Subject: Allisat Tales Over The World

From: Thomas Dineen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)

GentlePeople

   So now Mr. Allisat tells the president and his administration
what to do?????????????

   This sound like a loss of sovereignty to me!
   
   Or the ramblings of a foreign dictator!

Thomas Dineen

>>  No matter what
>>  the heck Ira or even bleeping Congress
>>  or Bill Himself want they will be
>>  forced to come if everyone except
>>  for Them will be there.

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:10:33 -0400 (EDT)

Thomas Dineen wrote:
> what to do????????????? This sound like a loss of sovereignty
> to me! Or the ramblings of a foreign dictator!

 Don't really know what you're
 on about Tom. Seems to me that
 if my opinions are so dementedly
 inconsequential berating my
 humble lunatic self in front
 of your esteemed IETF collegues
 is a tad odd. Unless of course
 folks out there appear to be
 heeding the advice of this
 poor, misguided individual.

 No money, no power, no tech
 talk. Just good old fashioned
 horse sense. Can't really beat
 that can ya Tommy? Time maybe
 to join the Bob club? 

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network _ [email-masked] . http://fcn.net
 http://fcn.net/allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:10:33 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Allisat

---

From: Alex Kamantauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)

Or the ravings of a looney

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Thomas Dineen wrote:

> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
> 

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
Tugger Networks

---

From: Alex Kamantauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
Tugger Networks

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 8:54:59 JST

Thomas;

>    This sound like a loss of sovereignty to me!

You and GentlePeople are wrong and Allisat is right here, then.

Sovereignty with regard to some president and his local
administration is not important to the Internet.
 
>    Or the ramblings of a foreign dictator!

What, do you mean, is "foreign"?

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 8:54:59 JST

Thomas;

 

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:55:41 -0700

Ohta-san,

>administration is not important to the Internet.

Theoretically perhaps.  However, it would appear that the reality is a bit
different.   Pragmatically, the world governments would seem to have
implicitly accepted the idea that the US has the ability/responsibility to
establish the "Internet governance" structures and the transfer of power to
those structures (or not) as the USG sees fit (actually, I suspect the
other governments simply want someone to blame... :-)).  As such, actions
by  the US president and administration would seem to carry some weight.

Or do you believe the governments of other countries were consulted and
have agreed to the extension of the InterNIC contract, NSI designing,
implementing, and licensing shared registry technologies, etc?

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:55:41 -0700

Ohta-san,

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 14:36:01 JST

David;

> different.

???

> Pragmatically, the world governments would seem to have
> other governments simply want someone to blame... :-)).

I can find no such reality.

> implementing, and licensing shared registry technologies, etc?

It seems to me that the only thing that is expected on USG is
to stop NSI claiming the root zone authority.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 14:36:01 JST

David;

???

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:10:06 -0700

Ohta-san,

>to stop NSI claiming the root zone authority.

Aside from the fact that even this would seem to contradict your previous
statement (above), I had thought much of the consternation over the domain
name system was the implicit monopoly the US government was granting to NSI
over the gTLDs.  I am relieved to see this is not an issue any longer.  I
am a bit surprised, however, that the you would argue that the US
government's requirement of the Internet to use licensed proprietary
technologies (without any requirement of input from the IETF or other
"stakeholders" (oh, how I hate that term)) for the sharing of registry data
is not important to the Internet.

Also, has NSI actually claimed root zone authority?  Given the distributed
nature of the root name servers, I would think any such claim somewhat hard
to enforce if there is any actual disagreement...

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:10:06 -0700

Ohta-san,

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 15:54:06 JST

David;

> statement (above),

There is no contradiction. It is purely a US local issue. It is
not so important.

If some company in some other contry behaves like NSI, the local
government is expected to stop the company, too.

If the local government fails to satisfy the expectation, it is a
proof that there is no sovereignty not even domestically.

Note that they all are domestic issues.

> I

???

Registry data, over which NSI has no copyright or other IPR, is publicly
accessible through whois.

Even without them, root servers have copies of SLA SOAs, in which mail
addresses of zone contact are stored.

But, if you insists, I think you can organize batallions of volunteers
to extract a complete set of registry data from NSI.

So, even if USG sucessfully proves that there is no sovereignty
not even domestically, it is not so much a problem.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 15:54:06 JST

David;

???

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:34:28 +0100

David R. Conrad wrote:
...
> implementing, and licensing shared registry technologies, etc?

They were consulted. Whether they agreed is another question.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:34:28 +0100

David R. Conrad wrote:
...

   Brian

---

From: Werner Staub <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:53:08 +0200

David,

> those structures (or not) as the USG sees fit

Well, not quite "as the USG sees fit". 

The USG, having insufficient objective claims to Internet governance, 
had to sweeten the pill by saying the whole thing is about "devolving"
authority. In doing so, the USG successfully claimed authority
it did not have before. But there are limits to what the USG can do.

This situation is very similar to that of the Popes who crowned
kings and emperors in the middle ages. By crowning a king, a pope 
established his own authority - but he still needed an army and
allies to defend it. 

Some popes were strong enough to tell their kings what to do. Pope 
Gregory VII forced the German Emperor to do penance at Canossa in 
1077. Interesting perspective for ICANN board members...

Regards,

Werner

---

From: Werner Staub <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:53:08 +0200

David,

Regards,

Werner

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:36:32 -0700 (PDT)

The question should not be cast as "who owns the Internet".

It should be more focused:

For example:

- Who gets to say who has the access rights to edit the zone files that
are used to feed the set of DNS servers that we normally consider to
compromise the root?

- Who gets to say who has the access rights to edit the configuration file
that most of us accept as defining the set of DNs root servers?

It's probably best to think of the rights being passed from the US as
something normally called "good will".

Consider a medical practice -- they are bought and sold all the time, yet
a doctor can not compel patients to be his/her customers.  Rather, there
is an asset, one that can evaporate pretty quickly if abused, based on the
fact that customers/clients tend to continue to do what they have done in
the past.  This is called "good will" and can indeed be bought, licensed,
sold, etc.

We've become accustomed to getting access to the root via US designated
bureaucracies, much the same for IP address space (although there has been
a sub-delegation in that case to a couple of additional bodies outside the
US.)

It's that bit about "become accustomed" which forms the good-will based
asset that the US is transferring or delegating.

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:36:32 -0700 (PDT)

For example:

		--karl--

---

From: Alex Kamantauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT)

> are used to feed the set of DNS servers that we normally consider to

This is a good question.  This is a very good question.  I firmly hope
that the new IANA will A) allow these zone files to be publically
accessible, and B) will exert enough control over the public accessibility
so that the root zone doesn't become a farce.  A tough situation to be in,
no doubt.

> that most of us accept as defining the set of DNs root servers?

Another good question (one that I misread originally - I thought you were
asking about control of the 'root hints' file that ships with whatever DNS
software distribution you are using).  

I am worried that inclusion of too many root servers will ultimately cause
major problems, especially if there is a explosion of new TLD's.  The
larger the root zone, the longer it will take the various servers to get a
copy, and I feel that this will cause synchronization problems between,
let's say, A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET and Z.ROOT-SERVERS.CZ.

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
Tugger Networks

---

From: Alex Kamantauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT)

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
Tugger Networks

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT)

Masataka,

I suggest reading the 11th ammendment to the NSI coperative agreement
http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment11.html

some highlights:
    o the USG set priceing to no more than one USD per registration/year
    o NSI is to manage the "Repository" but must seporate itself
      into Registrar and Registry by Feb 1 1999.
    o NSI will run the primary root server until the USG tells it to do
      something else.
    o NSI must develop a SRS and must reasonably license it.
      (NSI has been working on an SRS for over a year now =)

The USG negoated this wonderful agreement on the behalf of whom? I am
not pleased with the new ammendment, how does it get altered? whom
do we complain to? i don't know.

-rick

---

From: "Rick H. Wesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT)

Masataka,

some highlights:

-rick

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:28:15 -0700

[my last comment on this thread -- apologies for the non-technical,
non-IETF nature]

Karl,

>asset that the US is transferring or delegating.

I do not disagree.  The subject line was an attempt at "wry humor" (it was
a question I used to get fairly regularly at APNIC), but I left off the
smiley.  Oops.

My comments were in response to an assertion that the actions of the US
government were "not important" for the Internet [governance].  While some
might wish that this were true, pragmatically speaking, it simply does not
correspond to reality.  This is clearly (at least to me) demonstrated by
the US Government extending the NSI contract and/or "ending" their monopoly
over .COM/.NET/.ORG while granting another over the registry sharing
protocol.  Others may wish to believe otherwise, but like saying pi = 4, it
doesn't make it so.

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:28:15 -0700

Karl,

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:02:01 JST

Rick;

> http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/amendment11.html

Thank you for your information that NSI won the battle and there
is no sovereignty not even doemstically within US.

Now, there is no reason remaining to involve USG in DNS issues.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:02:01 JST

Rick;

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:08:27 JST

Alex;

> let's say, A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET and Z.ROOT-SERVERS.CZ.

With reasonable configuration, the propagation time increases
logarithmically to the number of root servers.

So, unless you are trying to have a large number of root servers,
larger than can be contained in the entire IPv6 address space,
propagation time is not a problem.

Note also that, for large zones, root or whereever, there is RFC 1995.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:08:27 JST

Alex;

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:15:25 JST

David;

> Others may wish to believe otherwise, but like saying pi = 4, it
> doesn't make it so.

Certainly.

And, as was just demostrated, it was easier to refute your statement
that NSI exclusively owns the important database than to refute pi = 4.

> government were "not important" for the Internet [governance].

The obvious conclusion is, just as pi != 4, USG is not important.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 9:15:25 JST

David;

Certainly.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:49:38 -0700 (PDT)

> The obvious conclusion is, just as pi != 4, USG is not important.

then we can all safely assume this discussion has ended.  as it has little
to do with the workings of the ietf, this is generally a good thing.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:49:38 -0700 (PDT)

randy