Subject: RE: The Future of IANA

From: Dave Farber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:29:17 -0500

I just send Bob a note saying Amen to his note. As a good long time friend
of Jon and as his Thesis Co-Advisor (along with Jerry Estrin) -- I second
Bobs statement

Dave

At 08:46 AM 2/3/98 -0800, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>The Jon Postel bashing that is going on is extraordinarily inappropriate.
>Although I have not personally been following the travails of the DNS,
>I know Jon well enough* to know that he is trying his best to create a
>sound technical and managerial basis for the Internet name space,
>robust enough on to support continued and growth of the Internet.
>At least some of the other players in this drama are trying equally
>hard, with equally good motives.
>
>Let's back off a little.
>
>Bob Braden
>
>
>
>*Details available on request
>

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:28:24 -0500 (EST)

Dave, if you consider my note from last night bashing Jon or if you
consider the following the same then we simply do not speak the same
language

As of early this morning Eastern time rootservers D, I, K, L, and M are
still pointed not at rootserver A but at rootserver B.  Jon's experiment
continues.  Point of fact. No interpretation or bashing attached.

The current rootservers are:

A-NSI Herndon
B-USC Marina delRey
C-PSI Herndon
D-UMD College Pk
E-NASA Moffet
F-Vixie Woodside
G-Boeing Vienna VA
H-Army Aberdeen MD
I-Nordu Stockholm
J-NSI Herndon
K-LINX/RIPE London
L-USC Marina delRey
M-WIDE Keio

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               New Special Report: Building
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     Internet Infrastructure ($395)
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                       Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
glossary, executive summaries, special reports found at www.cookreport.com
************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 18:36:44 +0000

How do I unsubscribe from this list???????  Sorry - but our company 
automatically purges old mails from our archives, including the one with the 
listserv details for this.

TIA

Nick

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: The Future of IANA
Author:  farber ([email-masked]) at internet-mime
Date:    03/02/98 17:29

Dave

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:16:22 -0800

> continues.  Point of fact. No interpretation or bashing attached.

Points of fact: 1: The operational test was done in a way that
certainly would have no operational impact on the internet, and this
configuration could continue indefinitely, with zero operational
effect on the internet.  2: From a purely technical point of view, the
ability to change primaries adds robustness to the system, and testing
that on occasion is a prudent thing to do.  3: Jon does not order the
operators of D, I, K, L, and M to do anything.  The root servers are
run cooperatively, not coercively (at least they were until the USG
stepped into the picture and started making demands.)

Interpretation:  The USG GP is in serious trouble -- it has no good 
legal foundation; it clearly does not have the support of the 
majority of the root server operators; there is strong international 
antipathy; it grants pure monopolies to particular commercial 
interests, and then puts a non-profit in the line of fire for 
the lawsuits that big money will bring.  (Of course, under such a 
circumstance the non-profit will require special congressional 
protection to shield it from the hord of commercial interests that 
will want part of the pie that NSI has been feasting on.)

I'm biased, of course -- I support the IAHC plan.  It's true that that
plan has been extremely controvesial and has drawn heavy fire.  But
the bottom line is that the developers of that plan did play by the
rules -- the IAHC was chartered by IANA (the USG said nothing), it
went through hellish controversy and wide contentious public exposure
(the USG said nothing), it put the plan in motion (the USG said
nothing), it actually collected money and put out bids (the USG says
nothing).  Now, at the very last possible moment, the USG says "stop,
we want to change things, we have our plan that is almost like the
IAHC plan, except that it locks in NSI with a permanent monopoly on
the .com registry, and essentially eliminates the MoU from
contention."

But the IAHC plan played by the rules of the game the whole time -- 
it is the USG that is coming in to change the rules at the very last 
instant.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:12:25 -0800

I will, and always have claimed that Jon has done a vastly superior
job in a difficult arena, but at the same time, I must admit that the
task has become larger than even Jon can handle without help.  Indeed,
bashing Jon is neither useful or helpful, to Jon or anyone else.

But help is in order!  I expect that most all of us, with some
exceptions, really want to help Jon, and help the Internet.

But, the problem is: How can we help?

Is it helpful to pat Jon on the back and say "We will do anything you
say, just tell us what to do?  I don't think so.  The fact is that
things are much to much out of hand at this point to just bolster
Jon's will to forge ahead with a program that shows signs of being off
track.  The problem I see is to help get it onto a better track.

It cannot be argued that the last two years has NOT seen a major
deterioration of the Rough Consesnsus and Running Code support for
IANA to just continue doing whatever pleases Jon, no matter how much
we all love him, and honor him for past deeds.

The Internet has grown and succeeded beyond many (but not all)
people's dreams, and it is time that the IANA vestigial tale of the
old days must evolve into something broader than one person doing his
Czar thing.  And, this evolution must involve regeneration of the
required Rough Consensus and Running Code, which in turn implies an
open process of discussion in the mode of civil discourse.  This
latter is one thing that has been sorely lacking over the last year or
so in this realm.

So, I am committed to helping fix the problems, but not committed to
just leaving Jon alone to figure it all out by himself, or to letting
some self appoainted small closed group claiming to represent the
Internet Community sieze control of things that IANA used to control.

We need to all openly cooperate now on evolving beyond yesterdays
vision of Internet Management and Administration, and of Governance
too.

Cheers...\Stef

>From Farber's message Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:29:17 -0500:
}
}I just sent Bob a note saying Amen to his note. As a good long time friend
}of Jon and as his Thesis Co-Advisor (along with Jerry Estrin) -- I second
}Bobs statement
}
}Dave
}
}At 08:46 AM 2/3/98 -0800, [email-masked] wrote:
}>
}>The Jon Postel bashing that is going on is extraordinarily inappropriate.
}>Although I have not personally been following the travails of the DNS,
}>I know Jon well enough* to know that he is trying his best to create a
}>sound technical and managerial basis for the Internet name space,
}>robust enough on to support continued and growth of the Internet.
}>At least some of the other players in this drama are trying equally
}>hard, with equally good motives.
}>
}>Let's back off a little.
}>
}>Bob Braden
}>
}>*Details available on request

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:24:01 +0100

> continues.  Point of fact. No interpretation or bashing attached.

As of 23:22 MET the above mentioned name servers seem to be
pointing to root name server A again, just for your information.
I see that others have already supplied what I would view as a
plausible explanation for this "event".

- Håvard

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:25:34 -0600

Actual facts (rather than nonsense):

> effect on the internet.  

The "operational test" was done in such a way as to position IANA to
potentially add the CORE TLDs without the approval of the "A" root, and if
the remainder of the roots other than "A" had gone along, very well might
have.

> 2: From a purely technical point of view, the
> that on occasion is a prudent thing to do.  

This is a non-starter.  The "configuration test" in question is literally a
ONE LINE change to the IP number in the named.conf or named.boot file.
EVERY NAMESERVER OPERATOR ON THE PLANET DOES PRECISELY THIS when they 
change a zone master for a customer, or when they change their own 
zone masters.

This is a ROUTINE operational matter and is known, factually and
conclusively, to work - in fact, it has to do so, or there would be no
nameservice.  

This was no "test", it was a prelude to a coup.

> 3: Jon does not order the

Jon has no authority acting as a *CONTRACTOR* to do any such thing absent
EXPLICIT direction from his employer(s).

> Interpretation:  The USG GP is in serious trouble 

Interpretation: CORE is dead in the water, and we now have you and Perry
flailing away with abject falsehoods to try to scare people into believing
something that simply isn't true.

> I'm biased, of course -- I support the IAHC plan.  

You are the PAB chair.

> it is the USG that is coming in to change the rules at the very last 

The IAHC made up teh rules as they went along, and changed them at whim as
well.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([email-masked])| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
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

---

From: "Raides J." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:13:51 +0000

> But, the problem is: How can we help?

	Well ... how about a turning of mind? I mean forgetting as much as
possible of the USG and their interventionist mind -they're called "the
world's cops" in military circles- and start planning the next
generation Internet as Inter-national from the ground, even accepting
the risk of breaking legacy programs/hardware/minds but learning from
the past not to repeat it.

> track.  The problem I see is to help get it onto a better track.

	Just what I mean.

> we all love him, and honor him for past deeds.

	True for anyone. Following a leader to death is something of
would-to-be heros, but the ones who tell the history are the survivors
...

> latter is one thing that has been sorely lacking over the last year or

	Open proccess, but internationally open as well. Not US centric again!

> Internet Community sieze control of things that IANA used to control.

	Totally agreed. It's better to have a "softer" transition than an
abrupt one, but if this latter is really needed ...

> vision of Internet Management and Administration, and of Governance

	D'accord! ... But remember: INTERNATIONALLY ... don't even forget the
so called third world when planning for the future!

	Thanks for reading me ..

	Raides J.