[CIMC-work] (DNS subgroup of IMC-Tech?) FW: [Imc-communication] Re: [Dns] Re: Contact DB tied with DNS

Thu Apr 8 16:31:38 PDT 2004

______

Please sign the petition calling for an Israel Accountability Act. We are
sending this to several hundred thousand Americans and we want to greet
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he comes to the White House on
April 14th with a large number of petitions to the President!

Don¹t just sign this petition, but share it with others!

http://www.cnionline.org/petitions/accountability.htm

------ Forwarded Message
> From: Micah Anderson <micah at indymedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:17:11 -0500
> To: anna <anna at mail.nadir.org>
> Cc: dns at indymedia.org, imc-communication at indymedia.org,
> new-project at indymedia.org
> Subject: [Imc-communication] Re: [Dns] Re: Contact DB tied with DNS
> 
> Hi anna,
> 
> I'm replying after I've read Clara's email and Joseph's cryptic
> tangent and Jb's response. I've been gone for three weeks and have way
> too much email waiting for me, so I will be brief.
> 
> Some additional information about the DNS group, that may or may not
> be understood. The DNS group is a workinggroup of imc-tech, it only
> does DNS, which is to say that it does no email work (ala Joseph's
> email, which does have some valid points and have been on the listwork
> group's minds for some time as to how to implement them). The DNS work
> that this group does is simple:
> 
> 1. We create new blah.indymedia.org entires for IMCs that have passed
> process and are ready for their site to go live. We do this by
> pointing "blah" at the IP address that the "blah" site lives on.
> Sometimes some IMCs have more than one name associated with them
> (often their local dialect, or a more politically appropriate
> geographical designation), we give those to the IMC who asks
> for them.
> 
> 2. We change existing blah.indymedia.org entires for IMCs that already
> exist, this means if blah.indymeda.org was a directory entry pointing
> to 4.2.2.2 we would change blah.indymedia.org on request from someone
> from blah to point to 5.3.3.3.
> 
> 4. We do some internal organizing for increasing sanity, decreasing
> madness, and making our processes better. We are a very low process,
> low work group.
> 
> Thats it... If Indymedia decides to make a process around the
> new-project idea, the DNS group will be happy to do the work that is
> technically required to fulfill whatever you guys come up with. The
> DNS group will also be happy to consult on any DNS related issues.
> Beyond that, we are hands-off, this is the point of the new-imc
> process, and the tech's wanting the IMC network to develop the process
> and the procedures behind things, and we'll do the technical work. We
> do not want to be technocrats, and by creating policy, even when it is
> not technocratic by nature, will be perceived as such. I slapped
> together a rough new-imc process a long time ago for myself, and then
> pushed that out to the network saying, here please take what I started
> and make it yours, not the tech's process.
> 
> The discomfort that the DNS group has about giving out subdomains
> stems from the following:
> 
> 1. We don't have a good way to know if a request is coming from
> someone who is authorized to make that request, by their IMC or from
> imc-process, or new-imc. We are working to fix this by linking
> requests with the contact DB.
> 
> 2. We don't follow new-imc close enough to know for sure when an IMC
> has passed the process, so when someone comes asking for their
> subdomain because they just passed, we have to find out if they have.
> This could easily be fixed I think, and really needs to.
> 
> 3. If a subdomain request comes in for something like
> "cats.indymedia.org" we generally respond saying, take it to
> imc-process, and if people agree, then we'll do it.
> 
> If #3 were connected with #2 both of these could be solved easily
> through some process developed by new-imc or imc-process, that we'd be
> happy to follow. 
> 
> I am not sure if I understand what else you guys are interested in
> doing, but I am thrilled if more process comes out of this that solves
> these problems, and if we were to make a hierarchy out of this (not
> all hierarchies are so evil), then dns takes its orders from imc-tech
> which would take its orders from imc-process, which takes its orders
> from Jonathan Jay, president of Indymedia. ;)
> 
> Micah
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, anna wrote:
> 
>> hi dns-group
>> 
>> i just saw this thread in your list beginning of march and have some
>> thoughts about it. (i just copied the subject - this is not the same
>> thread obviously, technically)
>> 
>> we have been in touch before when i tried to raise interest here for
>> the 'new-project working group which has got some approval but not much
>> active interest since it was started.
>> 
>> the idea of that group is, similar to new-imc when that was started, to
>> propose to the network to agree on a process for ... giving out
>> subdomains! for projects, working groups, topic imc's, event imc's. etc.
>> 
>> i think - i wish! - this was your interest. i remember some heavy
>> quarreling between tech and non-tech people back when the new imc
>> process didn't exist about how it is unfair that some people know how to
>> get a subdomain and others don't, that there are lots of requests but
>> only some were being granted, that the subdomain tech people seemed to
>> be the secret management of indymedia. i very clearly remember these
>> very same tech people feelign very uncomfortable abotu this and then
>> them asking for a solution.
>> 
>> we invented a pretty simple process for new-imc.
>> 
>> i still feel uncomfortable with how subdomains are being given out and i
>> can see in this list's archive that you do as well. i wish that at least
>> there was information about which subdomains are being given, and to
>> whom. just to make is a but transparent. i assume that you all have a
>> lot of work to do and i know that documenting lots of work is a pain.
>> 
>> because of this, and because i hate structures that have informal
>> hierarchies i would like to urge you again to cooperate with new-project
>> to invent a simple process. by saying 'informal hierarchies' i want to
>> say that people need a certain knowledge or need to know certain people
>> to be able to get what they want. people who have neither will probably
>> not even know that it's possible, and if they do they will very likely
>> not know how to do this and this is something indymedia should try to
>> avoid.
>> 
>> i think that new-process has done some steps in a good direction and i
>> think there's not much missing other that makin some decisions. (and
>> getting indymedia to agree to this, of course).
>> 
>> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewProject
>> 
>> i really hope i can generate a minimum of interest in your group. not
>> because i'm a beaurocrat at heart but rather because i'd like to see
>> indymedia be accessible, and because i think it might be pretty easy to
>> find a solution.
>> 
>> and (last point)! i think it's not ok to just give out dns's without any
>> kind of procedure.
>> 
>> please cc me or new-project with your answers.
>> 
>> greetings
>> Anna
>> berlin
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://keys.indymedia.org/showkey.py?key=0x08E90385
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dns mailing list
>> Dns at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/dns
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication
> 

------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040408/eb7fd8e5/attachment.obj