... because the Disini brothers want to suck it dry.
Joel Disini, the PHccTLD Administrator, had paid for two advertisements at the Philippine Star, charging that Sec Ver Pen~a of the CICT is engaging in politics when the CICT moved to act on the long-running dispute over the PHccTLD administration. The first ad, showed long downtimes for two PHNET servers -- gomez.ph.net and dns.ph.net. In typical Disini fashion, not enough information was given for people to make informed judgements about the accuracy of the "study." Everyone just had to trust that what the Disinis said were correct.
Unfortunately for the Disinis, the "study" showed different downtimes for gomez.ph.net and dns.ph.net. The two servers are one and the same and could therefore not have been down for different periods of time. Joel Disini claimed that an "independent US firm, which we contract to give us feedback on our services" was responsible for the study. Whether such a firm actually did a study or not, we may never know. All we know is that the data are obviously wrong.
Joel Disini's brother, the Legal Counsel of dotPH (although he lied about this when his affiliation with his brother's company was first brought up, perhaps he was just "shy"), then opined that:
To refute the assertion of the Disinis, I said that I had the logfiles from the PHNET monitoring stations which showed that the PHNET servers were indeed up. The shy-locking lawyer then said in his blog:
Where else can PHNET get data except from PHNET monitoring stations? Based on the logic of this Harvard-schooled (sorry Harvard) lawyer, whatever data PHNET shows would not be credible because they would be "self-serving." Therefore, PHNET could never be able to defend itself. Everyone should then just accept the "study" that his brother commissioned. After all, that "study" is not self-serving and it was done by a U.S. firm. Sure. I was about to agree with JJ Disini's assertion until I remembered that we had caught him lying before.
Joel Disini, one week after I pointed out the mistakes in his data, came up with an explanation for the discrepancies in a blog entitled "edu.ph outages and bombim cadiz' post." One week was enough time for Joel Disini to go through his manufactured "data", have an explanation backed with pretty graphs, and add a claim of an EDU.PH "outage." Of course, his new data are as credible as the previously published ones -- the pretty pictures not withstanding. Disini then fired off another advertisement which detailed downtimes of EDU.PH in server hours. Again, Disini failed to provide details on how things were measured, what were measured, who did the measurement, using what measure. The ad just contained hours of downtime. It was just another very credible, not self-serving "study" from the Disinis.
Because the Disinis continue to try to suck it dry in their frenzied attempt to swallow every juicy drop out of it, let me zip everything up and put them in their place with the following arguments.
(1) Let us assume that the Disini "study" is indeed accurate. Their data just show that some of the EDU.PH DNS servers were down some of the time. In their technical incompetence, the Disinis failed to manufacture data to show that all three EDU.PH DNS servers were simultaneously down some of the time. Therefore, there was never any "outage" of the EDU.PH DNS service. The redundant DNS servers functioned as planned.
No doubt, in the very near future, the Disinis will come out with another "study" which would show that all the servers were down at the same time. It is safe to guess that study would be undertaken by an independent (insert-a-non-Filipino-nationality-here) firm and the results would be very credible and not self-serving.
(2) Let us assume that the EDU.PH DNS servers are indeed the lousiest servers in the world with the most abysmal uptimes and reliability. It still would not support the Disini sinister plot to paint PHNET as incapable of running the PHccTLD Registry. This sinister plan is bound for failure because all that PHNET has to do is to use the very same DNS servers that the PHccTLD currently uses.
Of the four PHccTLD servers ns.ripe.net, sec3.apnic.net, ns-ext.isc.org, and auth50.ns.uu.net, the first three are available for the use of the PHccTLD -- regardless of who runs the Registry. There is no reason why PHNET (or any other entity, for that matter) can not use these very same servers.
Corollary to this, the technical competence of the Disinis can not be proven by the fact that the PHccTLD servers have very low down-times. The Disinis do not operate nor control these DNS servers. They have absolutely nothing to do with their maintenance, their configuration, nor their setup.
JJ Disini just has to accept the fact that if he tries to suck it, it will really go down. Just because he had success with other men doesn't mean he'd succeed with me. JJ had tried to suck every advantage out of this "study" and have failed. He should stop wondering why and just accept the fact that no one will normally be able to get this argument up, much less keep it up -- except perhaps the Disini brothers when they dialog with each other.
Unfortunately for the Disinis, the "study" showed different downtimes for gomez.ph.net and dns.ph.net. The two servers are one and the same and could therefore not have been down for different periods of time. Joel Disini claimed that an "independent US firm, which we contract to give us feedback on our services" was responsible for the study. Whether such a firm actually did a study or not, we may never know. All we know is that the data are obviously wrong.
Joel Disini's brother, the Legal Counsel of dotPH (although he lied about this when his affiliation with his brother's company was first brought up, perhaps he was just "shy"), then opined that:
If PHNET can't run DNS servers properly, how can PHNET's chieft technical officer give good advice to the government?
To refute the assertion of the Disinis, I said that I had the logfiles from the PHNET monitoring stations which showed that the PHNET servers were indeed up. The shy-locking lawyer then said in his blog:
Amazing. He wants to show PHNET server logs to show that PHNET servers were up. Pretty credible stuff there, Bombim. As I mentioned elsewhere (see comment no. 42), this evidence is referred to as "self-serving." I might as well tell you that I'm a great lawyer because my 6-year old says so.
Where else can PHNET get data except from PHNET monitoring stations? Based on the logic of this Harvard-schooled (sorry Harvard) lawyer, whatever data PHNET shows would not be credible because they would be "self-serving." Therefore, PHNET could never be able to defend itself. Everyone should then just accept the "study" that his brother commissioned. After all, that "study" is not self-serving and it was done by a U.S. firm. Sure. I was about to agree with JJ Disini's assertion until I remembered that we had caught him lying before.
Joel Disini, one week after I pointed out the mistakes in his data, came up with an explanation for the discrepancies in a blog entitled "edu.ph outages and bombim cadiz' post." One week was enough time for Joel Disini to go through his manufactured "data", have an explanation backed with pretty graphs, and add a claim of an EDU.PH "outage." Of course, his new data are as credible as the previously published ones -- the pretty pictures not withstanding. Disini then fired off another advertisement which detailed downtimes of EDU.PH in server hours. Again, Disini failed to provide details on how things were measured, what were measured, who did the measurement, using what measure. The ad just contained hours of downtime. It was just another very credible, not self-serving "study" from the Disinis.
Because the Disinis continue to try to suck it dry in their frenzied attempt to swallow every juicy drop out of it, let me zip everything up and put them in their place with the following arguments.
(1) Let us assume that the Disini "study" is indeed accurate. Their data just show that some of the EDU.PH DNS servers were down some of the time. In their technical incompetence, the Disinis failed to manufacture data to show that all three EDU.PH DNS servers were simultaneously down some of the time. Therefore, there was never any "outage" of the EDU.PH DNS service. The redundant DNS servers functioned as planned.
No doubt, in the very near future, the Disinis will come out with another "study" which would show that all the servers were down at the same time. It is safe to guess that study would be undertaken by an independent (insert-a-non-Filipino-nationality-here) firm and the results would be very credible and not self-serving.
(2) Let us assume that the EDU.PH DNS servers are indeed the lousiest servers in the world with the most abysmal uptimes and reliability. It still would not support the Disini sinister plot to paint PHNET as incapable of running the PHccTLD Registry. This sinister plan is bound for failure because all that PHNET has to do is to use the very same DNS servers that the PHccTLD currently uses.
Of the four PHccTLD servers ns.ripe.net, sec3.apnic.net, ns-ext.isc.org, and auth50.ns.uu.net, the first three are available for the use of the PHccTLD -- regardless of who runs the Registry. There is no reason why PHNET (or any other entity, for that matter) can not use these very same servers.
Corollary to this, the technical competence of the Disinis can not be proven by the fact that the PHccTLD servers have very low down-times. The Disinis do not operate nor control these DNS servers. They have absolutely nothing to do with their maintenance, their configuration, nor their setup.
JJ Disini just has to accept the fact that if he tries to suck it, it will really go down. Just because he had success with other men doesn't mean he'd succeed with me. JJ had tried to suck every advantage out of this "study" and have failed. He should stop wondering why and just accept the fact that no one will normally be able to get this argument up, much less keep it up -- except perhaps the Disini brothers when they dialog with each other.
posted by Bombim Cadiz at 8:32 PM
