Subject: Re: IAB comments on Green Paper

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:42:35 -0500 (EST)

Brian (IAB) wrote:

> We (the IETF/IESG/IAB) have two choices
>
>  - leave the assignment of protocol numbers with the IANAng,
>    get to choose some board members, and have significant influence;
>  - do the assignment of protocol numbers ourselves, not get to
>    choose any board members of IANAng, and have no influence.

Depending on the scope of the IANAng, I'd be for option 2.

_Essential_ technical administration of the Internet involves many
aspects:
 - IP numbers
 - ASNs
 - Port numbers
 - etc.

These functions MUST be controlled by the technical community to
ensure the viability of the public Internet.

DNS administration used to be registration of your name.  Now it is
almost a purchasing of a product.  Administration of DNS is non-
essential, because we don't have to point at the USG roots.  Therefore
market pressure can help decide technical choices such as a move to
DNSSec.  DNS is therefore non-technical (relatively) and non-essential.

Why converge so much into one organization?

It seems best to keep the technical in the hands of the technical
community and seperate it from the business of DNS.  I believe this
to be above all the fatal flaw of the GP.  Therefore in my opinion,
it seems best to take protocol assignment away from the IANAng.

However, my more flaky argument here is that the high-level IP address
assignment is also too technical for the GP, and that it too should
be informally coordinated.  The regional registries are (IMHO) quite
happy to be accountable to their members and charge only for their
operations.

CORE was right to keep DNS seperate from everything technical.
The GP should not create a IANAng.  It should propose a new organization
to run DNS and hand over technical administration of everything else
to the IAB/IESG/IETF to find funding for.  This again ties into the
money - don't let the technical administration of the Internet be
funded only by DNS/IPv4, otherwise we're stuck with a system we can't
change due to vested intrests.

Billy Biggs
Division 8 Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:42:17 +0000 (GMT)

> ensure the viability of the public Internet.

EuroISPA's reply to the US government green paper will propose that
IANA's functions be split into two, with responsibility for the 
gTLDs handled by an International gTLD Authority (IGA) and all of 
the technical functions handled by "IANA Lite".   

In our scheme, IANA Lite is a neutral standards organization deriving
its authority from the Internet community and with a board appointed
by the IAB, IETF, the NICs, etc.

The IGA gets the green paper's board of trademark lawyers, end users,
etc, and heavy-handed corporate CEO type.  

> it seems best to take protocol assignment away from the IANAng.

It isn't actually DNS that is the problem: it's specifically the
gTLDs.  IANA's relationship with the nTLD registries is simple and
problem-free: IANA simply defers to whichever sovereign government
corresponds to an nTLD.  

> happy to be accountable to their members and charge only for their

Indeed.  Throwing IP address assignment into the hands of a board
controlled by trademark lawyers looks like a prescription for a 
disaster.  

> change due to vested intrests.

There is in fact already a draft proposal for the structure under 
which IANA Lite would be funded and managed by the IP address space 
registries, the domain name registries, and Internet technical bodies.

It makes sense to throw the gTLD question, which has led to endless
dispute, to the wolves (Ira Magaziner and friends) and keep IANA's
important technical functions out of the clutches of lawyers and
politicians.

--
Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015

            president, EuroISPA  http://www.euroispa.org

---

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:05:51 -0500 (EST)

Jim,

> problem-free: IANA simply defers to whichever sovereign government

I would not call that relationship problem-free.  It is still a
non-technical and highly political issue.  Problems with who is running
each nTLD registry are already starting to occur, with Bulgarian ISPs for
one screaming out for help already.  I stay with my opinion that the DNS
administration as a whole should be seperate from the technicals of number
assignment.

> registries, the domain name registries, and Internet technical bodies.

Keep the domain name multi-million dollar marketing tool out of the
technical.

Billy Biggs
Division 8 Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:23:29 +0000 (GMT)

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Billy Biggs wrote:

> non-technical and highly political issue. 

Legal risk arises when IANA [Lite] has to make decisions.  As regards
nTLDs, IANA is risk-free so long as it defers to the decisions of 
sovereign governments.
 
>                                           Problems with who is running
> one screaming out for help already.

IANA's responsibilities don't extend beyond the data that is appears
in the root zone.  Passing judgement on the policies of the nTLD 
registries is not and must not become IANA's responsibility.

>                                    I stay with my opinion that the DNS

Well, our first draft split IANA proper into three parts (IANA/ADDR,
IANA/DNS, and IANA/IETF) and then moved actual responsibility for
gTLDs into a fourth body.  Someone asked me to give consideration to
the use of Occam's Razor: there were too many little entities.

> Keep the domain name multi-million dollar marketing tool out of the

That is indeed our objective.

---

From: Per Gregers Bilse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:30:14 +0100

> one screaming out for help already.

Please don't bring this issue up (again), it's basically nonsense.

To clarify for those interested, since BG registration is done by the
same company that is affiliated with EUnet, we looked into the matter
and sought clarification.  The stir is created by a small handful of
entrepreneurial types (sounds awfully familiar), who has complained
also to both the RIPE NCC and IANA, but without result (for good
reason).  The main bone of contention is that BG-NIC has introduced
charges for domain registrations, USD 50 one-off and USD 50 per year;
this is somewhat less than most other countries, and the user community
(which was consulted) had previously agreed on USD 80-100 per year
being appropriate.  The charges are (obviously) a token amount towards
cost; the company has in any case annual turn-over of around DEM 1M
(over USD 500k, which is no small amount in BG) from other activities,
so whatever comes in from registration will be in the noise.  Plans are
to eventually do registration in a separate and independent
organisation when that is feasible (for one thing, there must be
enough activity to actually support something like an FTE, office
space, machinery, Internet connection, etc).

-- 
------ ___                        --- Per G. Bilse, Director Network Eng & Ops
----- /     /  /   __   ___  _/_ ---- EUnet Communications Services B.V.
---- /---  /  /  /  /  /__/  /  ----- Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL
--- /___  /__/  /  /  /__   /  ------ tel: +31 20 5305333, fax: +31 20 6224657
---                           ------- 24hr emergency number: +31 20 421 0865
--- Connecting Europe since AS286 --- http://www.EU.net e-mail: bilse at domain

---

From: Lance Spitzner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:46:19 -0600

I believe Mr. Biggs makes an excellent point here.

The main controversy boils down to domain names, who controls what domain
names.  The business community is not
interested in IPs, protocols, root servers, etc.  Businesses are concerned
that they own the rights to their domain name, no
different then trademarks.  I recommend that the whole issue be broken down
into two parts, resolving TLDs first..

    o First, divorce TLDs from the technical community.  Allow the
international business community to develop and implement
its own solution, "what the market will bear".  This is a capitalistic
approach, but then so is international business.

    o Once the TLD issue is resolved, the international technical community
can maintain control of the technical issues (IP
address blocks, port #, root servers, etc.).

Obviously, I have left out the details :)  However, the best place to start
might be to first agree on the overall picture before
pursuing specific solutions.

--
Lance Spitzner
New Logic Inc.
Systems and Networking Engineer, Security
Voice: (312) 648-1200
Fax:   (312) 648-4887

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:37:24 -0500

>     o First, divorce TLDs from the technical community.  Allow the

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but we've gone through and debated the
whole thing very extensively -- the hard decisions were already
made. The IANA created the IAHC, which came up with a widely respected
solution, and a lot of organizations lined up behind it, and
organizations set up a nice portable registration system to make DNS
names portable the way that 800 numbers are portable, and then...

...and then Ira Magaziner decided that he couldn't leave a good thing
alone.

Perry

---

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:37:29 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> ....and then Ira Magaziner decided that he couldn't leave a good thing
> alone.

Perry,

With the USG asserting right to 'the final say' in this matter, I think
the technical community (IAB/IETF/IESG) has to realize which is
important: control over the IANA functions or control of DNS.

We MUST make sure that the IANA role is handed over to the IAB to find
funding for.  Losing the DNS issue is, in my opinion, an acceptable loss.
[ Especially considering the world can choose to point at USG roots or ]
[ point at CORE roots. :)                                              ]

This is what ITAG should address, no?  First, confirming with Magaziner
that the IANA roles of protocol assignment and IP space 'ownership' be
handed over to the IAB to create an IANA-lite that will handle them.  DNS
political issues can then be fought out by public argument against the GP.

Billy Biggs
Division 8 Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:26:04 -0500

Billy Biggs writes:
> With the USG asserting right to 'the final say' in this matter,

What if you tomorrow morning asserted that you were the world emperor
and requested that we all wear funny hats. Would we actually have to
wear funny hats?

Perry