From - Tue May 19 16:35:12 1998 Message-Id: <0000196B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:24 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_386C61E8.4D2C4021" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_386C61E8.4D2C4021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_386C61E8.4D2C4021 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:21 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA01061; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:02:20 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6BBC.A9A79DC0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:57:48 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6BBC.A9A79DC0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'John Curran'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Phil Howard'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'sr-management@texoma.net'" Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:57:46 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline John, What is the utilization on this /8 ? Is this the allocation that you mentioned will be returned to the pool ? BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) 150 Cambridge Park Dr. Cambridge, MA 02138 Netname: SATNET Netnumber: 4.0.0.0 Coordinator: Curran, John (JC347-ARIN) jcurran@BBNPLANET.COM (617) 873-4398 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NIC.NEAR.NET 192.52.71.4 NOC.CERF.NET 192.153.156.22 Record last updated on 25-Mar-96. Database last updated on 17-Apr-98 16:09:23 EDT. The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's. Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related Information and nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. --=_386C61E8.4D2C4021-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:13 1998 Message-Id: <0000196D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:32 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN/IANA - 0 to 255 Top Level View -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_396D60E9.4E2F4322" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_396D60E9.4E2F4322 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_396D60E9.4E2F4322 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:30 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN/IANA - 0 to 255 Top Level View -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA01080; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:13:14 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6BBE.2F674FE0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6BBE.2F674FE0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'Phil Howard'" , "'Brian Reid'" Cc: "'Richard J. Sexton'" Subject: ARIN/IANA - 0 to 255 Top Level View Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:08:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Several people have asked me if there is more information on all 256 of the so-called /8 allocations. Here is a summary posted last year. It might be useful for ARIN/IANA to keep an updated version. As people can see, we are hardly out of address space. 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED= -2) 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED= -5) 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME = 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-10) 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-37A) 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-39A) 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-42) 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications = Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-58) 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-59) 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-60) 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-61) 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-62) 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) = (NET-RESERVED-63) 64.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 65.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 66.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 67.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 68.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 69.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 70.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 71.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 72.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 73.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 74.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 75.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 76.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 77.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 78.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 79.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 80.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 81.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 82.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 83.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 84.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 85.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 86.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 87.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 88.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 89.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 90.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 91.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 92.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 93.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 94.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 95.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-7) 96.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 97.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 98.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 99.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 100.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 101.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 102.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 103.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 104.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 105.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 106.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 107.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 108.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 109.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 110.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 111.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 112.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 113.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 114.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 115.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 116.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 117.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 118.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 119.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 120.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 121.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 122.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 123.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 124.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 125.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 126.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) 127.0.0.0 IANA (LOOPBACK) 128.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-3) 129.0.0.0 No match for "129.0.0.0". 130.0.0.0 No match for "130.0.0.0". 131.0.0.0 No match for "131.0.0.0". 132.0.0.0 No match for "132.0.0.0". 133.0.0.0 Japan Network Information Center (NETBLK-JAPANB-INET) 134.0.0.0 No match for "134.0.0.0". 135.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT-135-0-0-0-B) 136.0.0.0 No match for "136.0.0.0". 137.0.0.0 No match for "137.0.0.0". 138.0.0.0 No match for "138.0.0.0". 139.0.0.0 No match for "139.0.0.0". 140.0.0.0 No match for "140.0.0.0". 141.0.0.0 No match for "141.0.0.0". 142.0.0.0 No match for "142.0.0.0". 143.0.0.0 No match for "143.0.0.0". 144.0.0.0 No match for "144.0.0.0". 145.0.0.0 No match for "145.0.0.0". 146.0.0.0 No match for "146.0.0.0". 147.0.0.0 No match for "147.0.0.0". 148.0.0.0 No match for "148.0.0.0". 149.0.0.0 No match for "149.0.0.0". 150.0.0.0 No match for "150.0.0.0". 151.0.0.0 No match for "151.0.0.0". 152.0.0.0 No match for "152.0.0.0". 153.0.0.0 No match for "153.0.0.0". 154.0.0.0 No match for "154.0.0.0". 155.0.0.0 No match for "155.0.0.0". 156.0.0.0 No match for "156.0.0.0". 157.0.0.0 No match for "157.0.0.0". 158.0.0.0 No match for "158.0.0.0". 159.0.0.0 No match for "159.0.0.0". 160.0.0.0 No match for "160.0.0.0". 161.0.0.0 No match for "161.0.0.0". 162.0.0.0 No match for "162.0.0.0". 163.0.0.0 No match for "163.0.0.0". 164.0.0.0 No match for "164.0.0.0". 165.0.0.0 No match for "165.0.0.0". 166.0.0.0 No match for "166.0.0.0". 167.0.0.0 No match for "167.0.0.0". 168.0.0.0 No match for "168.0.0.0". 169.0.0.0 No match for "169.0.0.0". 170.0.0.0 No match for "170.0.0.0". 171.0.0.0 No match for "171.0.0.0". 172.0.0.0 No match for "172.0.0.0". 173.0.0.0 No match for "173.0.0.0". 174.0.0.0 No match for "174.0.0.0". 175.0.0.0 No match for "175.0.0.0". 176.0.0.0 No match for "176.0.0.0". 177.0.0.0 No match for "177.0.0.0". 178.0.0.0 No match for "178.0.0.0". 179.0.0.0 No match for "179.0.0.0". 180.0.0.0 No match for "180.0.0.0". 181.0.0.0 No match for "181.0.0.0". 182.0.0.0 No match for "182.0.0.0". 183.0.0.0 No match for "183.0.0.0". 184.0.0.0 No match for "184.0.0.0". 185.0.0.0 No match for "185.0.0.0". 186.0.0.0 No match for "186.0.0.0". 187.0.0.0 No match for "187.0.0.0". 188.0.0.0 No match for "188.0.0.0". 189.0.0.0 No match for "189.0.0.0". 190.0.0.0 No match for "190.0.0.0". 191.0.0.0 No match for "191.0.0.0". 192.0.0.0 IANA (NET-ROOT-NS-LAB) 193.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE) 194.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C= 2) 195.0.0.0 European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (NETBLK-RIPE-C= ) 196.0.0.0 No match for "196.0.0.0". 197.0.0.0 No match for "197.0.0.0". 198.0.0.0 InterNIC Registration (INTERNIC-BLK) 199.0.0.0 US Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINT-BLKA) 200.0.0.0 HOCOL S.A. (NET-SHELL-1) 201.0.0.0 No match for "201.0.0.0". 202.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR= -BLK 203.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC2) APNIC-CIDR= -BLK 204.0.0.0 Rice University-Sesquinet (NETBLK-SESQUI-CIDR-03) 205.0.0.0 SPAWAR (JMCIS-BLOCK) 206.0.0.0 PSINET/Palm Coast Data (NET-NETBLK-PSI-C5-0) 207.0.0.0 MCI Internet Services (NETBLK-MCI-NETBLK08) 208.0.0.0 virtual village (NET-SPRINT-D00000) 209.0.0.0 GeoNet Communications, Inc. (NETBLK-GEO-CIDR-05) 210.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-= BLK) 211.0.0.0 Asia Pacific Network Information Center (NETBLK-APNIC-CIDR-= BLK) 212.0.0.0 No match for "212.0.0.0". 213.0.0.0 No match for "213.0.0.0". 214.0.0.0 No match for "214.0.0.0". 215.0.0.0 No match for "215.0.0.0". 216.0.0.0 No match for "216.0.0.0". 217.0.0.0 No match for "217.0.0.0". 218.0.0.0 No match for "218.0.0.0". 219.0.0.0 No match for "219.0.0.0". 220.0.0.0 No match for "220.0.0.0". 221.0.0.0 No match for "221.0.0.0". 222.0.0.0 No match for "222.0.0.0". 223.0.0.0 No match for "223.0.0.0". 224.0.0.0 University of Southern California (NET-MCAST-NET) 225.0.0.0 No match for "225.0.0.0". 226.0.0.0 No match for "226.0.0.0". 227.0.0.0 No match for "227.0.0.0". 228.0.0.0 No match for "228.0.0.0". 229.0.0.0 No match for "229.0.0.0". 230.0.0.0 No match for "230.0.0.0". 231.0.0.0 No match for "231.0.0.0". 232.0.0.0 No match for "232.0.0.0". 233.0.0.0 No match for "233.0.0.0". 234.0.0.0 No match for "234.0.0.0". 235.0.0.0 No match for "235.0.0.0". 236.0.0.0 No match for "236.0.0.0". 237.0.0.0 No match for "237.0.0.0". 238.0.0.0 No match for "238.0.0.0". 239.0.0.0 No match for "239.0.0.0". 240.0.0.0 No match for "240.0.0.0". 241.0.0.0 No match for "241.0.0.0". 242.0.0.0 No match for "242.0.0.0". 243.0.0.0 No match for "243.0.0.0". 244.0.0.0 No match for "244.0.0.0". 245.0.0.0 No match for "245.0.0.0". 246.0.0.0 No match for "246.0.0.0". 247.0.0.0 No match for "247.0.0.0". 248.0.0.0 No match for "248.0.0.0". 249.0.0.0 No match for "249.0.0.0". 250.0.0.0 No match for "250.0.0.0". 251.0.0.0 No match for "251.0.0.0". 252.0.0.0 No match for "252.0.0.0". 253.0.0.0 No match for "253.0.0.0". 254.0.0.0 No match for "254.0.0.0". 255.0.0.0 No match for "255.0.0.0". =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_396D60E9.4E2F4322-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:13 1998 Message-Id: <0000197B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:39 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ORSC - On Richard's Street Corner -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_396D60E9.4F2E4223" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_396D60E9.4F2E4223 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_396D60E9.4F2E4223 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:37 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ORSC - On Richard's Street Corner -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA01265; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:34:36 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6BD1.EEE40620@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:30:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6BD1.EEE40620@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'cls@flywheel.com'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'Adam Todd'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'Gordon Cook'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'Don Mitchell'" , "'Dan Steinberg'" , "'Ellen Rony'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Ivan Pope'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" Cc: "'John Charles Broomfield'" , "'Jeff Williams'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'Ken Fockler'" , "'Peter Deutsch'" , "'Brian Reid'" Cc: "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Robert Shaw'" , "'Scott Bradner'" , "'steve'" Subject: ORSC - On Richard's Street Corner Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:30:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday, April 19, 1998 7:22 PM, Craig Simon[SMTP:cls@flywheel.com] = wrote: @ @The main reason for these posts is that it is also my judgment that @the anarchic-market ideology evident among some of the ORSC supporters @is clearly incompatible with the level of stability that the current @officers of the USG would like to sustain in the DNS. I need to find @out more about what that ideology is, and if I'm wrong about it. @ Craig, ORSC could mean "On Richard's Street Corner"... As far as I can tell, it is a gathering of a bunch of people on Richard Sexton's street corner that are waiting for the U.S. Government to make a decision. I am not sure that I would read any more into it than that. The ORSC attracts people that want to talk about the Registry Industry more so than those that want to deploy actual infrastructure. Because of this, there are IAHC supporters, GP supporters, as well as eDNS and AlterNIC supporters. It is a melting pot of people that could just as easily be gathered outside a pub in Toronto. Off-hand remarks at this stage of the game should probably be taken as such. This is especially the case if they come from someone that just so happens to be standing, "on Richard's Street Corner" for a brief period of time. Even though I am not standing "on Richard's Street Corner" at this moment in time, I have passed by there often enough to get a flavor for the atmosphere. Since I prefer to focus on the deployment of real networks, servers and services, the ORSC has not had much to offer, from my point of view. It is a good place to hang out while you are waiting for the U.S. Government to move forward which better be soon if they are going to meet their deadlines. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_396D60E9.4F2E4223-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:14 1998 Message-Id: <00001971@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:47 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: Global Representation -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3A6E63EA.48294524" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3A6E63EA.48294524 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3A6E63EA.48294524 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:44 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: Global Representation -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from vucqpqlj (user-38lc81f.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.32.47]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09010; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980419225405.0332d1b0@mindspring.com> X-Sender: iquest1@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:54:05 -0400 To: Ken Freed From: Jay Fenello Subject: Re: Global Representation Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, domain-policy@open-rsc.org In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.19980417110448.02efac78@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 02:58 PM 4/17/98 -0700, Ken Freed wrote: >This entire thread is most encouraging, >so congrats to all of the contributors! > >I agree with Ellen about having two "houses" >in any legislature, and I suport thinking of >these along the lines of the U.S. Congress >with both an upper house and a lower house. >If we follow the U.S. example, of course, >we'll also need independent executive and >judicial branches for a balance of power. Hi Ken, Nice to hear from you again :-) I look at this a little differently. Within the context of the Green Paper proposal,=20 we could have two "houses" constitute the board of the new, non-profit corporation. The executive branch would then be the CEO and other executives as appointed by the board, and the judicial branch would be the U.S. Courts. >We can extend this by saying the upper >house could be for the major ISP players >and the registries, and the lower house >could be for more direct representation, >perhaps based on geography or some other >neutral and proportional consideration. > >Perhaps major access providers like >Earthlink or AOL or Mindspring can >have one representative per 10,000 >customers, or something like that. >The main thing here is to make the >legislative body small enough to be >effective,large enough to be diverse. > >Now let me raise a more fundamental point. > >In my view, because everyone on earth >is being affected by new media networks, >to a greater or lesser degree, given the >nature and power of our deep interactivity, >EVERYONE IS A STAKEHOLDER and deserves a voice. I like the concept of two houses, one that is open to=20 the masses (the House), and one that is open to the=20 controllers of the network infrastructure (the Senate). =20 Using this arrangement, these two bodies will automatically=20 change as the network and its users change. =20 The big question is, however, how do you physically=20 determine the masses, and how do you physically determine the controllers of the network infrastructure? My last posting suggested domain names could be used to parse the stakeholders in the "House", and that=20 IP addresses could be used to parse the stakeholders in the Senate. The weighting would depend on the number of domain names and IP address under someone's control. =20 In some ways, registering a domain name under a certain TLD would be like registering to vote under a certain=20 party. And while all netizens have the ability to=20 register a domain name, many will opt not to -- just like many U.S. Citizens opt not to register to vote. >Ideally, given the abilities of network technology, >I advocate working out some means for direct online >voting within a global framework, but first we need >reliable safeguards against potential vote fraud, >i.e. ballot stuffing. (Vote early, vote often?) > >Additionally, I support ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, >regardless of how many domain names a person >may have registered (e.g., I have two domains >under ".com," but I should only have one vote). >And individuals with usernames within domains >(e.g. aol.com) also should have one vote each. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE is practically an impossible solution, given the current state of the world-wide Internet. So while domain names and IP address=20 aren't perfect, they are a close approximation *and* they can be used NOW. >Further, as previously expressed, I strongly >advocate that we codify this framework into >some sort of GLOBAL INTERNET CONSTITUTION. > >Let us be ruled by laws, not committees. > >Comments? Given a proper structure under U.S. laws, we get=20 access to all of the benefits afforded to U.S.=20 citizens (i.e. the Bill of Rights, etc.), it is consistent with the Green Paper, and it can be implemented *very* quickly! Comments? Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. =20 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com --=_3A6E63EA.48294524-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:14 1998 Message-Id: <00001973@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:53 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: June 98 COOK Report on Internet -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3A6E63EA.49284425" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3A6E63EA.49284425 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3A6E63EA.49284425 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:50 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: June 98 COOK Report on Internet -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA01382; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:31:04 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6BE2.345C7F60@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:26:32 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6BE2.345C7F60@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'cook@cookreport.com'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'John Gilmore'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Cc: "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" Subject: RE: June 98 COOK Report on Internet Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:26:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday, April 19, 1998 9:54 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook@cookreport.com] = wrote: @ @Attacks on ARIN, Editorial, p. 24 @ @We are alarmed at recent attacks on ARIN where false accusations have = been @sent to public lists and NTIA. The ARIN Board and Advisory Council need = to @decisively rebut them and ensure that ARIN doesn't come into play in the @NTIA rulemaking process. @ @**************************************************************************= * @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) http://www.cookreport.com/building.= html @cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, = how to @subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport= .com @**************************************************************************= * @ @ Gordon, ARIN is already part of the NTIA rulemaking process. If you recall, ARIN was announced in January of 1997 and was scheduled to be a done deal in April of 1997. Meetings mentioned in the Internet Monthly Report in late 1996 document that Jon Postel (IANA), Kim Hubbard (InterNIC), David Conrad (APNIC), and Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE) had been meeting to plan ARIN. Letters from NSI to the NSF showed that NSI was interested in making this happen. It was in NSI's best interest. As you reported, various U.S. Government officials became involved and stopped the railroading that was happening. In my opinion, they stopped it for the right reasons. You did not see it that way. Instead, you claimed that Ira Magaziner and other U.S. Government officials were off the mark in investigating these matters. After some delay, ARIN was "allowed" to proceed. You sang from the highest mountains about removing the U.S. Government road-blocks. You did not seem to consider that the ARIN that was permitted to proceed may not be the same ARIN that was originally planned. Now you seem surprised that the people close to the situation have a much different view of what happened. You seem to be interested in making it appear that the ARIN of early 1997 is the same as the ARIN of 1998. This is hardly the case. You can not change the past. You can not change the deals and promises that were made that allowed ARIN to proceed under the watchful eye of the U.S. Government. ARIN needs the U.S. Government and the U.S. Government needs ARIN. NSI does not need either at this point. That has been the main objective during the past year. Now that NSI is at arm's length from ARIN, IANA and the U.S. Government the U.S. Government can resume its goal of institutionalizing the ARIN/IANA functions. As you know, I have suggested that the most efficient way to do this is for the U.S. Government to continue on the track they have been on with the ARIN/IANA evolution. The ARIN non-profit structure can be used to provide the IANA with the legal frame-work called for in the so-called Green Paper. The large ARIN staff and the existing Board and Advisors can be called upon to make this happen. The U.S. taxpayers helped to boostrap ARIN, so there is no reason why this vehicle should not be used. This will save time, money and will be consistent with the deals and promises that were made in 1997 to allow ARIN to proceed. If the ARIN/IANA vehicle is not used, then significant delays could occur as the U.S. Government is forced to start from scratch. This will cost the Registry Industry more time and will favor NSI which already has a significant lead thanks to the U.S. Government and taxpayers. Companies have been waiting a long time and should not be forced to wait any longer. Now is not the time to change directions in order to make some political statement. Look at the facts, NSI is on their way, ARIN is operational, Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the Board of ARIN, and the new TLD registries are ready. Why aren't you ready ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3A6E63EA.49284425-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:15 1998 Message-Id: <0000197D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:58 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN, APNIC and RIPE -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3B6F62EB.4A2B4726" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3B6F62EB.4A2B4726 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3B6F62EB.4A2B4726 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:56 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN, APNIC and RIPE -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA01564; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:55:08 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6BED.F2C59C60@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6BED.F2C59C60@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: ARIN, APNIC and RIPE Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:50:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Some people point out that ARIN, APNIC and RIPE are exactly the same. This is not the case. One of the easy ways to see this is via the DNS databases. In the case of APNIC and RIPE, the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations are arm's length from the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government to the name servers operated by APNIC and RIPE. In the case of ARIN, ARIN handles the entire IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file and the /8s that ARIN allocates space in are loaded on the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government. IF ARIN had intended to be "just like RIPE", they would have deployed arm's length name servers and changed the delegations in the root servers to point at their servers. They did not do this. They are tied to the U.S. Government's infrastructure. Besides this, the ASNs, the DOD-centric PTR records, and the presence of Jon Postel (aka IANA) on the ARIN Board hardly places ARIN at the same level of APNIC and RIPE. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3B6F62EB.4A2B4726-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:15 1998 Message-Id: <00001977@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:04 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Getting Down to Business and the Grass Roots -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3B6F62EB.4B2A4627" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3B6F62EB.4B2A4627 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3B6F62EB.4B2A4627 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:01 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Getting Down to Business and the Grass Roots -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA03553; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:42:50 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C37.AA83B000@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:38:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C37.AA83B000@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Dan'" , "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'Brian Reid'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'steve'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'John Curran'" , "'Ken Fockler'" Cc: "'Kim Hubbard'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'Jon Postel'" , "'Scott Bradner'" Subject: Getting Down to Business and the Grass Roots Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:38:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, April 20, 1998 3:48 AM, Einar Stefferud[SMTP:stef@nma.com] = wrote: @My comments on the proper structure to be employed for organization of @proper management of the required coordination of the DNS ROOT @Service, the coordinated addition of new TLDs to the DNS ROOT Service, @and proper management of all the other aspects of the required central @coordination of Internet Infrastructural Administration, should be @organized bottom up, in the model of a Customer/Producer Cooperative. @ @ @This of course requires too much elapsed time to be done by next @September, per the GP calendar, so we need something else in the @interim. Naturally, this leads to the notion of an Interim Internet @Administrative Board of Directors, whose responsibility is to fill the @gap while the naturally arising free and open market structure @develops and the various natural market segments form their @association constituencies, which would each provide elected @representatives to the New-IANA Board of Directors. The charge to @this Interim Board should be to see to the restructuring of the Open @Internet Marketplace which now in the process of organizing itself @very nicely, thank you, without much help from anyone in particular. @ Richard, Brian, Steve, Dave, Karl, Dan, et. al. 1. Stef does not like me sending him mail, so I will not. 2. We are running out of time, we can not waste it. 3. One goal should be to get TLD registries in the USG Roots to compete = with NSI. 4. Another goal should be to get ARIN/IANA (ARIANA.ORG) organized. 5. Still another goal is to deal with RIPE and APNIC, ARIANA can do that. In my opinion we have to focus on what is here in front of us. That means that we have to deal with the realities of rough consensus and working = code. We also have to deal with working networks and servers. We also have to deal with the non-profits and the non-prophets, as well as the U.S. = Government. People have top deal with these issues. We can not continue to search for some magic martians that are going to land from outer space to dictate all of the rules. I suggest that there is a GROUP of people that are legally founded and funded and chartered to deal with these issues. They are listed here. These people are structured to take their input from the people listed below them. Those people form an Advisory Council and supposedly come from the "grass roots". This is about as bottom up as it gets. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Voting Members John Curran (jcurran@bbn.com) Scott Bradner (sob@harvard.edu)=20 Ken Fockler (ken.fockler@sympatico.ca)=20 Donald N. Telage (dont@netsol.com),=20 Doug Humphrey (doug@skycache.com) Non-Voting Members Jon Postel (postel@isi.edu)=20 Kim Hubbard (kimh@arin.net)=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Advisory Council Bill Darte (Washington University), billd@cait.wustl.edu=20 Karl Denninger (MCSnet), karl@mcs.net=20 Michael DeShazo (Hayes Computer), MDeShazo@hcs.net=20 Michael Dillon, michael@memra.com=20 Avi Freedman (Net Axcess), freedman@netaxs.com=20 Ed Kern (Digex), ejk@digex.net=20 Hank Kilmer, hank@rem.com=20 John Klensin (MCI), klensin@mci.net=20 Guy Middleton (UUNET Canada), guy@uunet.ca=20 Hilarie Orman (University of Arizona), ho@cs.arizona.edu=20 Alec Peterson (Erols), ahp@hilander.com=20 Jeremy Porter (Freeside Communications), jerry@fc.net=20 Samir Saad (AT&T), samir@qsun.ho.att.com=20 David Whipple (Microsoft), dwhipple@microsoft.com=20 One Vacant Seat=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ---------~~ Grass Roots ------------~~ Now...the ARIN Board has made it clear that they want to act on formal recommendations submitted from the Advisory Council. Unfortunately, the Adivsory Council is being filibustered by people that have disrupted Internet Governance for years by claiming to be helping to bring order to a situation while making sure that the group does not come to any conclusions. If the people in the "Grass Roots" do not bring this to the attention of the ARIN Board and the Advisory Council the Board can wait forever and the Advisory Council may never get down to business. I suggest that the ORSC focus on helping to organize the members of the ARIN Advisory Council to help them develop clear and concise recommendations for the ARIN Board to vote up or down. In my opinion, this will be the most efficient path to acheiving the goals stated above. Again, we do not have time to waste...we have to get down to business and the grass roots... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3B6F62EB.4B2A4627-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:16 1998 Message-Id: <00001979@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:08 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3C6865EC.44254928" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3C6865EC.44254928 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3C6865EC.44254928 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:06 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Structuring the Root -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA04217; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:20:25 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C66.D319F680@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:15:52 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C66.D319F680@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: Structuring the Root Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:15:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Structuring the Root for the IPv4 Internet can be as simple as assigning each of the TLD authorities a section of the IPv4 address space to "manage" (not route). The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file could be cleaned up once delegations are made in a more distributed manner. It is important to note that this methodology does not "use" all of the IPv4 addresses, it just distributes them fairly for management purposes. Based on the contents of the Root Zone file from the legacy Root Name Server Cluster operated by the U.S. Government, the following TLDs appear to be recognized: (only .ARPA is out of alpha = order) 0 ARPA 1 AC 2 AD 3 AE 4 AF 5 AG 6 AI 7 AL 8 AM 9 AN 10 AO 11 AQ 12 AR 13 AS 14 AT 15 AU 16 AW 17 AZ 18 BA 19 BB 20 BE 21 BF 22 BG 23 BH 24 BI 25 BJ 26 BM 27 BN 28 BO 29 BR 30 BS 31 BT 32 BV 33 BW 34 BY 35 BZ 36 CA 37 CC 38 CD 39 CF 40 CG 41 CH 42 CI 43 CK 44 CL 45 CM 46 CN 47 CO 48 COM <------ See example below 49 CR 50 CU 51 CV 52 CX 53 CY 54 CZ 55 DE 56 DJ 57 DK 58 DM 59 DO 60 DZ 61 EC 62 EDU 63 EE 64 EG 65 ER 66 ES 67 ET 68 FI 69 FJ 70 FK 71 FM 72 FO 73 FR 74 GA 75 GB 76 GD 77 GE 78 GF 79 GG 80 GH 81 GI 82 GL 83 GM 84 GN 85 GOV 86 GP 87 GQ 88 GR 89 GS 90 GT 91 GU 92 GW 93 GY 94 HK 95 HM 96 HN 97 HR 98 HT 99 HU 100 ID 101 IE 102 IL 103 IM 104 IN 105 INT 106 IO 107 IQ 108 IR 109 IS 110 IT 111 JE 112 JM 113 JO 114 JP 115 KE 116 KG 117 KH 118 KI 119 KN 120 KR 121 KW 122 KY 123 KZ 124 LA 125 LB 126 LC 127 LI 128 LK 129 LR 130 LS 131 LT 132 LU 133 LV 134 LY 135 MA 136 MC 137 MD 138 MG 139 MH 140 MIL 141 MK 142 ML 143 MM 144 MN 145 MO 146 MP 147 MQ 148 MR 149 MS 150 MT 151 MU 152 MV 153 MW 154 MX 155 MY 156 MZ 157 NA 158 NC 159 NE 160 NET 161 NF 162 NG 163 NI 164 NL 165 NO 166 NP 167 NR 168 NU 169 NZ 170 OM 171 ORG 172 PA 173 PE 174 PF 175 PG 176 PH 177 PK 178 PL 179 PM 180 PN 181 PR 182 PT 183 PW 184 PY 185 QA 186 RE 187 RO 188 RU 189 RW 190 SA 191 SB 192 SC 193 SD 194 SE 195 SG 196 SH 197 SI 198 SJ 199 SK 200 SL 201 SM 202 SN 203 SO 204 SR 205 ST 206 SU 207 SV 208 SY 209 SZ 210 TC 211 TD 212 TF 213 TG 214 TH 215 TJ 216 TK 217 TM 218 TN 219 TO 220 TP 221 TR 222 TT 223 TV 224 TW 225 TZ 226 UA 227 UG 228 UK 229 UM 230 US 231 UY 232 UZ 233 VA 234 VC 235 VE 236 VG 237 VI 238 VN 239 VU 240 WF 241 WS 242 YE 243 YT 244 YU 245 ZA 246 ZM 247 ZR 248 ZW 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 The last 7 slots could be used to add new TLDs as part of the transition described in the Department of Commerce's Green Paper. Once all 256 slots are filled the number on the left can be used to identify sections of the IPv4 Address Space that can be delegated to the various TLD authorities for "management" (and stewardship). A simple way to do this is to use the number above to specify the value for bits in the fields labeled here as TTT.TTTTT. aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb If the value of aaaaa is allowed to range from 0 to 31 for EACH of the values of TTT.TTTTT then prefixes can be identified for each of the TLD authorities to manage. This approach distributes the entire IPv4 address space to responsible parties for management and stewardship purposes. Using the value of 48 for the .COM TLD illustrates that the following IPv4 blocks would be placed in the hands of the InterNIC (NSF/NSI) for management. Since the NSF and NSI have delegated IPv4 numbering to ARIN, these 32 /13 blocks would be managed by ARIN. This would be all ARIN manages for revenue producing activities. The rest of the IPv4 space would be distributed to other TLD authorities to more fairly distribute the assets that produce revenue. 1.128-135.0.0 9.128-135.0.0 17.128-135.0.0 25.128-135.0.0 33.128-135.0.0 41.128-135.0.0 49.128-135.0.0 57.128-135.0.0 65.128-135.0.0 73.128-135.0.0 81.128-135.0.0 89.128-135.0.0 97.128-135.0.0 105.128-135.0.0 113.128-135.0.0 121.128-135.0.0 129.128-135.0.0 137.128-135.0.0 145.128-135.0.0 153.128-135.0.0 161.128-135.0.0 169.128-135.0.0 177.128-135.0.0 185.128-135.0.0 193.128-135.0.0 201.128-135.0.0 209.128-135.0.0 217.128-135.0.0 225.128-135.0.0 233.128-135.0.0 241.128-135.0.0 249.128-135.0.0 The following C program can be used to determine other ranges of blocks given a TLD index as shown above. /* * * gs n * * Generates a gs number based an 8 bit value * */ main(argc,argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { int i; int k; int n; k =3D ((atoi(argv[1]) << 19) & 0x07f80000); for(i=3D0; i<32; i++){ n =3D (i<<27) + k; printf("%d.%d-%d.%d.%d\n", (n>>24)&0xff, (n>>16)&0xff, ((n>>16)+7)&0xff, (n>>8)&0xff, n&0xff); } } =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --=_3C6865EC.44254928-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:16 1998 Message-Id: <0000197F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:15 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3C6865EC.45244829" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3C6865EC.45244829 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3C6865EC.45244829 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:12 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA04529; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:55:45 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C7C.866EE140@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:51:12 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C7C.866EE140@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Berislav Todorovic'" Cc: "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "Ira Magaziner" , "tld-wg@ripe.net" Subject: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:51:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI@etf.bg.ac.y= u] wrote: @ @The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies. @First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca @you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian @Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is @perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive @indefinitely". @ Thanks for the well written response. I will try to reply to each of your points. As you note, the following accommodates 256 TLDs. aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb In the IPv8 Plan, we support 2,048 TLDs. That looks like... aaaaaTTT.TTTTTTTT.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb The extra bits get added to the right of the TTTTs... Applying this to the scheme I suggested, each of the existing TLDs in the initial group of 256 would be allowed to ADD 7 more TLDs at some point in the future. This will bring the number to 2,048. Here is more information as well as a list of the current IPv8 TLDs. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-2.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3C6865EC.45244829-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:17 1998 Message-Id: <00001975@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:20 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Stewardship and Management vs. IN-ADDR.ARPA Service -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3D6964ED.46274B2A" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3D6964ED.46274B2A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3D6964ED.46274B2A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:17 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Stewardship and Management vs. IN-ADDR.ARPA Service -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA04549; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:06:30 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C7E.06E9B2E0@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:01:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C7E.06E9B2E0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Berislav Todorovic'" Cc: "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "Ira Magaziner" , "tld-wg@ripe.net" Subject: Stewardship and Management vs. IN-ADDR.ARPA Service Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:01:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI@etf.bg.ac.y= u] wrote: =20 @ @Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate = their @reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have @anything to do with them. I am sorry I was not more clear. In my opinion, you have at least three levels at play when you are looking at IP address management. They might be labeled as follows. 1. Stewardship - Traditional IANA-like Role 2. Management - RIPE-like Role 3. Operations - DNS, IN-ADDR.ARPA, etc. In my opinion, these three "levels" could be handled by different groups depending on the decisions made at the Stewardship level. The scheme I was suggesting distributes the Stewardship. It is like creating 256 IANAs. From there, you have to imagine that each of the 256 would evolve in their own way AND that evolution would depend on input from the stakeholders in the address space. This might result in the Stewardship being in Europe with the Management handed back to ARIN and the IN-ADDR.ARPA handled by the ISP/C. The goal here is NOT to delegate IP address space to people or companies with networks that fail. The goal is to delegate Stewardship (or what some call Trusteeship) and then to have those stewards/trustees work with the stakeholders to find the best management and operations. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3D6964ED.46274B2A-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:17 1998 Message-Id: <00001981@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:25 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3D6964ED.47264A2B" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3D6964ED.47264A2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3D6964ED.47264A2B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:22 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:45 +0100 From: Berislav Todorovic Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root To: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net Cc: tld-wg@ripe.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, ietf@ns.ietf.org, Ira Magaziner, arin-council@arin.net Message-id: <3EE54C5368001F1F@etf.bg.ac.yu> X-Envelope-to: BBURR@ntia.doc.gov X-VMS-To: IN%"JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net" X-VMS-Cc: IN%"tld-wg@ripe.net", IN%"BBURR@ntia.doc.gov", IN%"ietf@ns.ietf.org", IN%"Ira Magaziner", IN%"arin-council@arin.net" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline >> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:15:49 -0500 >> From: Jim Fleming >> Subject: FW: Structuring the Root >> To: "'tld-wg@ripe.net'" >> To: 'arin-council@arin.net'; 'ARIN list' >> Cc: 'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'; 'ietf@ns.ietf.org'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.= gov' >> Subject: Structuring the Root >>=20 >> Structuring the Root for the IPv4 Internet can be as simple as >> assigning each of the TLD authorities a section of the IPv4 address >> space to "manage" (not route). The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file could >> be cleaned up once delegations are made in a more distributed >> manner. It is important to note that this methodology does not "use" >> all of the IPv4 addresses, it just distributes them fairly for = management >> purposes. Many thanks for the copy of this pretty interesting proposal! However, I'd like to place some comments on it. First off, the proposal tries to connect two administrative antipodes on the Internet today: IP address space management (which is a pure technical questin) and domain name delegations (which also have an inevitable legal component). Let's try to stress out some facts, which describe the current situation about reverse domain delegations: * IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations are (naturally) closely related to the IP address allocations/assignments, since reverse domains somewhat reflect usage of the address space, allocated to an ISP or assigned to a user. In other words, reverse domains are closely related to IP addresses used in the network - NOT to the domain names in any way! * IP address allocation/assignment process is totally independent of domain name delegations. IP address management hierarchy (IANA -> Regional IRs -> ISPs/LIRs -> End users) is a logical consequence of the hierarchy of the global routing system. At an extreme point - a ccTLD could be used for Web hosting and similar purposes only, where IP address space is not needed (take many small countries in Oceania, which sold their domains to other countries - see NU TLD, for example). * Currently, regional registries provide IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations for all IP blocks they allocate to the ISPs/LIRs. The ISPs are, apparently, responsible for proper visibility of the reverse domains for the IP address space assigned to their end users. The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies. First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely". The second one (more important) is the question of responsibility: an ISP, assigning an IP network to end user is responsible for its rouitng and reverse domain mapping. Why? Because the user pays for that service! Now, the regional IR, allocating an IP block to the ISP is responsible for its IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation. Why? Because the ISP pays to the regional IR for the service they receive (IP address allocations and reverse domain name delegations).=20 Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate their reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have anything to do with them. The following situation might arise: an ISP receives three independent allocations from the IRs. Now, part of their users would have to delegate their addresses with, say, TLD of Fiji (FJ), the other will have to ask the TLD of Cyprus (CY), the third group will have to go to the Russian (RU) TLD. And - all ISPs are located, say, in the USA! Funny, isn't it? The other side of the medal: suppose that your company, some university or - even Whitehouse or United Nations, received address space which has to be delegated by the TLD registrar of Western Samoa, since the digits in the IP addresses point to that registrar. Suppose Western Samoa TLD DNS servers fail. Who are you going to blame? Western Samoa TLD NIC? Their government? The current bottom-up structure of IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation might not be the best solution achievable today! But that's all we have today ... which does not mean it cannot change tomorrow! ;-) Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI@etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD |=20 |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -----------------------------------------------------------------= --- --=_3D6964ED.47264A2B-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:18 1998 Message-Id: <00001986@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:31 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3E6A67EE.40214D2C" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3E6A67EE.40214D2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3E6A67EE.40214D2C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:28 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA04692; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:09:46 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C86.DDAC0E60@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:05:13 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C86.DDAC0E60@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Berislav Todorovic'" , "'Marsh, Miles (Gene)'" Cc: "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "Ira Magaziner" , "tld-wg@ripe.net" Subject: RE: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:05:12 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, April 20, 1998 6:00 PM, Marsh, Miles (Gene)[SMTP:MarshM@diebold.= com] wrote: @Jim, @ @Is it worth considering a method by which there could be more flexible @expansion of the number of potential TLD's? I know the prevailing @thought is that we must put a stake in the ground, but any constraining @factor could have negative potential. @ I think that all proposals are worth considering...fire away... I have a feeling that there will be a flexible or at least variable growth pattern once some minimal structure is put in place. As an example, if you take the 256 TLDs and declare that all can create 7 more TLDs they may all do it at different rates. This will appear to the consumers as a market-driven growth pattern. In my opinion, people should not be too concerned about the growth getting out of control. If there has been one thing that has been surprising over the past few years, it has been the fact that very few companies are willing to make the investments to understand and prepare to participate in the Registry Industry. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3E6A67EE.40214D2C-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:18 1998 Message-Id: <00001984@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:42 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: The Registry Industry -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3E6A67EE.41204C2D" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3E6A67EE.41204C2D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3E6A67EE.41204C2D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:38 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: The Registry Industry -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA04779; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:19:25 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C90.98220A20@pc.unir.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:14:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6C90.98220A20@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Berislav Todorovic'" Cc: "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "Ira Magaziner" , "tld-wg@RIPE.NET" Subject: The Registry Industry Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:14:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI@etf.bg.ac.y= u] wrote: @ @First off, the proposal tries to connect two administrative antipodes on @the Internet today: IP address space management (which is a pure = technical @questin) and domain name delegations (which also have an inevitable legal @component). Let's try to stress out some facts, which describe the = current @situation about reverse domain delegations: @ If you look at the Registry Industry as if it were the Banking Industry or the Health Care Industry, you might see that in all three of these industries there are "administrative antipodes". This is natural and I do not think that this means one has to take each antipode and separate it into a different business. In fact, if you do that, the business may fail. Examples: Can you have a bank with savings but no loans ? Can you have a hospital with no pharmacy ? In any young industry (like the Registry Industry) I think that it makes more sense to allow independent businesses to have a wide range of products and services instead of forcing (via regulation of social pressure) each service into a separate business. Also, you have to look at the industry and try to determine where you will get your experienced trustees or stewardship. In the Registry Industry it is best to turn to the registries. They are in the business and their businesses are most likely to have personnel who understand the industry and will be able to be around to support the customers. In my opinion, this makes better business sense than to force domain registries into one corner and IN-ADDR.ARPA registries into another corner when both are basically registries. Why not let the industry sort this out via natural evolution of the marketplace ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3E6A67EE.41204C2D-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:18 1998 Message-Id: <00001983@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:47 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Round Table vs. Hierarchy -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3E6A67EE.42234F2E" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3E6A67EE.42234F2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3E6A67EE.42234F2E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:45 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Round Table vs. Hierarchy -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA07026; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:28:31 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6CF6.710D65E0@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:23:55 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6CF6.710D65E0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'Bala Pillai'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'Gordon Cook'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "'John Gilmore'" Cc: "'Rey Blanco'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'John Charles Broomfield'" , "'John Curran'" , "'Jim Dixon'" , "'Jeff Williams'" Cc: "'Karl Auerbach'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'KathrynKL'" , "'Ken Fockler'" , "'Kent Crispin'" , "'Kim Hubbard'" Cc: "'John C Klensin'" , "'Marc Hurst'" , "'Michael Dillon'" , "'Peter Deutsch'" , "'Phil Howard'" , "'Robert Raisch'" Cc: "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" , "'Robert Shaw'" , "'Robert L. Shearing'" , "'Simon Higgs'" , "'Scott Bradner'" Cc: "'Steve Wolff'" , "'steve'" , "'vinton g. cerf'" Subject: Round Table vs. Hierarchy Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 07:23:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline It appears that most parties involved in the planning of Internet Governance are more comfortable with evolving ARIN away from the IANA than using the ARIN structure as a basis to build the start of a Round Table structure with three "equal" partners, ARIANA, APNIC and RIPE. Surprisingly, even the people involved with ARIN appear to prefer the hierarchy structure. The two structures can be illustrated in the following crude stick diagrams. =3D=3D=3D=3D Round Table Structure =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ARIN / IANA \ / \ / \ APNIC-------------RIPE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D Hierarchy Structure =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D IANA / | \ / | \ / | \ APNIC ARIN RIPE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D In the Round Table structure each participant at the table represents a historical collection of Internet resources (DNs, IPs, ASNs, etc.) and there is no central authority. More participants can be added to the Round Table as the Internet grows. When more than three participants are included a fully meshed commuication structure can be implemented via the Internet to help ensure that all participants are equals. This takes work, but in my opinion it is worth the effort. The Hierarchy takes less work. As shown above, the IANA (Inc.) plays a central coordination role and the regional registries are equals with each other, but not the IANA. The Hierarchy can be scaled by adding participants, but it is difficult to scale the IANA. This has been part of the problem with Internet Governance during the past few years. Despite the problems with the Hierarchy approach, it appears that most parties are more comfortable with that approach than the Round Table approach. Given that, the U.S. Government now has the difficult job of separating the ARIN and IANA tasks to allow ARIN to move to an arm's length position from the IANA Inc. It is unclear whether this will require the IANA to move away from ARIN or whether ARIN will move away from the IANA. They are currently intertwined, especially at the server, data base and operations level. Given that it appears that the ARIN Board and Advisory Council prefer to be part of the Hierarchy approach, it will be up to them to distance themselves from the IANA. This will require significant operational changes at ARIN. As a start, ARIN should deploy its own IN-ADDR.ARPA servers which can then be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space. This will distance ARIN from the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and place it at arm's length. In the current situation, ARIN is using the USG roots for IN-ADDR.ARPA. The other two regional registries (RIPE and APNIC) are delegated parts of the IPv4 space. ARIN is not, because ARIN is tightly coupled with the IANA. This has to change. Since I am not an advocate of the Hierarchy approach, I will defer to other experts who seem to think that they can build a successful Internet using that centralized structure. I hope that they begin to enter these open forums to explain in detail how they intend to make this happen. It will be interesting to "watch" this metamorphosis take place. Note the emphasis on the word...watch... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3E6A67EE.42234F2E-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:19 1998 Message-Id: <00001988@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:29:40 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Colleagues ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3F6B66EF.43224E2F" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3F6B66EF.43224E2F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3F6B66EF.43224E2F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:20:37 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Colleagues ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA07297; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:02:12 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6D14.4C3A3AE0@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6D14.4C3A3AE0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Eric Weisberg'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "'ho@cs.arizona.edu'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" Cc: "'John Curran'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'kawchuk@idirect.com'" , "'Kim Hubbard'" , "'Michael Dillon'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Richard J. Sexton'" Subject: Colleagues ? Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:57:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 9:32 AM, Eric Weisberg[SMTP:weisberg@TEXOMA.NET]= wrote: @Einar Stefferud wrote: @ @> So, I am hoping against hope that the USGovt is going to see the light. @> @ @It is trying, but needs a lot of help. In its rush to control something = very few of @its decision makers understands, it will likely make serious mistakes. = You will not @convince it to stay its hand. But, you might help it stumble in right = directions. @That result would be more probable if could lower our sticks and learn to = work @together. However, from what I am seeing, it will take government = decisions to cut @the DNS knot and create a forum in which we may work together rather than = continue @the current bickering. We can't do it as colleagues. @ One of the reasons this can not be done is that many of the people refuse to use the Internet to discuss these matters. Everyone seems to have a different view of what open communications really means. Also, people have a different view of what some call "mainstream". Take the ARIN people for example, most of their mailing lists are closed. Some of the lists can be written to but not read. The lists that are open are not maintained and are not up to date or complete. This is a relatively new organization and it has already become a beauracracy. Despite that, I am sure many people would describe ARIN as "mainstream" and would support anything they decide even though they are never involved in these discussions. Compare that to the ORSC, which does have open discussions but is not considered mainstream partly because it has its roots in the AlterNIC movements. A recent article in a Canadian paper quotes Ron Kawchuk of the Canadian ISP Association as describing these activities as non-mainstream. Here we have a case where an individual can label an activity as not mainstream without saying what mainstream is, or participating in the mainstream of the Internet. One advantage that the U.S. Government has is that many people view their activities as mainstream. Even if the participants do not have a clue as to what they are doing, they have instant credibility. Because of this, the U.S. Government will get to decide where all of this heads. No matter what happens the solution will be labeled mainstream. This allows people in the mainstream and out of the mainstream to all be in the same stream and by definition...colleagues... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3F6B66EF.43224E2F-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:19 1998 Message-Id: <0000198A@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:29:47 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_3F6B66EF.3C5D3150" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_3F6B66EF.3C5D3150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_3F6B66EF.3C5D3150 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:20:45 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA07420; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:07:58 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6D1D.7CBA3860@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:03:25 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6D1D.7CBA3860@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Jay Fenello'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'tld-wg@ripe.net'" Subject: RE: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:03:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 11:25 AM, Jay Fenello[SMTP:Jay@IPERDOME.COM] = wrote: @ @The way I see it, we face several possible outcomes under @the Green Paper process: @ 1) The GP garners the required consensus, and the root @ remains intact under a single authority structure. @ 2) The U.S. assumes the responsibility for a U.S. based @ root, and encourages Europe and others to do the same. @ Then, these independent roots can coordinate their @ activities as relative equals in the global Internet. @ 3) The Grass Root Servers are accepted, and each and @ every Netizen can choose for themselve. Jay, You might want to add #4. 4) Europe (mostly via RIPE) demonstrates that IP allocations and TLDs have something to do with each other and that people can work together without the DOD-centric IANA/ARIN approach. Then, U.S. companies realize the merits of this and move to this Round Table model. This is similar to #2 above but focuses on the fact that Europe and RIPE are in many ways ahead of the U.S. in this area. They have a healthier structure and do not seem to box themselves into corners like the IANA/ARIN people. For example, RIPE works on both IP and TLD issues. Join the discussion... http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/current/index.html - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_3F6B66EF.3C5D3150-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:20 1998 Message-Id: <0000198D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:30:03 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C1959810.3D5C3051" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C1959810.3D5C3051 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C1959810.3D5C3051 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:21:01 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from vucqpqlj (user-37kb58j.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.149.19]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14125; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980421131422.006b4448@mindspring.com> X-Sender: iquest1@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:14:22 -0400 To: Ira Magaziner From: Jay Fenello Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) Cc: bburr@ntia.doc.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline FYI: >Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:25:15 -0400 >To: Eric Weisberg >From: Jay Fenello >Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) >Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, domain-policy@open-rsc.org > >At 09:32 AM 4/21/98 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: >>Einar Stefferud wrote: >>> Self organizing systems actually have a strong tendancy to be much >>> more solid and resiliant to external forces than do represntative >>> democratic international institutions, which have a way of bending to >>> accomodate unreasponable behaviors and breaches of trust in oredr to >>> collect votes to frm a majority. >> >>This is interesting but fails to deal with the actual facts in the = field. There are >>several organizations which are exercising control over various aspects = of the >>network and the aggregation of control is accelerating with the = WorldCom merger, the >>further development of Microsoft, the problems of Apple, the expansion = of Cisco, >>etc--it is not an anarchy and will not be. Thus, your position does not = lead toward >>your goal, but simply an abandonment of the contest. > > >The way I see it, we face several possible outcomes under=20 >the Green Paper process: > 1) The GP garners the required consensus, and the root > remains intact under a single authority structure. > 2) The U.S. assumes the responsibility for a U.S. based > root, and encourages Europe and others to do the same. > Then, these independent roots can coordinate their > activities as relative equals in the global Internet. > 3) The Grass Root Servers are accepted, and each and=20 > every Netizen can choose for themselve. >These choices are ordered from the most control and consistent=20 >policies, to the least control and the most anarchy. Stef's=20 >comments suggest a solution as outlined in #2). > >So what is the proper course? > >In some ways, this entire debate has been a paradox. >The more questions we ask, the more questions we have. =20 >Even simple answers have complex repercussions. > >A simple decision like requiring full disclosure via=20 >the proposed whois standards raise privacy issues. For=20 >example, since implementing our personal privacy policy, >Iperdome has received request like: > > "I would like to have the information of who has > registred the domain (XXX).per" [where (XXX) was > clearly a possible trademark infringement] > >and > > "I would like you Co. To provide me with E-mail=20 > addresses who are connected with Jewish, Holocaust,=20 > Catholic, and other religious Organizations, and=20 > also including daily and weekly news papers in the=20 > United States." > >With our policy, we were able to comply with the first >request, and deny the second. It is conceivable that=20 >we might not have this ability if we were required to=20 >publish all registration information in a publically=20 >accessable standard. > >Global Values: > >While our cultural experience supports competition >in the economic arena, this is an inadequate definition >on the Internet. In our emerging cyber-world, competition >between ideas and cultural values must also be encouraged, >as it is likely to lead to a new understanding of our=20 >connectedness. Everything we do should encourage this=20 >competition. > >Consequently, I suggest that the proper course of action=20 >is to support a global Internet that gives U.S. Values=20 >the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with other=20 >soveriegn and cultural values. This leaves the USG=20 >with two options. =20 > >Option one: > >Retain a single unified world root with a minimalist=20 >policy where no single soveriegn or cultural policy=20 >is implemented to the detriment of all others. =20 > >Option two: > >The U.S. Government stabalizes the current root >server system by contracting these services, and >uses U.S. values to establish it's policies. > >Europe could then start its own root server system, >and implement their own policies and procedures for >that root system. =20 > >Ideally, these two systems would coordinate to prevent=20 >collisions in the name space, and competition would occur=20 >between the foundational ideas underlying these two systems. > >Conclusion: > >Personally, I prefer option one as outlined in the GP, >with the added requirement that the resulting representation >is balanced, and it adapts to the changing stakeholder >communities and values as they evolve over time. =20 > >If that proves impossible, option two is an acceptable >fallback position. IMHO & FWIW. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. =20 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com --=_C1959810.3D5C3051-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:20 1998 Message-Id: <0000199C@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:36:01 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C1959810.3E5F3352" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C1959810.3E5F3352 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C1959810.3E5F3352 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:59 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from vucqpqlj (user-37kb58j.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.149.19]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14125; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980421131422.006b4448@mindspring.com> X-Sender: iquest1@mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:14:22 -0400 To: Ira Magaziner From: Jay Fenello Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) Cc: bburr@ntia.doc.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline FYI: >Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:25:15 -0400 >To: Eric Weisberg >From: Jay Fenello >Subject: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) >Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, domain-policy@open-rsc.org > >At 09:32 AM 4/21/98 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote: >>Einar Stefferud wrote: >>> Self organizing systems actually have a strong tendancy to be much >>> more solid and resiliant to external forces than do represntative >>> democratic international institutions, which have a way of bending to >>> accomodate unreasponable behaviors and breaches of trust in oredr to >>> collect votes to frm a majority. >> >>This is interesting but fails to deal with the actual facts in the = field. There are >>several organizations which are exercising control over various aspects = of the >>network and the aggregation of control is accelerating with the = WorldCom merger, the >>further development of Microsoft, the problems of Apple, the expansion = of Cisco, >>etc--it is not an anarchy and will not be. Thus, your position does not = lead toward >>your goal, but simply an abandonment of the contest. > > >The way I see it, we face several possible outcomes under=20 >the Green Paper process: > 1) The GP garners the required consensus, and the root > remains intact under a single authority structure. > 2) The U.S. assumes the responsibility for a U.S. based > root, and encourages Europe and others to do the same. > Then, these independent roots can coordinate their > activities as relative equals in the global Internet. > 3) The Grass Root Servers are accepted, and each and=20 > every Netizen can choose for themselve. >These choices are ordered from the most control and consistent=20 >policies, to the least control and the most anarchy. Stef's=20 >comments suggest a solution as outlined in #2). > >So what is the proper course? > >In some ways, this entire debate has been a paradox. >The more questions we ask, the more questions we have. =20 >Even simple answers have complex repercussions. > >A simple decision like requiring full disclosure via=20 >the proposed whois standards raise privacy issues. For=20 >example, since implementing our personal privacy policy, >Iperdome has received request like: > > "I would like to have the information of who has > registred the domain (XXX).per" [where (XXX) was > clearly a possible trademark infringement] > >and > > "I would like you Co. To provide me with E-mail=20 > addresses who are connected with Jewish, Holocaust,=20 > Catholic, and other religious Organizations, and=20 > also including daily and weekly news papers in the=20 > United States." > >With our policy, we were able to comply with the first >request, and deny the second. It is conceivable that=20 >we might not have this ability if we were required to=20 >publish all registration information in a publically=20 >accessable standard. > >Global Values: > >While our cultural experience supports competition >in the economic arena, this is an inadequate definition >on the Internet. In our emerging cyber-world, competition >between ideas and cultural values must also be encouraged, >as it is likely to lead to a new understanding of our=20 >connectedness. Everything we do should encourage this=20 >competition. > >Consequently, I suggest that the proper course of action=20 >is to support a global Internet that gives U.S. Values=20 >the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with other=20 >soveriegn and cultural values. This leaves the USG=20 >with two options. =20 > >Option one: > >Retain a single unified world root with a minimalist=20 >policy where no single soveriegn or cultural policy=20 >is implemented to the detriment of all others. =20 > >Option two: > >The U.S. Government stabalizes the current root >server system by contracting these services, and >uses U.S. values to establish it's policies. > >Europe could then start its own root server system, >and implement their own policies and procedures for >that root system. =20 > >Ideally, these two systems would coordinate to prevent=20 >collisions in the name space, and competition would occur=20 >between the foundational ideas underlying these two systems. > >Conclusion: > >Personally, I prefer option one as outlined in the GP, >with the added requirement that the resulting representation >is balanced, and it adapts to the changing stakeholder >communities and values as they evolve over time. =20 > >If that proves impossible, option two is an acceptable >fallback position. IMHO & FWIW. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. =20 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com --=_C1959810.3E5F3352-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:21 1998 Message-Id: <00001992@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:36:26 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Organization of an Interim Internet Administration Board of Directors (WAS: Re: ins -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C0949911.3F5E3253" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C0949911.3F5E3253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C0949911.3F5E3253 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:24 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Organization of an Interim Internet Administration Board of Directors (WAS: Re: ins Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA07752; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:26:00 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6D30.C4EBFDE0@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:21:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6D30.C4EBFDE0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'John Curran'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'Ken Fockler'" Cc: "'Kim Hubbard'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: RE: Organization of an Interim Internet Administration Board of Directors (WAS: Re: instrumentality ) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:21:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 1:45 PM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@MHSC.COM= ] wrote: @Hey guys, @ @All this stuff about political structures is nice, but not real-world. I @certainly have not yet seen any adequate political-power analysis. Would @you undertake a design without a field analysis? @ @ @Of real relevence is the apparent fact that ARIN may become a peer of = RIPE @and APNIC, and IANA may become a parent of all three. The structure of = IANA @seems to be dependent on the result of the GP process. Someone ELSE has @ownership of that process(Ira Magaziner). What is also becoming clear is @that ARIN wants nothing to do with TLDs, other than IN-ADDR.ARPA. @ Roeland, It is a shame that ARIN/IANA (or ARIANA) is not capable of becoming a peer of RIPE and APNIC at this time. Apparently, ARIN is barely surviving with the limited job of handling IP allocations. This leaves the U.S. Government no choice but to proceed with their plan to have IANA Inc. play the central coordination role. One thing that is not clear is how IANA Inc. will be funded. The Green = Paper claims that ARIN, RIPE and APNIC will provide that revenue. If ARIN is in financial trouble, it may not be in a position to fund the IANA Inc. This = may also be the case with APNIC. RIPE is expanding its base into TLDs so it should have a more solid business model. As they say, "the devil is in the details"...people seem reluctant to work out the details. The ARIN Board had a chance to simplify all of this but now it will become more complex. Such is life on the Internet... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_C0949911.3F5E3253-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:22 1998 Message-Id: <00001998@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:36:33 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C0949911.38593554" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C0949911.38593554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C0949911.38593554 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:30 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from [207.21.137.237] (h207-21-143-159.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.159]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA15574; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com Message-Id: To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve) Subject: Re: U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...) Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, domain-policy@open-rsc.org, usdh@ccnet.com, "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 4/21/98 Jay writes: ...It is conceivable that >we might not have this ability if we were required to >publish all registration information in a publically >accessable standard. > >Global Values: > >While our cultural experience supports competition >in the economic arena, this is an inadequate definition >on the Internet. In our emerging cyber-world, competition >between ideas and cultural values must also be encouraged, >as it is likely to lead to a new understanding of our >connectedness. Everything we do should encourage this >competition. Steve: Those who are connected will understand the "connectedness" which the cyber-world creates. To those who are "not connected", their understanding will be limited. To encourage such understanding, providing experiences is the best way. This is what should be taught to children in school, at to all citizens at libraries which offer public access. In a way, people who live in countries and continents with little connectivity are in many ways like infants or children who may or may not mature to participate as full citizens of the cyber-world. In this respect, the maturing adolescence of U.S. and Canadian connectivity provides us with hope that a greater and greater number of people = worldwide will recognize the interconnectedness of all energy, all things, and all individuals comprising humanity. Jay: >Consequently, I suggest that the proper course of action >is to support a global Internet that gives U.S. Values >the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with other >soveriegn and cultural values. Steve: I think we need to de-emphasize values as being geographically linked because in the cyber world, there is not such thing. The values which need to be provided for consumption across all geographically-sovereign nations and cultures are human, no less. Presented as such, each individual is then confronted with the choice: do = I support my geographically sovereign system IF it is not consistent with securing human rights and freedoms or do I support human rights and freedoms? The framers of the U.S. Constitution made those same decisions hundreds of years ago, and the geography had little to do with it, except that it was an open space where new ideas could take root. Sound = familiar? Jay: This leaves the USG >with two options. > >Option one: > >Retain a single unified world root with a minimalist >policy where no single soveriegn or cultural policy >is implemented to the detriment of all others. Steve: Had the framers of the Constitution been able to fast forward into 1998, the decisions which they had made in 1776 would have been written so as to apply not only to the territory in which they lived, but to the new and unexplored territories, like the Internet. Their focus WAS on values. Therefore, the decision, in a way, has already been made for the present administration of the USG, long ago, and has been formalized in the Constitution. The issue is how the present group of decision makers will choose to *interpret* and apply the jewels of human rights, the Bill of Rights, and how to formalized the recognition of the rights into law, (through the Constitutional) to recognize that individuals regardless of their = geography are free, to use language to their benefit, to own property for their benefit, and to be protected from tyranny. Cultural traditions and policies pale just as much as sovereign governing structures pale in comparison to the fact that people are born free, with natural rights and freedoms. The single unified root must have a balance associated which insures that these rights and freedoms are not violated, by any sovereign or culture. It is the balance which exists in the structure which = attempts to insure for the long term that tyranny will not happen. It is the vigilance of educated individuals who actually insure that tryanny will = not happen. Until we truly have a person-centric focus, a single-unified root will be subject to the danger of manipulation in the future by those who = do not. Jay: >Option two: > >The U.S. Government stabalizes the current root >server system by contracting these services, and >uses U.S. values to establish it's policies. Steve: Again, the values which underly the U.S. position as the researcher, developer, administrator, are not geographic, nor are they cultural. They are human. They are based upon fact and natural law. = U.S. policy builds upon the foundation, but the actions of individuals who represent the U.S. do not always follow the "values" which are buried deep beneath the bureacratic layers. To confuse the *values* with the geographically-governed policies of the U.S. is to lead people to think that one is imposing a territorially linked system of governance, onto a geographically-independent "mirror" called cyber world. Cyber world only exists because of the intellectual energy of individual free human beings. The only thing that is "sovereign" or cultural about cyberspace occurs = when the mental states of the individuals "buys in", either having been = "bought" by a job (self-interest) or other type of benefit (i.e. they do not get taken away in the middle of the night for opposing the sovereignty of the despot, etc.) Jay: >Conclusion: > >Personally, I prefer option one as outlined in the GP, >with the added requirement that the resulting representation >is balanced, and it adapts to the changing stakeholder >communities and values as they evolve over time. >Regards, > >Jay Fenello >President, Iperdome, Inc. >404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com Steve: All of the bits and bytes are created by and for consumption by free individuals, so all of the jockeying which is about power and = control, is for naught, because the power and control is in the hands of the aggregation of individuals called humanity. In the long run, the UNITY which exists among the minds of individuals who all communicate their energy across the Net to each other will be reinforced by the increasing access to the Net, and the *enlightenment* of the minds which will occur. Stephen J. Page T: 925-454-8624 U.S. Data Highway Corp. Management Consulting email: usdh@ccnet.com --=_C0949911.38593554-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:23 1998 Message-Id: <00001991@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:36:42 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C3979A12.39583455" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C3979A12.39583455 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C3979A12.39583455 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:39 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA10457; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:27:32 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net>; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:22:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: RE: Structuring the Root Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:22:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:56 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand[SMTP:Harald.A= lvestrand@maxware.no] wrote: @Did you notice that ZR and CD happen to be the same country? @CD recently got added (Zaire changed name to Congo Democratic Republic). @ @If Tanzania has a similar coup and changes to DT (Democratic Tanzania), @will you shift all your stewardship zones by one? @ In the approach I propose, there are "slots" and the TLD names are placed on the slots. TLDs can come and go depending on the forces in the marketplace. Once a TLD is attached to a slot it does not change. All TLD labels on slots have to be unique and a Darwinian system is proposed where new TLDs challenge the weakest TLDs (no users) for replacement. In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the Fortune 500. The goal is to locate the "strongest" TLDs in the world and assign them to a slot. The G:S number on the slot determines which part of the IPv8 address space is automatically delegated to the stewards for that TLD. Here is a current list. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_C3979A12.39583455-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:23 1998 Message-Id: <00001995@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:36:56 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Are TLDs Countries ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C2969B13.3A5B3756" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C2969B13.3A5B3756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C2969B13.3A5B3756 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:54 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Are TLDs Countries ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA10486; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:49:23 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6DC2.853D1DE0@pc.unir.net>; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:44:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6DC2.853D1DE0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: Are TLDs Countries ? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:44:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:56 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand[SMTP:Harald.A= lvestrand@maxware.no] wrote: @Did you notice that ZR and CD happen to be the same country? @CD recently got added (Zaire changed name to Congo Democratic Republic). @ BTW...I am not sure that TLDs are countries... In my opinion, TLDs are TLDs... check out... http://this.is http://www.internet.tm http://www.nic.io Note: the .IO TLD is a recent addition. People claimed it was for the Indian Ocean, yet a group from the United Kingdom called Internet One (IO?) just so happens to be the delegate. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_C2969B13.3A5B3756-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:23 1998 Message-Id: <0000199A@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:37:02 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C2969B13.3B5A3657" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C2969B13.3B5A3657 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C2969B13.3B5A3657 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:00 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13]) by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA01711; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:17:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199804221717.KAA01711@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:17:34 -0700 To: Jim Fleming From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: Structuring the Root Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" In-Reply-To: <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 07:22 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:56 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand[SMTP:Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no] wrote: >@Did you notice that ZR and CD happen to be the same country? >@CD recently got added (Zaire changed name to Congo Democratic Republic). >@ >@If Tanzania has a similar coup and changes to DT (Democratic Tanzania), >@will you shift all your stewardship zones by one? >@ > >In the approach I propose, there are "slots" and the TLD names >are placed on the slots. TLDs can come and go depending on >the forces in the marketplace. Once a TLD is attached to a slot >it does not change. All TLD labels on slots have to be unique >and a Darwinian system is proposed where new TLDs challenge >the weakest TLDs (no users) for replacement. In "KISS TLDs", I had proposed, for commercial TLDs, that if a TLD = registry couldn't show a operational TLD registrar in six months they would lose = the TLD. In other words "use it or lose it". Also proposed is, fee-paid-up-front. Together, these squelch a lot of piracy and speculation/extortion. The operating theory is that all TLDs are public TLDs or they wouldn't need to be registered. I personally don't care for the jungle you are proposing here. It will result in MANY legal dog-fights which are unnecessary and the one with the weakest attorney will usually lose. The mechanism in "KISS TLDs" is fair, eliminates idle speculation, and causes minimal legal havoc. >In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the >Fortune 500. The goal is to locate the "strongest" TLDs in the >world and assign them to a slot. The G:S number on the slot >determines which part of the IPv8 address space is automatically >delegated to the stewards for that TLD. Here is a current list. > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > >- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation >IBC, Tortola, BVI >=20 ___________________________________________________=20 Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)=20 e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com Personal web pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeye= r Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________=20 SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! =20 --=_C2969B13.3B5A3657-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:24 1998 Message-Id: <00001996@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:37:08 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C5919C14.34553958" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_C5919C14.34553958 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_C5919C14.34553958 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:28:06 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13]) by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA01755; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:32:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199804221732.KAA01755@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:32:09 -0700 To: Jim Fleming From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: Structuring the Root Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" In-Reply-To: <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 07:22 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the Here is a major problem I have with this, limited "slots", Why??! I have never ehard, or read, any valid reason for limiting TLDs, that wasn't pure speculative BS, or driven by some "hidden" commercial agenda. ___________________________________________________=20 Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)=20 e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com Personal web pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeye= r Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________=20 SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! =20 --=_C5919C14.34553958--