from commercial biases. RFC 6852 draws on the US strategy evolution, which does not directly provide direct funding anymore (as they did during the launching period) but politically want to coordinate its provision. This is a way to declare that the IP maturity period is now reached, and the world is now to operate under the statUS-quo industrial solution.

Why not, if it works? This is a matter of specialization. The non-US RIRs, which depend on this technology, could only rally this proposition. The quickest was the best for all.

What is interesting is that RFC 6852 officializes the world technology as dependent on the statUS-quo, not on the US government. This allows the "cooperation" to smoothly accommodate reactions like the Brazil's one.

At the same time, the OpenStand cooperation does not ostensibly include the US "coordination" (i.e. ICANN and ARIN). Well done!

The only concern one may have is in having the question made more precise: "why not, if it works better?"

I am not sure that it is the case of what definitely appears to be a TCP/IP radical monopoly (cf. Ivan Illitch) rather than a “natural” one. This would mean that OpenStand would be a long range anticompetitive alliance. However, OpenStand members may turn me wrong by documenting three missing sections in their modern paradigm for standards:

1. a comprehensive, scientific, transparent, operational, and maintained documentation and manual of the I* technology that everyone might understand and review. What exactly are they selling us?

2. a structured and advertised possibility to explore, discuss, experiment, and deploy alternative or partly alternative technologies with an equal access to research and documentation funding sources (IETF has accepted to bootstrap such a possibility through the IUCG@IETF mailing list).

3. a consistent common appeal procedure for every OpenStand document and work.
Then, should still be clarified the market monopolies of ICANN and RIRs. There are six possible IPv6 numbering plans. StatUS-quo NRO only needs one. One should go to ITU, one to ISO, one to ICC and one to OpenUse. These would leave one for common R&D.

For the rest of the world to survive the US

I genuinely wish the best for the US, but I can observe that the American thinking, society, behavior, and history follow the Gauss curve and seem (for example, the global financial crisis) to have a problem with the Pareto curve of events that the nature and the rest of the world seem to follow nowadays.

My, probably stupid, feeling is that nature, history, and ecosystems follow rules based on the chaotic determinism of very wide collections; along principles that have been discovered, analyzed, and documented in the case of the internet by RFC 1122 (robustness), 1958 (permanent change, end to end, fringe to fringe), 3439 (simplicity), and illustrated by RFC 5895 (subsidiarity). These rules lead to some kind of a probability-mix between Gauss and Pareto, which one calls the sustainability curve. Sustainability curves seem to be based upon the strategy of effilience (efficacy vs. resilience) that one chooses to follow.

The problem is that I do not trust the statUS-quo digital effilience. Moreover, in such a case, French law obliges me to abide by the precautionary principle. This principle states that when one does not trust a technically based solution it is up to the proponent of this solution to prove it is safe.

This is just what I am asking the statUS-quo to do. The point is the trust in the adequacy of the architectural choice and management: therefore, the debate is to be architectonical. In this situation I oppose no one, and I object to nothing, but I want to be convinced that the proposition is safe and positive (negentropic), effilient (the best for all, at the lowest cost), and people centric as we unanimously decided at the WSIS. I am not an opponent, I am a user. I am not a competitor, I am a client.

Please, convince me that the OpenStand/ARIN/ICANN statUS-quo, including your market monopoly, addresses and/or does not block the internet intelligent-users' needs and desired practices, and that ARIN is not involved what so ever in router control or ICANN in

Best,
jfc

At 21:54 02/09/2013, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 31, 2013, at 9:09 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:

Why is this that RIRs have been the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852 http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/?

For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly
because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was
insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles
and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing"
does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that
they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration
at this time.

Many of the Open Stand principles (e.g. openness, transparency, equity,
fairness, consensus) may be found in ARIN's foundational documents,
but to me that does not equate to having community consideration and
endorsement of the full platform as it applies to the mission of ARIN. 
Additionally, the Open Stand principles appear to have been chosen in
the context of technical standards development, and was not clear how
such principles would apply to activities for Internet number resource
management.  For example, while calling for "voluntarily adoption" of
technical standards is fairly clear, less clear is how such a principle
would apply to the various registries (e.g. protocol, number, or name
registries) - all of which are predicated on consistent and near universal
adoption in order to maintain uniqueness and global interoperability.
Similarly, technical "standards that are chosen and defined based on
technical merit" seems quite clear, but that becomes less clear in the
registry policy realm given the possibility of applicable public policy
directives and/or mandates that may also warrant consideration in
the development of registry policy.

Given the lack of ARIN community consideration of these principles, as
well as some uncertainty regarding its application to ARIN's mission, it
was not possible to endorse the Open Stand platform at announcement.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

p.s.   FYI - ARIN's representation of the community in the region (on matters
         of Internet governance and overall Internet policy) is based upon those
         positions that have been repeatedly discussed at our member meetings
         and which are represented on our web site here:
             < https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html>
         please feel free to provide feedback to me if you feel that these positions
         are lacking in some manner - Thanks!
From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Sep 10 16:18:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2504121E80AB for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:18:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1iIkO8XiqD9X for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B986621E80AA for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:50860 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VJXC2-0001xo-Jh; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:17:58 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:17:38 +0200 To: internetgovtech@iab.org From: jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130910231759.B986621E80AA@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: [iucg] ISOC response X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:18:04 -0000 http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-responds-reports-us-government%E2%80%99s-circumvention-encryption-technology In particular, this ISOC response states: "To every Internet user: ensure you are well informed about good practice in online security, and act on that information. Take responsibility for your own security." My architectural reading is that IETF is to document end to end security and surety. And that (as per RFC 1958) fringe to fringe security is the IUser's responsibility by subsidiarity . All my on-going RFC 6852 appeal is here: there is a need of a concerted cooperation involving: - IETF's and non-IETF industrial standards (OpenStand and possibly others?) - IUsers' responsible arrangements, specifications and practices ("OpenUse") - Government (e.g. NSA) requirements - at least something along the lines of the Tallin Manual (http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html) - the different global continuities managers (laws, practices, infrastructures, etc.): IGF, ITU, OSI? My basic understanding is that the problem is the lack of layer 6, and that this is an architectural issue not only best practices. Is this mailing list entitled to discuss the architectonical reasons and targets for a TCP/IP architectural evolution? jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Sep 11 09:28:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0720D21F9B12 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:28:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.729, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1aNoxhXaykb for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4434E11E81CF for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:53261 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VJnGA-0008NQ-TS; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:27:19 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:24:39 +0200 To: iucg@ietf.org,iutf@iutf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130911162721.4434E11E81CF@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, "bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits" , iab@iab.org, governance@lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [iucg] IAB Intergovtech initiative X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:28:22 -0000 Dear IUsers,

I wish to call your attention to the IAB initiative: https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

Let me try to clarify the situation as it presents itself from an OpenUse point of view.


1. There is an architectonic issue.

Architectonics is the systematization of all knowledge (Aristotle, Kant). It concerns a new function in humankind governance.

Why? And what is this new function?

Since the Greeks and the instauration of (back then, very limited) democracy, this governance has concerned three fundamental planes: political and social leadership, justice and religious keeping, foreign and military strategies. This meant the management of general, internal, and external affairs in the natural and human context. Three archons were assigned these tasks: the Eponymous, Basileus, and Polemarch.

A fourth plane has emerged during the 20th century. It results from the discovery of the digital reality and its capacity to support artificial extensions of nature (technology), magnitude (affecting every one of us), globalism (the entire present and future world), and resulting complexity that we have never met before and do not scale to it yet (*).

We need expert/responsible architarch societal "archons" (**) to provide concerted guidance, and a technologically oriented ethic, toward a project corresponding to a commonly accepted esthetics of our human life in our digitally extended context. We also need an architectonic oriented international and intersocietal concordance in order to prevent (pre)architectural and culturally related conflicts.


2. No one is in charge of dealing with this fourth societal steering function.

Until recently, there was the fuzzy feeling that IAB was in charge, in being the Wise men Board of an Internet that one accepted as the technology epitome. For many reasons the Internet is not the epitome of technology innovation any longuer. RFC 3869 explained why technology could not solely be designed under private sector sponsoring and called for public and non-commercial funding. At the same time, private sponsors resisted the government influence (e.g. Dubai, Dec/2012) that we see exposed in the PRISM case. A new equilibrium was found: RFC 6852 OpenStand documents it along with its economic behavior (FRAND).

However, RFC 6852 only considered the Internet private sector internal (IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C) issues and did not consider any architectonic point.
- What is the digital esthetic that we are pursuing? Along which ethic of development?
- Who is/are the referent(s)? How is technological coherence insured?
- We can understand that OpenStand gathers the industrial stakeholders, that ITU gathers the public stakeholders, and that the UN gathers all the international structures, but there is a need for an OpenUse point of view and, therefore, to reach a global consensus on  its way of being represented.


3. ISOC’s let users "take responsibility" major step ahead.

ISOC partly completed OpenStand yesterday in calling for OpenUse to "Take responsibility" (for their security) so that:
- they use the openness of standards processes like the IETF to challenge assumptions about security specifications.
- they uphold responsibility in their work, and be mindful of the damage caused by a loss of trust.
- they secure their services, and are intolerant of insecurity in the infrastructure on which they depend.
- they ensure that they are well informed about good practice in online security, and act on that information.

However, this OpenUse must now be inclusively yet efficiently embodied, accepted by its partners (OpenStand, ITU, UN), and made innovative in terms of internet intelligent use. This is the purpose of the third level of my RFC 6852 appeal: to permit ISOC (and its OpenStand cosignatories) to finalize and show a unified OpenStand standardization process in front of its other partners (Civil Society, Governments, International organizations, other digital technologies).

jfc

(*) This scaling is often referred to as the “singularity”: some believe it will result from an augmentation of human intelligence (Doug Engelbart, Raymond Kurtzwell) and some others, to who I belong, observe that it is resulting from a facilitated extension of its access, coverage and recursion.

(**) Human relational spaces are deeply impacted by the involed changes. This has been observed at the UN World Summit on the Information Society and in different major occasions of the last decade. One can theorize from this (a theory is a comment over an observation) that there is a multistakeholderist shift from Nation-States to Society-States of the world context. And probably from democracy (the equal citizens of a nation) to polycracy (a multilayer network of subsidiary democracies). This is a reality we may also observe in the Internet technology through the importance taken by the IDNs.
From jefsey@jefsey.com Tue Sep 17 07:36:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB65011E8284 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:36:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.906 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.365, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bBtnrIx77iXG for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF7711E8246 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:61400 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VLwO3-00023S-VG; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:36:21 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:36:13 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,suresh Ramasubramanian From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n et> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130917143630.BBF7711E8246@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iab@iab.org, Bob Hinden , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:36:35 -0000 At 14:04 16/09/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
As the ciphers in question are potentially used worldwide.. I would encourage anybody in the caucus who has specific skills in this area to submit their feedback

Dear Suresh,

You want personal responses. Here is mine for the records ( http://iucg.org/wiki/20130917_-_Requested_comment_on_igcaucus). What follows, I must stress, is my own personal theory (in Greek: a commented observation) and refers only to my experience, reflection, and action.

The response to your wishes is not in cryptographic details and it is already under way. I am sorry to repeatedly return to the same RFC 6852 topic, but this response is that RFC. The RFC 6852 process results from the long and convincing work of Russ Housley (by then the IETF and now the IAB Chair) who is one of the Internet leading network security independent experts.

 
The cryptographic misunderstanding

You call for feedback from people having the necessary expertise. The minimum necessary expertise we all share now is that cryptography has now fully scaled to 4D with a time dimension. The “normal security practitioners” (we all are) have learned from NSA that there is evidence that “normal” algorithmic protection extends to the scientific, technical, political, etc. fields of the prior standardization, R&D, and deployment processes.

There are no “NSA stooges”: there are dedicated patriots, employees, activists, volunteers from every walk under the sun with national, corporate, ethical, and civic concerns who have accumulated expertise at many involved complexity layers and share similar yet possibly opposing precautionary duties. They are engaged in national, business, civil right, and ethitechnical global counterwars aiming at small normative victories which may prevent major economic defeats, civilizational conflicts, or global catastrophes. RFC 4646 and RFC 5895, in my own case, belong to this kind of victories in multicultural practical support area that responded to my French constitutional precautionary duty.

The French Constitution states that man has a growing influence on the conditions of his own life and evolution; this makes the preservation of the [digital] environment equal to other fundamental interests of the Nation. As a consequence, everyone has the right to live in a fair environment of all kinds that is respectful of health, and the duty to take part in the preservation and improvement of every form of this healthy environment. “Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (Constitution of the World Health Organization, July 22, 1946): it necessarily includes physical integrity, cultural active respect, and personal privacy protection.


Technical separation from USG influence?

Through the OpenStand RFC 6852, ISOC, IEEE, and W3C (including IAB and IETF) have disengaged themselves from the USG direct affiliation that they did in fact document and call for in RFC 3869. Their “modern” OpenStand standardization paradigm has various direct "nethical" (to use this portmanteau word for “ethics in network design, use, and management”) impacts:

1. As a result, IEEE, W3C, ISOC (and its IETF and IAB affiliates), as well as the OpenStand signatories, are no longer striving for any of humanity's "common good" (who could legitimately decide for them? While before it was through USG funding deemed as technologically “neutral”), nor to support any “core values” as stated in RFC 3935, which were those of a liberal America (the English language seems, however, to remain as a technical lingua franca).

The RFC 3935 which documents the IETF mission stated: “The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create.”

In front of the different stakeholders’ influence (starting with governmental biases) this has been replaced by transparent (?) merchantability.

2. As a consequence, the internet engineering/manufacturing have now reached a commercial mature level where they are only influenced by their commercial results from their clients' "global communities".

3. Governments form together one of these global communities. Within that community, the USG is a leader as well as a dominant direct client for the industry. This is something that we already know, and we know that we have to live with the influence of the GAC at ICANN, or in other industrial sectors, like aeronautics. 

4. The civil society is also a global community gathering much smaller, however numerous, customers. It must use its weight to make technologists listen to its needs.


How should we behave?

There are two complementary ways for the Civil Society to address this new situation;

1. as citizens, its members are to watch and participate in their national legislative processes, calling for a clear separation between the cyber-civil and cyber-war specific issues (cf. “NATO's Tallinn manual” documenting the international laws of cyberwar: the US/Russia agreement over Syria is inspired by some of its thinking).

2. as “intelligent use” customers having a coherent and concerted purchasing strategy:

2.1. Issuing pertinent technical specifications that they may protect in the OpenStand standardization process through a respected and loyal appeal process:

-          this is what I am trying to ascertain right now, that IESG and IAG are actually trying to disregard, thereby leading me to appeal to ISOC to test their willingness to consider us as partnering stakeholders instead of obedient consumers.
 
-          This is the rightful proper appeal procedure that  ( http://threatpost.com/uk-cryptographers-call-for-outing-of-deliberately-weakened-protocols-products/102301 ) UK cryptographers should be in a position to engage.

2.2. Showing their own ability (as the other stakeholders group, and in particular governments) to call upon their own grassroots solutions should they not trust the commercial, public, or international technical ones that they would propose. Our negotiation/influence power is an enhanced P2P vision of the network use.


Let’s get real

In this process, we must accept that the current 40 year old or more internet architectural concepts and logics – in spite of the time, effort, and investments that many people have spent on them to enhance their surety, security, neutrality, and privacy protection – have led to the vulnerable solutions of today. We, therefore, have to be prepared to advocate, explore, research, document, develop, test, validate, and deploy entirely new approaches. In a first move, OSI level six, presentation layer, is of the essence.

However, this is not enough. As Karl has mentioned, this is not because we have an open logic and source code access that our security can be ensured anymore. Our security is first and is increasingly to be deeply buried in the principle of the chosen architecture and in the way of thinking, designing, and writing its protocols and programs. I suppose that the datagram is going to be the core, but nothing guarantees that we will not need byte oriented “virtual datagrams” as was initially the case for the first technology of the InterNet (international network).

The true problem that we face is the "singularity" that Raymond Kurzweil from Google and several others forecast for 2019/2020 (computers becoming “more clever” than humans) – because this means that we cannot trust the technology anymore to be unable to develop faster than what we expect.

NB. This is true in the two visions that we started debating in the early 1980s at Tymshare (by then the International Network leader): either computers can surpass human intelligence in augmenting their thinking quality (Doug Engelbart’s “Augment” division) or in extending its processing capacity and quantity (my “Tymnet Extended Services” department).


The consequence we must accept

This is why an architectonic debate is necessary to discuss what is below the architectural basis, the esthetic of what humanity wants to achieve, and the agoric (from the agora, the place where all the ideas and goods were exchanged) extended form of thinking (i.e. a generalized multidimensional logic) that we will need.

Trust was the basis of our civilization: we now MUST base it on mutual distrust as it went out of control. The only way we can do it is in finding and developing an extended way of thinking that will make it possible to demonstrate to oneself the dependability of the choices one makes. We must scale Aristotle’s logic, as it based a new trust on the dialectic comparison of two already trusted premises. This is because we cannot control all the mutual influences, lobbies, biases, agendas, etc. of a permanent polylectic process. NSA is just a speaking, notorious example of our most common daily reality.

How can we make it possible? Actually that is simple enough to understand:

- the same as encryption protection is based upon the idea that, while considering the existing state of the technology, to break it will take longer than the time we need the data to stay protected.

- dependability means that the effort to discover how to circumvent the coherence of my thinking must take longer than the time I need to pursue that thinking along that coherence. Actually this is scientific thinking. Scientists are under the pressure of new scientific discoveries, and digital users are under the pressure of new intellition (cf. below) discoveries.


Dependability is not easy to ensure

However, if discovering a way to circumvent the coherence that I decided to adopt is possible, nothing guarantees me that smarter and smarter machines cannot outsmart me faster than I wish. There is, therefore, only one way to protect myself: it is to target an indefinite coherence, i.e. that my own coherent way of seeing reality is to be always smarter than any NSA hacker's way of seeing that reality.

Such a target was not possible for encryption because encryption is based upon a logic hierarchy (i.e. an “if – then” dialectic). It is possible in the coherence case because coherence is a meshed network of polylectic (if – if – if …. then if ...) intricate loops. This is agorics. This is an n-body, genuinely new way of thinking and demonstrating, that we have to discover. It generalizes the one-body cybernetics and two-body logic. The human brain can consider and design it, but 135 years ago Poincaré showed (with deterministic chaos, relativity, quantum physic, unification, etc. as a result) that he cannot perform it alone: agoric thinking needs to be facilitated. Logic could be ported to mathematics and is, as a result, limited by their incompleteness; we now have to see how agorics can behave in extending the neuronal process that we are used to with the Turing machine process and its physical (communication) and intellectual (intellition) networking.

However, we have to understand that with agorics there are no more “reasonable conclusions” as there are in logic. In agorics, there are reflective dynamic emergences.

There, we have to think farther than the programmed logic that would lead us to truth if we could trust in all of it. To that end, we have to harness the unlimited probabilistic quantum coherence of life and natural complexity. There is no more trusted third party; there is only the coherent dynamic of the universe that we can only predict through a limited information and disinformation set that we have to deconstruct and rebuild in applying our intelligence on its different components. This is that process that I name with by the portmanteau word “intellition” (intelligence applied on the information and disinformation gathered through communications in order to make coherence emerge). This is also why we need Shannon’s information theory to be completed with a communication theory up to intercomprehension (it is only at that layer that we can check by resulting coherence that the communication process has not been tampered with), and an intellition theory which is already at work with big-data-mining and the omnipresent algorithmic governance and its social engineering implications.


A general process

This certainly still calls for a few geniuses more to help us making it, but we have already carried out some homework since Plato and Aristotle, through the Middle Ages, Vinci, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Leibnitz, Kant, Frege, Poincaré, Einstein, Russell, Bohr, Gödel, Wittgenstein, Turing, Wiener, Coufignal, Shannon, Thom, Pouzin, Engelbart, Cerf, Kahn, Chaitin, Per Bak, Connes, Ulanowicz, etc. in order to creep out of Plato’s Cave in using our intelligence as he and Aristotle predicted it once we could get rid of the Greek gods to clarify what science was supposed to explain...until probability, chaos, entropy, and negentropy came in.

What is exciting is that this process is most probably coherent with the general process that shapes and maintains reality through the natural self-organization of the universal, historical, technical, constitutional, societal, political, human, etc. and natural architectonical complexity. This is why everything is intricate, and that it is the case when we want to protect our privacy from governments and marketers, governments are concerned by the architectonics of cyber-sovereignty and defense, majors are concerned by IPR laws, etc.


How to move on?

Until Snowden, all of this was deemed by civil public as fairy tales. I was a lunatic troll when trying to moderate the USG and industry biased influence. Therefore, I needed to proceed along the then existing rules. This is why I created the IUCG@IETF (http://iutf.org/wiki) site and mailing list as a Civil Society gateway to the standardization process.

It is now available to whoever wants to use it to debate these serious issues and consider the intelligent use of the internet technology (use, not necessarily a change) in a more person oriented technical context. To help this process, I have created the http://openarch.net IUCG portal.

My personal priority, once the ISOC RFC 6852 appeal is completed, will be to try to exemplify this “Iuse” through an architectural set of specifications and applied examples in a way to best intelligently use and propose the existing internet technology lower layers. Even if this may complete and compete with the sole way of how the US government and industry (statUS-quo) wished us to use the TCP/IP world and people’s infrastructure.

jfc

 

From dogwallah@gmail.com Tue Sep 17 11:48:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC5E11E82CD for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TJOpmPRMlUeL for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com (mail-bk0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F1C11E813F for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mx11so2331145bkb.18 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DxdIAU7Z2RIijC4mW2t3kQeL2FSsaJ/GztywWYk5My4=; b=FDERAtuaTjKJdwaVW8ZcydKHCb5MFm1Fk3pjacW+vwH1N6qyILDBDlZJoPJh5vDNjt BgrtO3JOvsqJH08fQ5kISLKXC3cn2XPaCrpCFPu4PNrjuP4SuHyR8eCQKAPwdi15PGi5 xurMqeegMxA9Zhp1uH+GA+rJYKqtMTri8k6DdwmuPtnSCyK3AFwBX/9h2oVvF2nDsgMo rJcEe5bqXfik1YoHgJL8PJ4BNgkvpB7ke+sYAD8Y+JaOc8haGg+b450sL0yvg48Jui80 pq9QXfachsWvuk2MFIdPkPERv5ysl7zXnOjwQVF1KIWo1WXVoEmAxNuAi0HspDS8FYqQ UD1Q== X-Received: by 10.204.123.199 with SMTP id q7mr31241334bkr.10.1379443677045; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:47:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.23.206 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:47:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> From: McTim Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:47:16 -0400 Message-ID: To: "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" , JFC Morfin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11334a3c5bd54104e698c2d4 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:26:54 -0700 Cc: iab@iab.org, Bob Hinden , iucg@ietf.org, suresh Ramasubramanian , iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:48:17 -0000 --001a11334a3c5bd54104e698c2d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 jefsey, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > 1. As a result, IEEE, W3C, ISOC (and its IETF and IAB affiliates), as well > as the OpenStand signatories, are no longer striving for any of humanity's > "common good" > incorrect, see slide 11 on http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/RIPE-Roundtable-IETF-201309.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel --001a11334a3c5bd54104e698c2d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jefsey,


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, JFC Morfin &= lt;jefsey@jefsey.com= > wrote:


1. As a result, IEEE, W3C, ISOC (and its IETF and IAB affiliates), as well as the OpenStand signatories, are no longer striving for any of humanity's "common good"

incorrect, see slide 11 on=A0



--
Cheers,

Mc= Tim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it i= s. A route indicates how we get there."=A0 Jon Postel
--001a11334a3c5bd54104e698c2d4-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Sep 18 18:47:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A2211E816B for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:47:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.833 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.292, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lhg+xfPZBPfq for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE2A11E80D5 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:60180 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VMTL7-0006Xc-Pl; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:47:30 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:47:22 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Daniel Pimienta , governance@lists.igcaucus.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130919014732.BDE2A11E80D5@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 01:47:37 -0000 At 23:03 18/09/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:
This definition does not solve perfectly the issues of conflicts of interests and domination by the powers (no one does) but it does reduce considerably the areas of ambiguities and may allow a more meaningful gouvernance.

Daniel,

This is definitely true. This is one of the RFC 6852 issues with ISOC. Up to now, IETF was outside of the WSIS multistakeholderism, while OpenStand is within the definition of the private sector and is involved in FRAND considerations with IEEE, W3C, and ISOC who have paying members. This raises the issue of the IUCG@IETF, which is established as an IETF civil society body.

The only real Civil Society power is to establish its own specifications, requirements, best practices, and frames of reference. If the ISOC denies us, as IETF participants, the capacity to constructively challenge OpenStand documents we will then know that OpenStand business stakeholders want a radical monopoly on the internet that, as Civil Society, we cannot accept. This is why we would then have to challenge such a monopoly.

The problems that we have now are:

1. the Civil Society has eroded down to individual activists, a situation we have to accept as intrinsic because every grassroots innovation will have a bootstrap of one or a few persons. This is why we need to consider a P&P architecture and relational space.

2. the US citizens among us seem to consider their own government as their enemy and their own laws as tyranny; and they want to involve us in their concerns.

2.1. This should be a purely US national issue that they discuss in their Congress and elections. As non-national civil society organizations, our interests are related to civil life and rights in the most appropriate use of the international network infrastructure to address people's direct and indirect needs.

2.2. We know that all Govs and marketing organizations spy on us, that Govs help their national industries to compete with the industries of other nations; and that the USG is the most active at this game, trying to cybercolonize us (http://export.gov/advocacy/) in locking us into their statUS-quo normative “internationalization” strategy; and that this strategy includes influencing us in feeling and being directly concerned by their projects, laws, and national actions along their language and culture.

2.3. We resent this strategy and Brazil, Peru, etc. have started expressing it. We trust our Govs to protect us from these normal facts of international life, to possibly retaliate if it goes too far, and in turn to spy on others to better defend us and help us. Our primary target is not the US development but the millennium objectives that in turn require the development of every country including the US.

2.4. Our best interest as citizens, users, and persons from civil society is adequate innovation and civil right protection, everywhere – USA included. As such, we oppose attempts of innovation freeze, technology tempering, and standardization control as the USG could have done it. This is why my appeal to ISOC concerning RFC 6852 is a key test because it will tell if the new internet normalization paradigm (under the name of OpenStand) allows or disallows this control to be challenged through an open process.
 
If not, it will mean that:
- the OpenStand network technology and practices are under USG and/or US industry influence and cannot be trusted as being neutral.
- an alternative neutral standardization source (or multiple source) is/are to be found, or a standardization enhanced cooperation is to be organized within the IGF framework (i.e. with the full participation of the USG and the US industry that would be able to introduce a possible revamp of the OpenStand modern paradigm description if it was open to new and/or architectures, technologies, propositions, and services other than the thirty year old internet ones, and subject to technological reviews from anyone under the sun).

Question: why is that Americans make it so complicated for the world to help them best survive?

Take care :-)
jfc



From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Sep 20 04:26:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9400521F941F for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:26:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.404 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.624, BAYES_50=0.001, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7IRNkIx6SUWx for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4740321F940D for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:62014 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VMyr3-0007Uu-Vf; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:26:34 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:26:27 +0200 To: iucg@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org> References: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20130920112635.4740321F940D@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: "bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits" , iutf@iutf.org, governance@lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [iucg] N/Yes X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:26:39 -0000 http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=37041 for old records: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7388 jfc