North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

don't fall victim to FUD was Re: action: Santa Clara CA &Montgomery MD

  • From: Gordon Cook
  • Date: Fri Feb 27 14:15:06 1998

Dear Nanog list members and Congress people

Before you get too excercised about Bill Simpson's allegations in the
message below let me provide some context that is missing from Mr.
Simpson's message.  On Monday in the IETF mail list  considerable anger was
displayed over the statement in the Green Paper that the IANA Policy
Council would

"coordinate the development of other technical protocol parameters as
needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet."

It was pointed out that the proper function should be to "coordinate the
**assignment** of other technical protocol parameters . . ."

On Monday afternoon I interviewed Ira Magaziner and brought up this issue.
On Monday evening I posted to the IETF list Ira's statement to me that
development was mistaken and assignment should have been used.

On Feb 25 Scott Bradner posted the a separate denial from IRA to IETF list:

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:48:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bradner <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: from Ira Magaziner Re: IETF relationship to new IANA

I asked Ira Magaziner about the wording in the Green Paper in the
area of the relationship between the IETF and the new IANA.  This
is his reply which he said I could forward.



Mr-Received: by mta EOPMRX; Relayed; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:12:16 -0500
Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:10:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: this is what I am very worried about
To: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Ua-Content-Id: MBLINKAA
X400-Mts-Identifier: [;61218132208991/[email protected]]
Hop-Count: 1

Message Creation Date was at 23-FEB-1998 18:10:00

Thanks for your note.  The wording of the green paper is a mistake. We
certainly do not intend for the IETF to in any way become subserviant to this
new organization. We will correct it in the next draft.


In his Feb 23rd interview with me Ira said:

Magaziner:  Let me make clear then what is going on.  I think that the word
"development" was not a correct word to represent the function we were
trying to indicate and that has been pointed out to us by a number of
people.  So that is a good criticism.  There are mistakes in this report as
there would be in any report and when they are pointed out, we acknowledge
them and say we will fix them.  Whether the word assignment or not is the
right one I don't know, but development is clearly the wrong word.  I think
the process of assigning port numbers is what we are trying to convey.
Secondly I think it is accurate to say that we would respond to the sense
of the broader community about whether that function which has been
performed by Postel historically should be performed by this new
organization or whether it should be performed by the IETF itself.  I think
whatever the community wanted to do on that would be OKAY with us.  That is
the way I put it.  I did not say have power or not have power.  What we did
in our report was to propose it as a continued IANA function, or if the
IETF wished to that it could assume the authority.  But let me again make
it very clear we don't intend this word development.  That was a mistake."


Cook: In his interview Ira also made it very clear that the IANA policy
Council is to have control of the root servers and not the US government.

Consequently it seems to be that Mr. Simpson is feeding the current
atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion by moving a problem that quite clearly
has been answered on the IETF list to the NANOG list and into Congress
where many are unaware of what has transpired on the IETF list.

Note also that I have just pulled down both the jan 30th text and the
federal register texts of the green paper.  I searched both texts for the

policies and standards for those activities

and found nothing in either one.  I might suggest that Mr. Simpson give us
the complete citations of what he is ranting against for, on the basis of
my knowledge of the green paper and conversations with Magaziner he is
falsely accusing the US government and seeking to stir up dissension that
will do none of us any good.

It would be far more useful if he would apply his talents to the
establishment of an IANA policy council that protected the ability of the
net to run its own affairs.  There will be an IANA policy council.... Jon
postel himself is working on it.   The IANA functions must be
institutionalized.  Jon is not immortal.  Why not accept this reality and
work toward that institutionalization instead of undermining efforts
designed to accomplish it via fear, uncertainty, and doubt?


>Gentlefolk, the US proposed rule taking over the Internet root servers has
>many issues that may be of concern to network operators.  Here are two
>congressional offices that have expressed interest in electronic comments.
>They want to gauge current levels of interest by the community.
>If you live or have business offices in these areas, or somewhere near,
>please take a moment to send a short email to one of these representatives
>in the next few days.  The congress members are in recess (that means
>at home) this week, and go back next Tuesday.
>Zoe Lofgren
>  [email protected]
>  Please include a complete U.S. Postel address.
>    Local Office:
>                     635 North 1st Street, Suite B
>                     San Jose, CA 95112
>                     tel: 408-271-8700
>    Washington:
>                     318 Cannon Building
>                     Washington, D.C. 20515
>                     tel: 202-225-3072
>Constance A. Morella
>  [email protected]
>  Be sure to include U.S. Postal address.
>    Rockville                                     (301) 424 - 3501
>    Office       51 Monroe Street, Suite 507
>                 Rockville, Maryland 20850
>    Washington                                    (202) 225 - 5341
>    Office       2228 Rayburn House Office Building
>                 Washington, D.C. 20515
>Some issues of particular concern are:
> - the proposed rule allows the US government to control
>   "... policies and standards for those activities, including ...
>    interoperability, privacy, security, ...."
>   Do we really think it would be a good idea for the US government
>   to control the standards for interoperability?
>   Do we really think it would be a good idea for the US government
>   to control the standards for privacy and security?
>   Especially as operators, do we really think it would be a good idea
>   for the US government to control the passwords and keys for the root
>   servers?
>   Please think hard about the consequences.  Will they let your domain
>   into the system (sign your NS records) unless you agree to escrow
>   your server keys with them?
> - Since the announcement last year, we have been looking forward to
>   the day (March 31) when NSI no longer has monopoly control over
>   registration.  The proposed rule extends the monopoly another 6
>   months (minimum), and control of the major domains indefinitely
>   (at least 2 years).
>   Do we really think that is a great idea?  After a year has passed,
>   and no plans for transition have been made by NSI?
> - The root servers are currently run by volunteers.  The proposed
>   rule would take over operation, and give it to a new corporation,
>   set up by the US government.
>   Are we having any real problems with our current servers?
>   Do we really think it is a great idea for the US government to be
>   actively involved at all?

The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) 
[email protected]                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at