Ira Magaziner's Assurance Given the internet community this
Jim Fleming
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Cook <co...@cookreport.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-...@lists.psi.com>
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 11:39 AM
Subject: Ira Magaziner's Assurance Given the internet community this
>Yesterday I contacted Ira Magaziner's office stating my concerns that Jon
>and his lawyer looked to be talking only with ISOC and IETF and were not
>making any evident move to enter into direct discussions with the remainder
>of those in the IFWP process. I had a phone call from Ira this morning at
>nine. Ira assured me that within the last 24 hours he had been in touch
>with Jon and his lawyer and with Tamar Frankel to let both know that he
>felt it urgent that both sides move rapidly to begin direct discussions
>with each other and told me that he had told both sides that governments
>would not accept any proposal that did not have the agreement of all major
>stakeholders. Governments are looking for a single consensus document and a
>list of interim board members on which there is consensus agreement.
Two nights ago, Tamar Frankel and Jon Postel were
in the same room making presentations to thousands
of people in Chicago. A large majority of those people
know something about the Internet.
Tamar did not put forward a document or a board.
Jon Postel put forward a document and explained
his criteria for selecting a board and indicated that
this is in progress. At no time did Jon give any
indication that what he was saying was subject to
change. He referenced the need to meet the schedule
of the U.S. Government as one of the things driving
him.
If the schedule is going to be met, it appears to me
that Jon has to proceed. The IFWP was represented
at that meeting. The IFWP might want to be more
open with their plans and or proposals. This is no
time for the IFWP to hold back assuming that Jon
will come to do their work for them.
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
Pete Farmer
>Jon Postel put forward a document and explained
>his criteria for selecting a board and indicated that
>this is in progress. At no time did Jon give any
>indication that what he was saying was subject to
>change. He referenced the need to meet the schedule
>of the U.S. Government as one of the things driving
>him.
>
>If the schedule is going to be met, it appears to me
>that Jon has to proceed.
*Jon* is not the one who calls the shots on whether or not to proceed.
The *US Government* is in the driver's seat.
My impression is that Magaziner thinks that the schedule has some flex,
and I doubt he's going to select a proposal to which there's serious
dissent just to meet an arbitrary schedule.
If Magaziner says, "No good, IANA; looks like there's broad consensus on
85% of this, but there have to be changes to the other 15%," then that's
that.
>The IFWP was represented
>at that meeting. The IFWP might want to be more
>open with their plans and or proposals.
I don't think "openness" is the issue per se. The issue is that IFWP at
this point doesn't *have* a concrete draft. I hope the Boston/Bergman
process will succeed and change this. It's probably the best hope for
those who are dissatisfied with the IANA draft.
Based on Gordon's conversation, I don't think Magaziner would look
kindly on a failure of IANA to participate in the Boston meetings.
Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Farmer mailto:pfa...@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited Voice: +1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205 Fax: +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040 WWW: http://www.strategies-u.com
Jim Fleming
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Farmer <pfa...@strategies-u.com>
<snip>
>
>Based on Gordon's conversation, I don't think Magaziner would look
>kindly on a failure of IANA to participate in the Boston meetings.
>
By the time the "Boston" meetings are held,
I would assume that Jon Postel would have
the IANA Inc. company incorporated and
starting to get ready for operations on
October 1, 1998. These things do not happen
over night. Do you think that NSI should go
"on hold" on 10/1/98 waiting for all of this ?
As soon as the clock strikes midnight at the
NSF headquarters on 10/1/98, the legal
and financial picture takes another turn.
NSI is not turning off their money machine.
I do not think that other companies should
be delayed in turning theirs on. If they are,
that could be worse than the current situation.
Pete Farmer
>By the time the "Boston" meetings are held,
>I would assume that Jon Postel would have
>the IANA Inc. company incorporated and
>starting to get ready for operations on
>October 1, 1998.
But so what if this happens? I hardly think would mean that the game is
over.
For IANA's proposed "new IANA' to 'assume authority' and begin
operations *without* US Government endorsement would be to shoot
themselves in the foot. If not the head.
And, based on Gordon's conversation with Magaziner, the USG is not
prepared to simply rubber stamp the IANA draft, given significant
dissent from interested and responsible parties.
Jim Fleming
>operations *without* US Government endorsement would be to shoot
>themselves in the foot. If not the head.
>
I thought that they were going to be an
IRS-approved non-profit company. The
last time I looked the IRS is/was part
of the U.S. Government. Don't you
consider an IRS approval as an
endorsement ? How many U.S.
Government agencies or employees
do you think will be required to qualify
as "endorsed" ?
Pete Farmer
>From: Pete Farmer <pfa...@strategies-u.com>
>>For IANA's proposed "new IANA' to 'assume authority' and begin
>>operations *without* US Government endorsement would be to shoot
>>themselves in the foot. If not the head.
>
>I thought that they were going to be an
>IRS-approved non-profit company. The
>last time I looked the IRS is/was part
>of the U.S. Government. Don't you
>consider an IRS approval as an
>endorsement ?
Of course not, Jim. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply to such
silliness.
To review -- the White Paper states the US executive branch's view that
the US Government is currently the authority responsible for the
Internet name and addressing system. It states that it has delegated
various tasks involved in managing that system, via DARPA and NSF, to
various groups, including IANA.
The USG proposes to divest itself of that responsibilty by granting
authority to an organization that meets various criteria, which are
outlined in the White Paper.
This, of course, is the endorsement I speak of.
The IRS may grant tax-exempt status to the 'new IANA,' if/when it is
formally incorporated and applies for such status. Yeah, and the IRS
has granted tax-exempt status to the National Rifle Association, too.
With this IRS action, but *lacking* endorsement per the White Paper
criteria/process, the 'new IANA' would have as much claim to 'US
endorsement' as the NRA.
Jim Fleming
-----Original Message-----
From: David Schutt <da...@speco.com>
To: domain...@open-rsc.org <domain...@open-rsc.org>;
DOMAIN...@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN...@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>;
Com-priv (E-mail) <com-...@lists.psi.com>; IFWP (E-mail) <li...@ifwp.org>
Cc: Jim Fleming <JimFl...@unety.net>
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Ira Magaziner's Assurance Given the internet community this
>Well, that of course depends on what this new IANA as formed by Jon Postel
>is going to be doing.
>
>DNS? nope.
>
>IP4 address assignments? nope.
>
>Protocol work? yep.
>
>If this is what Mr. Postel and his new organization wants to do, well, it's
>obviously what the IETF wants, and what is wrong with that?
>
I agree...DNS is not there and the
IPv4 space can now be handled
by ARIN and the other delegates,
including the for-profit companies
with /8 allocations.
I think that MIBs will be a large part
of the new IANA. People do not seem
to be arguing about those. Also, the
new IANA might be useful in keeping
some of the common lists of unique
numbers.
It is not clear that the new IANA will
be a full time job. I am assuming that
the .US domain would be handled by
a real registry at some point. Maybe
the ISOC and CORE can do that.