[ifwp] Re: Draft 3 or Genesis of new IANA or who is god?
Pete Farmer
>Internet Texoma is not in the DNS debate. We will be happy
>with whatever resolution those people come up with. All we want is
peace.
>...
>I was really asking your thoughts on the issue of "What process will
>have the most legitimacy and result in the most generally accepted
>solution?"
Sorry I misinterpreted your question.
The answer is -- hell if I know. It depends, in part, on (1) whether
the IANA participates in the proposed Boston "wrap up" and (2) whether
the closed and open meetings proposed for that "wrap up."
I expect IANA will, in the end, be putting forth a credible proposal (in
the USG's eyes), but one for which there are strong dissenting views on
particular points.
I think there's a good chance that IFWP will also put together and
submit a credible proposal, but again, I expect there to be strong
dissent on some points.
I think that NSI will put forth a somewhat credible proposal, but it's
one that I perceive has been less widely debated or commented upon.
I expect the proposals to be much more similar than different.
But I don't think Magaziner will rank the proposals and choose the one
with the "most legitimacy." Government guys don't like to make choices
like that. It's too controversial. They look for "saddle points" of
compromise that achieve a common level of both satisfaction and
discomfort among all parties.
Indeed, Gordon has reported that Magaziner says that "governments would
not accept any proposal that did not have the agreement of all major
stakeholders."
>What do your think we/THEY should do to accomplish THAT
>objective?
I guess you're referring to the objective of obtaining peace in our
time.
Based on what I've said above, I think the best things to do are to:
1) Encourage IANA to participate in the Berkman Center meeting.
2) Support Magaziner and his objectives. If he moves toward accepting a
proposal that does *not* have widespread support within all camps, call
him on it.
3) Encourage each camp to recognize their areas of mutual agreement.
4) Try to maintain (or is it establish?) a rational level of discourse,
without polemics or personalization.
A note of hope: There are some key differences between what is going on
now and what happened with IAHC.
IAHC never successfully established its authority for the action it
proposed. The White Paper, by contrast, does a rather nice job of
establishing that the US Government currently holds authority for the
Internet naming and address system, and therefore can decide what will
happen next (with appropriate input from all interested parties,
including those outside the US).
Without that assertion by the USG, 'new IANA' could simply incorporate
itself and 'claim authority by acting authoritative," and we'd have the
same mess that we had with IAHC.
With the USG's assertion, the USG has established itself (successfully,
I think) as decision-maker -- and as a check on any plan that doesn't
meet the criteria set in the White Paper.
It's funny to say this, but I think the US government's actions offer
the best hope for peaceful resolution.
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
Pete Farmer
>I was really asking your thoughts on the issue of "What process will
>have the most legitimacy and result in the most generally accepted
>solution?"
The answer is -- hell if I know. It depends, in part, on (1) whether
the IANA participates in the proposed Boston "wrap up" and (2) whether
the closed and open meetings proposed for that "wrap up" succeed.
^^^^^^^
Jim Fleming
From: Pete Farmer <pfa...@strategies-u.com>
<snip>
>
>Based on what I've said above, I think the best things to do are to:
>
>1) Encourage IANA to participate in the Berkman Center meeting.
>
>2) Support Magaziner and his objectives. If he moves toward accepting a
>proposal that does *not* have widespread support within all camps, call
>him on it.
>
>3) Encourage each camp to recognize their areas of mutual agreement.
>
>4) Try to maintain (or is it establish?) a rational level of discourse,
>without polemics or personalization.
>
<snip>
Have you taken into consideration the
fact that times have now changed since
the White Paper ?... which seems like
ancient history in Internet time....
Are you also taking into consideration
the various changes that could come from
many directions in the next 30 days ?
With all due respect, you seem to be making
the assumption that you can freeze the
Internet in time and the Registry Industry
along with it while people spend more time
getting their act together for yet another
hopeful meeting where people think they
are going to overnight gain an understanding
of a very complex collection of technology
and an even more complex industry...which
will not hold still while people dissect it to
try to figure out how it works...
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
Pete Farmer
>Have you taken into consideration the
>fact that times have now changed since
>the White Paper ?... which seems like
>ancient history in Internet time....
>
>Are you also taking into consideration
>the various changes that could come from
>many directions in the next 30 days ?
Well, yes, I try to be mindful of the ever-changing nature of the beasts
at play here. The dynamic nature of the environment is not lost on me.
I assume you're trying to drive a point here, Jim, but I'm not sure what
it is. Eric's question to me was (if I may paraphrase):
What the best action to take right now by someone who
simply wants peaceful resolution of the Internet name
and addressing issues (and is damned tired from having
waited for this for two years plus)?
How would you answer his question?
Jim Fleming
>it is. Eric's question to me was (if I may paraphrase):
>
> What the best action to take right now by someone who
> simply wants peaceful resolution of the Internet name
> and addressing issues (and is damned tired from having
> waited for this for two years plus)?
>
>How would you answer his question?
>
I would suggest what I have suggested in
the past. I would suggest that Jon Postel
(aka IANA) and his ITAG continue to do
what they plan to do in California. Since
the legacy Root Name Servers are not
under the IANA control those would not
"fully" fall under the control of the company
they plan to form. Also, because ARIN
now handles the IPv4 IN-ADDR.ARPA
zone, the IANA does not have to be involved
in future allocations. RIPE and APNIC
can obtain space from ARIN. Given this,
I am not sure people would be that concerned
about what the IANA Inc. company Jon
Postel plans to form would be doing.
Turning to Boston, I suggest that people
use the momentum they have developed to
pull together people to talk about the
future of the Internet given the coming
exit of the U.S. Government and the NSF.
There are numerous topics that could be
discussed. I am not sure I would put the
California-based IANA Inc. high on that
list, especially if the assets are not there.
Pete Farmer
>I would suggest what I have suggested in
>the past. I would suggest that Jon Postel
>(aka IANA) and his ITAG continue to do
>what they plan to do in California.
Question: Do you believe IANA should they do this even if they don't
have Ira Magaziner's explicit blessing?
>Since the legacy Root Name Servers are not
>under the IANA control those would not
>"fully" fall under the control of the company
>they plan to form. Also, because ARIN
>now handles the IPv4 IN-ADDR.ARPA
>zone, the IANA does not have to be involved
>in future allocations. RIPE and APNIC
>can obtain space from ARIN. Given this,
>I am not sure people would be that concerned
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about what the IANA Inc. company Jon
>Postel plans to form would be doing.
Really? I think that a number of folks would object strenuously to what
could be considered an attempt to establish the 'new IANA,' under IANA's
draft bylaws, as a fete accompli.
>Turning to Boston, I suggest that people
>use the momentum they have developed to
>pull together people to talk about the
>future of the Internet given the coming
>exit of the U.S. Government and the NSF.
>There are numerous topics that could be
>discussed. I am not sure I would put the
>California-based IANA Inc. high on that
>list, especially if the assets are not there.
I think your recommendations would be ones that Jon Postel would endorse
wholeheartedly -- heh.
People who who have significant issues with the IANA draft could
interpret your recommendations as, "I think you should roll over and
play dead on domain name issues; the game's over."
I don't think the game is over *unless* those who have differences with
the IANA draft choose to fold.
And I don't think that those with differences are about to "play dead."
If their ideas are sound and are presented well and in concrete form
(i.e. a complete proposal), I believe that Magaziner will give them an
audience and force IANA to compromise. But if the IFWP meetings fail to
create a full proposal, and the attendees instead fritter the time in
Boston with a nebulous discussion on the "future of the Internet," IANA
will end up presenting the only real proposal on Magaziner's desk, and
Magaziner, faced with a dearth of well-articulated alternatives, may
accept it.
That would not, in my view, lead to "lasting peace," but rather to
continued controversy, and thus will not achieve Eric's objectives.
Jim Fleming
Cc: Jim Fleming <JimFl...@unety.net>
Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ifwp] Re: Draft 3 or Genesis of new IANA or who is god?
>Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFl...@unety.net]
>>I would suggest what I have suggested in
>>the past. I would suggest that Jon Postel
>>(aka IANA) and his ITAG continue to do
>>what they plan to do in California.
>
>Question: Do you believe IANA should they do this even if they don't
>have Ira Magaziner's explicit blessing?
>
Yes !!!! In my opinion, Ira Magaziner is irrelevant
at this point and for that matter so is Bill Clinton.
They will all be lucky if they remain in office
for the next couple of years. They do not need
to find more problems to solve. They have created
plenty to hold them until the next century.
Another group that is also finally out of the
loop is the NSF. Of course, Neal Lane the
former Director of the NSF has been moved
to the White House. Hopefully, that is not
intended to allow him to help with these issues.
>>Since the legacy Root Name Servers are not
>>under the IANA control those would not
>>"fully" fall under the control of the company
>>they plan to form. Also, because ARIN
>>now handles the IPv4 IN-ADDR.ARPA
>>zone, the IANA does not have to be involved
>>in future allocations. RIPE and APNIC
>>can obtain space from ARIN. Given this,
>>I am not sure people would be that concerned
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>about what the IANA Inc. company Jon
>>Postel plans to form would be doing.
>
>Really? I think that a number of folks would object strenuously to what
>could be considered an attempt to establish the 'new IANA,' under IANA's
>draft bylaws, as a fete accompli.
>
In my opinion, it does not matter. What is
the so-called "new IANA" going to do ?
They could probably use canned bylaws
from an office supply store at this stage
of the game. All they have to do is create
a non-profit California company. That is
not rocket science.
>>Turning to Boston, I suggest that people
>>use the momentum they have developed to
>>pull together people to talk about the
>>future of the Internet given the coming
>>exit of the U.S. Government and the NSF.
>>There are numerous topics that could be
>>discussed. I am not sure I would put the
>>California-based IANA Inc. high on that
>>list, especially if the assets are not there.
>
>I think your recommendations would be ones that Jon Postel would endorse
>wholeheartedly -- heh.
>
Jon spoke well this past weak and
presented his case to thousands
of people that have a lot knowledge
about the Internet. They also endorsed
his approach.
>People who who have significant issues with the IANA draft could
>interpret your recommendations as, "I think you should roll over and
>play dead on domain name issues; the game's over."
>
No...anyone that says that is not watching
the game very closely. That is a major problem
at this point in time. This is not a part-time
activity that weekend warriors can dabble in.
Things are changing in real-time. People and
companies are making significant decisions
and non decisions. Many people seem to be
making decisions without information. They
are working in time-warps. They seem to be
reading e-mail from a month ago and trying
to make decisions about next month. All the
while they seem to keep saying, "let's plan
a meeting to discuss these issues....". Others,
like me keep trying to tell them..."Hello, hello
the meeting is here and it is in progress..."
they do not get it...
>I don't think the game is over *unless* those who have differences with
>the IANA draft choose to fold.
>
>And I don't think that those with differences are about to "play dead."
>
This is not about folding or playing dead.
I am not suggesting that, in fact I am suggesting
just the opposite. I suggest that they have their
meeting in Boston. I suggest that they fill their
meeting with FUTURE POTENTIAL. Who knows ?
If it is an interesting agenda, maybe Jon Postel
and some of the other people from USC will
come ? My point is that Jon Postel should not
be forced to come.
>If their ideas are sound and are presented well and in concrete form
>(i.e. a complete proposal), I believe that Magaziner will give them an
>audience and force IANA to compromise. But if the IFWP meetings fail to
>create a full proposal, and the attendees instead fritter the time in
>Boston with a nebulous discussion on the "future of the Internet," IANA
>will end up presenting the only real proposal on Magaziner's desk, and
>Magaziner, faced with a dearth of well-articulated alternatives, may
>accept it.
>
Again, I think that Ira Magaziner is irrelevant.
I can not imagine that he (or Becky Burr) are
capable of fairly evaluating anything at this
point in time. We have experts in these forums
with years of experience and some of them
are having trouble keeping up at this stage
of the game.
>That would not, in my view, lead to "lasting peace," but rather to
>continued controversy, and thus will not achieve Eric's objectives.
>
Sheesh...as Ellen might say...lasting peace
might come from people spreading out and
finding their futures in different directions.
You are suggesting that people be forced
into a room to shout each other down. Jon
Postel might choose to do that, but in my
opinion, it would be an unproductive direction
that would move away from peace, not toward
it.
Again, peace comes from expanding the
potential and giving everyone more and
a place to grow...as people see a place
for themselves to fit they will cease being
jealous about the next guy's success. As
an example, IPv6 is starting to click. That
gives the IETF people years and years of
challenges to occupy their time. With that,
why would they be concerned about TLDs ?
In fact, the other night, Fred Baker the IETF
Chair stated in front of thousands of people
that he could care less how many TLDs
there are. I believe that those sorts of
statements come when people have plates
that are filling with other cool developments.
TLDs are now old news. Many new TLDs
have been added in the past few years and
people can now see that instant millionaires
were not created. Three years ago we had
people claiming that new TLDs could not
be allowed because people would get rich
quick. Now, you might find it difficult to
get companies to pay any attention to them.
If companies do pay attention, it will not
be trivial for them to gain market share.
Sure there might be an initial rush but the
CORE registrars have absorbed a lot of
that and have people's pre-registrations.
In general I think the market place is now
numb to the whole situation and you might
see people running around saying "Yippee,
I got a new domain name...." and others
might just yawn...