IP: Will the Clinton Administration Permit the Hijacking Of

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:19:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com>


All hell is getting ready to break lose.=A0 I am summarizing what I know at
this moment in the hope that Ira Magaziner will tomorrow afternoon at a
scheduled meeting of the Interagency DNS task force REFUSE TO SIGN OFF ON
the Kahin- Burr -Nelson/Maxwell plan with which he will be presented.*
(see footnote below)=20


My sources are telling me the following as of this afternoon and evening:


Don Heath, as Executive Dir of ISOC, has convinced the InterAgency Working
Group (read Kahin and Burr and Nelson) that there is a crisis in the
Internet over DNS, and that they (IPOC/CORE) are the only group that can
fix it and that therefore the Working Group had better use the power of
the US Government to tell NSI to put the new seven top level domains into
the main rootserver at NSI very likely on Friday, November 14.=A0=20


Why?=A0 Because there are now circa 90 registrars who have ponied up money
and need to have some certainty that the domain names they want to start
issuing will be worth something.=A0 Legally the only place the order to NSI
can from is from the National Science Foundation.=A0 The NSF in the meantime
has been effectively shunted aside from the deliberations, being asked
technical questions now and then. If the order is given, it will be very
instructive to see 1. Whether the NSF signs it, and 2. **Who** in the NSF
actually signs.


This should be ascertainable because such an outcome would have an
immediate impact in the PGP Media lawsuit and NSI would likely turn such
an order over to the lawyers there very promptly.=A0 Interestingly enough,
such a move would likely give Jon Postel back the authority which NSF took
away from him this summer.=A0 That event would, we are told, make Jon a
direct legal target of the PGP action.


Action now to capitulate to the IAHC/ISOC/IPOC/CORE 'Bunch' would be most
unfortunate.=A0 It would signal the US government out as saying in front of
the international community: "give special treatment to this group of
people who have no working infrastructure and deny those like=A0 Iperdome,
who do, a place in the rootserver."


Mr. Magaziner must ask himself what could possibly be gained by taking
precipitous action at this point in time to place new gTLDs in root when
these new gTLDs aren't ready for use and won't be for quite some time.=A0=20


A complicating factor we have learned is that some registrars took
preregistrations on the new seven names for some period of time.=A0 It is
believed that they have them sitting there and would like to be able to
use them and bill for them as well as to be able to establish precedence.
Can you say "how much am I offered for IBM.firm?"=A0=20


CORE has signed the contract with Emergent (believed to be for $400,000
plus $70,000 payable every month beginning immediately).=A0 To meet these
expenses, CORE, in turn, is planning to bill each registrar beginning in
November $2,000 a month to ensure that CORE's bank accounts last long
enough.=A0 The new registrars, having poinied up a non-refundable $10,000,
would undoubtedly like to be assured that their investment will pay off.
They face the disquieting reality of knowing that, if the names don't go
into the root servers their investment has become worthless.=A0 Thus they
have undoubtedly been pressing Kahin and Burr to ask Ira Magaziner to sign
the "check" that will put money in the bank for them.


We believe Magaziner has good intentions but he must understand that the
Interagency task force which works for him is utterly lacking in
competence and is asking him to shoot himself and the Clinton
Administration in the foot on Thursday afternoon November 13 and announce
the results the next morning.=A0 We hope he will refuse.=A0 Because you see
there is no DNS crisis - such that not fixing it NOW will cause the
Internet to break.=A0 It would be a great pity if he pulled the trigger and
bloodied his foot without understanding this.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Footnote:=A0 the FCC is a major player.=A0 Elliot Maxwell whom we hear=
 spoken
of with considerable respect has been very visibly involved with the
working group.=A0 On the other hand Mike Nelson has also been involved and
we are told has his finger prints on the development of the policy
direction.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the note that prompted our investigation:=A0=20
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:52:11 -0500
From: Jay () Iperdome com
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv () lists psi com>
Subject: Re: NSI's role in adding new roots




gTLD-MoU supporters and registrars have been told this:


=A0=A0=A0=A0 May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT


=A0=A0=A0=A0 The ad hoc committee has said it doesn't need the
=A0=A0=A0=A0 U.S. government's approval to go ahead with its
=A0=A0=A0=A0 plan. Appointed by the Internet Society, the
=A0=A0=A0=A0 committee says it has direct control of the
=A0=A0=A0=A0 computers that run the Net's addressing system
=A0=A0=A0=A0 through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
=A0=A0=A0=A0 (IANA). The government has "no choice" but to go
=A0=A0=A0=A0 along with its plans, IAHC chair and ISOC
=A0=A0=A0=A0 president Don Heath has said.


=A0=A0 http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10345,00.html


Now, Dave Crocker is saying this:


At 10:00 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
> We are fast approaching a critical moment.=A0 The process of reaching it
has
> been extremely public, so there will be no surprise when the event
occurs.
> The moment is the request by IANA for addition of the new generic TLDs
> (gTLDs) to the root DNS servers.=A0 The request will be issued when the
> gTLD-MoU's CORE project plans require it for testing, prior to live
> registration operation of these gTLDs.=A0 Nearly 90 companies have
committed
> significant funds and effort to this activity, so it's rather more than a
> theoretical exercise.=A0 It is a bottom-line matter for these companies.
>
> NSI is in an unfortunate position of being faced with open competition by
> this enhancement and, at the same time, physically holding the master
root
> server to which these new TLDs will be added.=A0 In some circles, having
> control over a resource which enables the creation of competition for
one's
> organization would be called conflict of interest.
>
> So there is considerable import to the basis by which NSI chooses to
claim
> that it can add ISO (national) TLDs (nTLDs) but not add others, namely
> gTLDs.=A0 As a constructive member of the Internet community, NSI surely
> wants to makes its position completely clear, as well as the basis for
that
> position.
>
> Your previous notes have cited text from the NSI proposal and have said
> that portions of the proposal were incorporated by reference to the
> Cooperative agreement.=A0 The implication of these citations is that the
> proposal only covers addition of nTLDs, presumably implying that since
> addition of gTLDs (or any other kind of TLD) is not covered by that
portion
> of the proposal, NSI isn't obligated to perform such additions.
>
> What your notes have NOT done is to show a simple and complete sequence
> which incorporates the text relevant to this question into that
Agreement.
> In other words, if NSI is planning to rely on this text as a basis for
> refusing to take a direction from IANA, it needs to be more completely
> developed.=A0 To date, NSI has been completely responsive to IANA
directions,
> so that such a refusal is entirely without precedent.=A0 As such, one would
> hope that NSI has a clearly developed line of justification and, as a
good
> network citizen, has made that justification crystal clear sooner, rather
> than later.
>
> Further, NSI has often cited the directive from NSF that it not add TLDs
> without approval from the US government, yet the text in that directive
is
> not constrained and NSI has been continuing to add nTLDs.=A0 The directive
> does not distinguish gTLDs from nTLDs.=A0 Instructions to add nTLDs have
been
> coming from IANA and the additions have taken place immediately.=A0 Is
there
> documentation of NSF approval for each one of these changes?=A0 If there is
> not, then NSI has been showing selective interpretation of its
instructions
> and is not merely the mechanical participant it has been claiming.
>
> The moment that is approaching is the result of more than 1 year of open
> discussion and debate, including many individuals, organizations and
> countries all over the world.=A0 90 companies are now engaged in producing
> fully competitive registration services.=A0 It will do the Internet
community
> no good service to refuse to take a directive from IANA and thereby
create
> an administrative crisis on the net.
>
> There is nothing unknown about the request that will be issued, except
for
> the precise date and we know that date is approaching quickly.=A0 If NSI is
> planning to refuse that request, it is time to tell that to the community
> and explain the basis.




Regards,


Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242=A0 http://www.iperdome.com


************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 For=
 subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA=A0=A0=A0=A0 ten megabytes of free=
 material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 visit=A0=
=A0 http://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook () cookreport com=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 New=
 Special Report: Internet
Governance at the Crossroads ($175)=A0 http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml
*******************************************************


Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2])


by linc.cis.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA26924 
for
<farber () linc cis upenn edu>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:05:11 -0500 (EST)


Received: from lists.psi.com (lists.psi.com [38.9.21.2]) 
by
central.cis.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA18831 
for
<farber () central cis upenn edu>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:05:10 -0500 (EST)


Received: from by lists.psi.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1.3-PSI) 
id DAA05516; Thu,
13 Nov 1997 03:04:44 -0500 
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:04:44 -0500


Message-Id: <199711130800.AAA22634 () proper com> 
Errors-To:
listadm () lists psi com 
Reply-To: dcrocker () brandenburg com 
Originator:
com-priv () lists psi com 
Sender: com-priv () lists psi com 
Precedence: bulk


From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> 
To: Multiple recipients of
list <com-priv () lists psi com> 
Subject: Re: Will the Clinton Administration
Permit the Hijacking Of 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by
Anastasios Kotsikonas 
X-Comment: Commercialization and Privatization of
the Internet 
X-UIDL: fa23392cd1646e81d53873e81a4878b1 


Gordon,
You persist in hyperbole and selective rendition of the facts. These are=20
facts which have been told to you repeatedly...
At 12:10 AM 11/13/97 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:=20
> Will the Clinton Administration Permit the Hijacking Of the internet? - =3D=
=20
A
This is about making registration of second level domain names, under=20
gTLDs, consumer oriented through open and level competition. It is not=20
about taking over the Internet. Your favorite person, Jay, likes to=20
characterize this as being about power and that is certainly what he and=20
some other folk want to make it be about. =3D20
But what this is about is service to users. It is about providing better=20
customer service for a portion of DNS registrations. That is what this=20
started as and that is what it remains, no matter how much others wish to=20
pretend otherwise.
The only authority question is whether the established and consentual=20
10-year history of IANA's authority will be preempted.
> Don Heath, as Executive Dir of ISOC, has convinced the InterAgency Worki=3D=
=20
ng
Never mind the many other people that have been talking with the folks at=20
the IWG. Never mind the many responses to the government request for=20
comments. No, let's ignore all that and just claim that Don Heath has=20
magical sway over that very diverse team. (Having been one of the many t=3D=
=20
o=20
chat with them, I noted particularly the extreme diversity of their=20
membership and views. They did not seem to me a group that would be sway=3D=
=20
ed=20
as whimsically or singularly as you seem to believe has occurred.)
> Group (read Kahin and Burr and Nelson) that there is a crisis in the=20
> Internet over DNS, and that they (IPOC/CORE) are the only group that can
You continue to ignore that the crisis was under discussion for 2 1/2 yea=3D=
=20
rs=20
BEFORE the formation of the IAHC and another year since then. In fact at=20
the time the committee was formed it was told from the operations sector=20
that a resolution was required by last January.
The IAHC was formed due to the difficulty of achieving a consensus. You'=3D=
=20
ve=20
been told that repeatedly. It's a fact. But again, let's ignore the=20
administrative and operational pressures and go for the hyperbole, Gordon.
> can from is from the National Science Foundation.=3DA0 The NSF in the mean=
=3D=20
time=20
> has been effectively shunted aside from the deliberations, being asked
Sigh. You have perhaps forgotten that a senior NSF staff member was part =3D=
=20
of=20
the IAHC?
> such a move would likely give Jon Postel back the authority which NSF to=3D=
=20
ok=20
> away from him this summer.=3DA0 That event would, we are told, make Jon a=
=20
> direct legal target of the PGP action.
You might not have noticed that this summer's letter to NSI was absolute.=20
It did not specify differential treatment of one kind of TLD versus=20
another, yet NSI has been continuing to take IANA's direction and has add=3D=
=20
ed=20
several new ISO-code TLDs. This suggests that IANA's authority has been =3D=
=20
in=20
force without interruption.
The letter established that NSI must not make additions without proper=20
direction. It has been getting such direction and it has been following =3D=
=20
it.
> Action now to capitulate to the IAHC/ISOC/IPOC/CORE 'Bunch' would be mos=3D=
=20
t
So if they make a decision you don't agree with, that's "capitulation"? =3D=
=20
I=20
mean, you are really that sure of your assessment so that you don't think=20
there's just a chance it's the right decision?
> unfortunate.=3DA0 It would signal the US government out as saying in front=
=3D=20
of=20
> the international community: "give special treatment to this group of=20
> people who have no working infrastructure and deny those like=3DA0 Iperdom=
=3D=20
e,
Gordon, perhaps you missed the minor fact that the IAHC was commissioned =3D=
=20
by=20
IANA and conducted a long and open discussion and review process? Perhap=3D=
=20
s=20
you missed the fact that all of the other, noisy players have instead=20
chosen to run rogue and attempted preemptive takeovers of the root of the=20
DNS? These are people you actually want to legitimize? I thought you=20
cared about the stability of network operations.
> A complicating factor we have learned is that some registrars took=20
> preregistrations on the new seven names for some period of time.=3DA0 It i=
=3D=20
s
No registrar is being given special access or position. No registrations=20
have yet taken place. A registration occurs when a domain name holder an=3D=
=20
d=20
a domain name are entered into the appropriate data base. The relevant=20
gTLD data bases will be run by CORE and are not yet in operation, so ther=3D=
=20
e=20
cannot have been any registrations.
What a given registrar does with respect to their customers is a matter o=3D=
=20
f=20
customer/vendor choice. That's the nature of competition, you know. If=20
one of these registrars has misrepresented things to their customers, one=20
suspects that normal business and legal processes will afford appropriate=20
remedies. That, too, is the nature of competition.
> They face the disquieting reality of knowing that, if the names don't go=20
> into the root servers their investment has become worthless.=3DA0 Thus the=
=3D=20
y=20
> have undoubtedly been pressing Kahin and Burr to ask Ira Magaziner to si=3D=
=20
gn=20
> the "check" that will put money in the bank for them.
It would probably be better for these 90 companies which participated in =3D=
=20
an=20
authorized process to be ignored. Far better to give credence and specia=3D=
=20
l=20
position to organizations that worked entirely outside the established DN=3D=
=20
S=20
administrative structure. Yup. Makes a lot of sense.
> there is no DNS crisis - such that not fixing it NOW will cause the=20
> Internet to break.=3DA0 It would be a great pity if he pulled the trigger =
=3D=20
and=20
> bloodied his foot without understanding this.
The IWG has been studying this for how long? Whereas you repeatedly told=20
me you didn't have time to focus on it and you declined repeated offers t=3D=
=20
o=20
talk about it. So let's ignore the operational community which said ther=3D=
=20
e=20
IS a crisis and, instead, listen to folks with no direct involvement. Yu=3D=
=20
p.=20
Makes sense.
Oh and I see that you then subjected the mailing list to yet-another copy=20
of my note asking NSI to be more forthcoming with the details of their=20
position. You did this in the context of yet-another effort by trusty ol=3D=
=20
'=20
Jay to inject classic confusion by quoting second hand, inaccurate source=3D=
=20
s=20
about statements that were never made.
Very helpful.
d/=20
--------------------=20
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253=20
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 =3D20=20
675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker () brandenburg com=20
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com
Internet Mail Consortium
info () imc org, http://www.imc.org=20
*****************=20








**************************************************
"Photons have neither morals nor visas"  --  Dave Farber 1994
**************************************************