|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: GTE to acquire Genuity
Would you guys pls take your P!$$ng contest off to another list. TE On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Gordon Cook wrote: > Rather than speak ONLY to the facts, Rodney can't resist some very nice > name calling and personal attacks because my criticism has obviously > offended him. And regardless of what an outsider to the internet might > think his motives were of course pure. Let > the record speak for itself and let the discussion be taken off line and > NANOG be returned to operational matters. > > Here, in full, is what I published in my sept 97 issue. > > On July 13 Rodney wrote privately to us but for publication: I've been > mulling over your request, and I'm not sure how best to answer it. One of > the misnomers about Genuity is that we're a start up. You'll actually find > that we were one of the 22 direct connects to the CIX router in Santa > Clara already in May of 1994, so I'd hardly call Genuity a start up. > Although we were certainly the smallest, or one of the smallest (Jamie > Saker out of Wisconsin at Synergy was probably a similar size), we were > very much in business before the Internet truly became mainstream. > > Anyway, our early allocations were a couple of /24s, and then a 19/. We > had to plead with Kim Hubbard for another 19/, but were successful in > getting it only when we promised to be frugal in sub-allocations (she > didn't ask for empirical evidence). Then Genuity came in to being > (December 1995 when I sold 75% of the company to Bechtel). > > At that stage, or soon after, things tightened up. We really didn't have > our act together as far as swipping address space that we had allocated to > customers, and we began to run out of space. At the NANOG held in DC in > 1996 all of our pleading with Kim fell on deaf ears.... Justifiably on her > part (although at the time I felt a 2 x 4 was the best method of improving > her hearing). So I approached everyone I could for help, including Paul > Vixie and Jon Postel. Jon was very helpful, cuffing me around the ears and > telling me to go away and do what the NIC wanted everyone to do, and to > set an example. So, all of our Network Engineering staff got together, and > over the course of a week built all the audit tools needed, and SWIPd all > the addresses we had allocated, developed an ongoing plan and architecture > for allocating address space, then went back to Kim for more space. > > Kim looked at the SWIP data, tested the integrity, and then agreed to > allocate us more address space in segments, but only if we agreed to > return the address space we already had if we wanted to get contiguous > space allocated (I am a big believer now in CIDR). We have stuck to this > religiously, and have only been turned down twice since then when we have > asked for more address space (we had to tighten up more of our sub > allocations). So we have not really seen any effect of RFC 2050 (I don't > think) because we were already being very conservative before it was > published. We maintain a very strict regime with our customers, and > actually, although our customers are all corporate users, we commonly > allocate /27s to them if they cannot justify more space. > > Jon Postel as a > Genuity Board Member > > You asked how Jon Postel came to be on our board. As far as I know, it is > the only board he sits on. He sits in one of my two board positions. He > helps me provide the Internet's view to the Bechtel side of the board, so > that the decisions they make are for the Internet, not against it. He > helps me lend weight to making sure that we help, not hurt. We've funded > well into 6 figures of software development through Vixie and Associates. > Jon helped make sure that the board understood that making the > applications 'freeware' and public domain was a 'good' thing. Hence > "Vulture" and " Vulture 2" and Turk, which are available from Vixie's home > page, and are used by many. Also we've ended up funding indirectly some of > the other stuff that Paul does, related to bind, etc. > > Jon made it clear, as part of his involvement in our board, that his > connection with IANA etc would be one way - he would be looking for a flow > of help in the other direction only. We've sponsored ISOC at the fullest > level because of him, we provide significant services to ISI, JPL, > CalTech, and USC, and on the other hand we have disqualified ourselves > from opportunities where his influence might have helped (We will *not* be > applying/bidding to be one of the registrars in the new TLD world unless > it is clear that the decision making process can be shown demonstrably to > be untainted by any connection - currently unlikely). > > The interesting thing is that Jon has helped make us a good net citizen in > an environment where one would believe that a privately held company with > very deep pockets could have instantly become a major force for the 'dark' > side. > > You would have to ask Jon for his full motivation, but I will tell you > that you can spend as much time combing through the records as you want, > and you will see that all the apparent advantages have accrued on the > Internet's side. From our side, we have managed to build a solid business, > based on pretty strong morals and principles, and have attracted some > pretty good people who also appreciate the fact that we are able to > operate without having to look over our shoulders. Jon was instrumental in > this. > > By the way, on the few occasions that I have asked Jon questions where he > felt a conflict, he has had no hesitation in telling me so. I have > respected that. I'd say that Genuity owes some significant part of its > success to being guided well by Jon in the good ways of the Internet. And > overall I think I can say that the net itself is a better place. [Editor: > Unfortunately, we did not recall, until we were going to press, that the > member of a Board of Directors of a corporation has a legal, fiduciary > reponsibility to that corporation. Thus, contrary to Rodney's assertion > about Jon's insisting that his membership not benefit Genuity, it could be > said that, if Jon had information about an action that he would take as > IANA, and he did not disclose it to Genuity, he might be acting in > violation of his legal, fiduciary responsibility to Genuity. If Jon served > on an advisory board, this liability would vanish. Unfortunately the web > page http://www.genuity.net/about_genuity/officers.html makes it very > clear he is a full member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. We > see this as one more example that, filled with good intentions as he may > be, Jon has gotten in over his head.] > > ========= > November 14, 1997: since sensitivities are so raw let me make a couple > more things perfectly clear. It is my understand that among the original > generation of internet founders Jon has likely profited from his full > time dedication to the network far less than any one else. I have talked > with a lot of people who for various reasons are unhappy with things that > Jon has recently done. However not once has anyone person ever suggested > that jon did anything for his personal benefit or profit. > > NEVERTHELESS: with the internet now a multi billion dollar a year global > industry, the same informal standards of operation for IANA that served > the internet well up to a couple of years ago are likely inadequate. IANA > is perhaps the most critical set of functions in the entire network. the > idea that one fallable human being like Jon - however well intentioned he > may be and I am sure that he is well intentioned - can be both decision > maker and court of last resort on issues as contentious as IP allocation > and DNS - is an idea that is losing credibility. Given the last two years > of DNS wars - if I may be allowed to have an opinion of MY own - it is > especially important that, operating in an arena where most people no > longer know him personally, Jon must take great care to avoid even the > APPEARNCE of any conflict of interest. > > ************************************************************************ > The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ > Internet: [email protected] New Special Report: Internet > Governance at the Crossroads ($175) http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml > ************************************************************************ > > > On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Rodney Joffe wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > I have to admit that you're right. You really do have all the answers, > > and you really do know it all. > > > > I guess the fact that there are only two shareholders in Genuity, me and > > Bechtel, both of whom know exactly what Jon could and couldn't do, and > > who accepted his conditions when he joined the board, is unimportant. > > And the fact that Jon knew this, and understood that his fiduciary > > responsibility in this area was subject *only* to the shareholders, both > > of whom assured him in terms that he was prepared to accept that they > > would *not* expect him to or ask him to _abuse_ his position of trust > > outside of Genuity to assist Genuity unfairly, is irrelevant. > > > > Gordon, I have never been able to quite fathom out why you chose this > > industry to attempt to make a living, and not the same industry as the > > National Enquirer. I think you've missed your calling. I only hope your > > clients realise the true value of your reporting. > > > > So that others are privy to the same information that I gave you, let me > > be specific ( and remember, I don't owe ANYONE an explanation, but I > > want to undo the damage that your buffoonery has caused); > > > > Bechtel never really had to make a choice about whether Jon joined the > > board or an advisory board. I nominated him to the board as one of *my* > > representatives. They didn't know Jon from a hitchiker before this. I > > wanted someone clueful to help me guide Genuity along a *good* path, and > > away from the dark side (obviously I passed on asking you). I think I > > can proudly say that Genuity has been an exemplary internet citizen (I, > > of course, may not have been). > > > > So when you attempt to to wind people up with your paranoia, you do > > someone who has done a lot of good for the Internet over *many* years a > > grave injustice. Fortunately I care more about what honest, good people > > like Jerry Scharf says, than I do about what you say. If I didn't, I'd > > probably spend some real energy telling you what I really think. > > > > Does anyone know if Paul's RBL works on a single netaxs address? > > > > Rodney Joffe > > Chief Technology Officer > > Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company > > http://www.genuity.net > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 1997 11:38 PM > > > To: Jerry Scharf > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: GTE to acquire Genuity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > > > > > Gordon, > > > > > > > > you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures > > > into a > > > > proposal of irresponsibility. > > > > > > false: you should read what i wrote more carefully before you fly > > > publicly off t he handle. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you could spin an equally long chain of > > > > things into a reason why no one from the IAB or IETF ADs should have > > > anything > > > > at stake with the industry they help direct. > > > > > > > > > So IANA has no special powers? > > > > > > > > > > > > For this particular case, there > > > > are facts to prove your conjecture flawed. > > > > > > > wrong because you misread my conjecture. > > > > > > > > > > I was consulting at Genuity when then needed to do their initial IP > > > address > > > > gathering for their new network. They sent in a proposal to Kim, and > > > Kim told > > > > them no. Rodney was very upset at the time, but there was never any > > > > interference by the IANA. When Genuity provided better documentation > > > and > > > > cleaned up some things, then they got address blocks like anyone > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > May I quote what you over looked: Now I am confident that he has not > > > used > > > his position to give special benefit to genuity. > > > > > > and later in the same post: Rodney Joffe explained to me in very > > > glowing > > > terms this summer why jon > > > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. > > > > > > Further explanation - Rodney Joffe told me precisely the same story > > > which > > > i published verbatim.....and more besides..... jon came out pure as > > > the > > > driven snow > > > > > > > > > > At least judge Jon by his actions, not by your inferred doubt. The > > > evidence is > > > > that when put in the exact situation you feared, the IANA acted by > > > not acting. > > > > Genuity was not harmed financially by this (I think even Rodney will > > > now admit > > > > that) so there is no damage to be fretted about. Certainly there > > > will be a > > > > tidy profit to Bechtel and the other founders of Genuity. > > > > > > > > > > I never suggested genuity was harmed. I do state that one of the > > > senior members of the community who knows the laws of the fiduciary > > > legal > > > responsibility of members of boards of directors far better than I > > > pointed out that he believed it possible that a genuity stock holder > > > who was aware of jons proper from the internet point of view, could > > > have > > > taken legal action against jon for NOT making a decision that > > > benefitted > > > genuity and using his powers to act for the fiduciary benefit of the > > > company of which he was a director and for which he had such a legal > > > responsibility. > > > > > > now I am a r ussian history Phd....read trained as an academic....as > > > is > > > jon.....and most academics aren't terribly aware of these > > > nuances.....so I > > > can understand jon's accepting the directorship. > > > > > > guess my bitch is why would the presumably legally savvy business > > > staff > > > of genuity/bechtel have put jon however unwittingly into such a > > > position?. > > > > > > I have been told be those who are also my seniors, that Jon is and > > > "icon" > > > and when one critcizes him one can expect all hell to break > > > loose....looks > > > like my seniors were right.....but it also looks like I owe him no > > > apology. > > > > > > and before you continue your flame I hope you will look more carefully > > > at > > > what I am saying. > > > > > > > I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this. > > > > > > > > jerry > > > > > > > > > > > ====================== > > > read my original post more carefully this time. > > > > > > Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board. It is my > > > understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility to act in > > > the > > > best financial interests of genuity. Seems to me this creates a > > > conflict > > > of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit > > > genuity with IP allocations etc. Now I am confident that he has not > > > used > > > his position to give special benefit to genuity. but I am also told > > > that > > > he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when > > > it > > > could be argued he had the power to do so. This is a distinction that > > > I > > > was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a > > > business > > > background might also be slow to grasp. > > > > > > Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon > > > was on the 'board" his explanation sounded fine. Point is Jon could > > > have > > > had the same impact as a special advisor to the board. one wonders > > > why > > > genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these > > > issues went with the board choice anyway. > > > > > > does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired? i > > > would hope so. > > > >
|