From - Tue May 19 16:35:02 1998 Message-Id: <00001945@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:24:50 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E" 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. --=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:46 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -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 PAA17596; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:59:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199804162259.PAA17596@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:59:17 -0700 To: Jeff Williams From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming), kimh@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, cook@NETAXS.COM, Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET, Ira Magaziner, Jay@Iperdome.com, karl@MCS.NET, naipr@arin.net In-Reply-To: <3535C97E.ADECED9@ix.netcom.com> References: <199804160551.WAA15985@condor.mhsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 10:04 4/16/98 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote: >Roeland and all, > >Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: >> At 23:50 4/15/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >> >If such a bootstrap effort is not attempted then the Internet may = continue >> >to diverge and the IPv4 core may end up lost in the endless cross-fire = of >> >new and emerging technologies. >> >> Those of us already running production GRS servers are already = entertaining >> the idea of 1000's of autonomous TLD registries. Is it much of a = stretch to >> include IP registries in that model? I don't think so, yet another = table in >> a postgreSQL database. > > Yes, this surely could be done, and has some definite advantages. >> In "KISS TLDs", I wrote about a referee being desirable, ARIN could be = such >> a global referee. Notice the semantic difference between referee and >> regulator. > > Here is where I differ from your point of view. Referee, doesn't carry = the >weight necessary to control commercial entities adequately, in fact ARIN = is >one of those commercial entities, as an IP registry itself. Rather a cooperative >model between government and the private sector with *Regulations* seems >more likely to benefit ALL of the internet community. This proposed body >would need to be international in scope and independent, where all = members >are voted in by majority vote. Okay, with IP registry functions, the picture is changed dramatically from the simple TLD registry model we were discussing. With IP-block assignment functionality there is a greater responsibility, as well as a greater capability for harm. Coordination is *much* more critical. In short, we = are achieving alignment on this issue. However, tempermentally, I am still not fond of regulation and would still rather keep it at minimum. Maybe it's a result of too many years, first at MCI, then in an RBOC (PacBell ACN/CBS). I've just seen way too much regulatory abuse out there. That said: If ARIN is just another IP-registry, and we combine that with TLD registries (ARPA TLD) we have some problems. The biggest one is a meta-registry issue ... there isn't one, even being discussed! Isn't this = a little of the cart-before-the-horse? Actually, this problem has always = been there, but nobody's been watering it. We have IANA assigning IP-registry domains to RIPE and ARIN, et al. Yet IANA is soon to evaporate. This is where the proposal to carry IANA within ARIN comes from. However, once this happens, ARIN is now also the IANA. = How does RIPE enter into this? How about the OTHER IP-registries? It gets worse, if ARIN is also the registry for the ARPA TLD (which it HASN'T bought into, BTW), then ARIN becomes, by definition, the GLOBAL IP-BLOCK REGISTRY. In fact, I would submit that ANYONE that controls the ARPA TLD is, in fact, the global IP-registry. I hope that I'm wrong, someone correct me if I am. The reason that I hope that I'm wrong is that I see IANA backing away from the ARPA TLD and ARIN is ignoring it as well. My question is, why? Who is going to step up to that plate if neither ARIN or IANA want to? We are missing some key super-structure here. Now, if we are going to have a multitude of TLD registries then this becomes ever more critical. Colliding names can be dealt with, as long as we do not have colliding IPs. TLDs are going to de-stabilize, the writting os on-the-wall there. Are IP assignments going to de-stabilize as well? _________________________________________________=20 Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20 Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20 (RM993)=20 President and CEO.=20 e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20 Web-pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20 Web-site: http://www.mhsc.com=20 Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20 -----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20 Note: Statements made in this message do not=20 necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All=20 forcasts and projections are to be considered=20 as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20 may not be referenced herein.=20 -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20 --=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:03 1998 Message-Id: <00001947@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:24:57 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F" 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. --=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:55 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -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 RAA17704; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:23:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199804170023.RAA17704@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:23:36 -0700 To: Jim Fleming From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. Cc: Jeff Williams , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "cook@NETAXS.COM" , "Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET" , "DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET" , "Ira Magaziner" , "Jay@Iperdome.com" , naipr@arin.net In-Reply-To: <01BD6965.402323A0@pc.unir.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 18:27 4/16/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: BTW, I'll continue to forward your DNS-Policy related info to DOMAIN-POLICY, as I see that you are not a subscriber there. >On Thursday, April 16, 1998 5:59 PM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com] wrote: > >@ >@It gets worse, if ARIN is also the registry for the ARPA TLD (which it >@HASN'T bought into, BTW), then ARIN becomes, by definition, the GLOBAL >@IP-BLOCK REGISTRY. In fact, I would submit that ANYONE that controls the >@ARPA TLD is, in fact, the global IP-registry. I hope that I'm wrong, >@someone correct me if I am. >@ > >Roeland, > >You might want to start from the top. .ARPA is a TLD. IN-ADDR.ARPA >is an important zone under that TLD. Companies with domain names >registered under IN-ADDR.ARPA are just as vulnerable to "lock-in" and >all of the other problems that the IAHC/CORE people claim exist with >.COM and NSI. > >Whether you like it or not, control of all of the domain names under >IN-ADDR.ARPA rests with ARIN and Jon Postel (IANA). If you read >the ARIN bylaws, you will see that the IANA is written in as an ARIN >Trustee. This makes the IANA part of ARIN whether ARIN buys into >that or not. > >For some reason, the IAHC/CORE advocates are very concerned >about companies being locked in under .COM with NSI but they seem >to have little concern that companies are locked in under IN-ADDR.ARPA >under ARIN. One of the reasons appears to be that RIPE and APNIC >help to create the illusion that there is a distributed round table here >when in fact, we have Jon Postel (IANA) making the decisions on >what happens under .ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA (as well as .US). So, what you're saying is that we DO have a global IP-registry, in the = form of the IANA and IANA is ALREADY part of ARIN. Further, ARIN, via IANA, = DOES control IN-ADDR.ARPA. Now you tell me that this all revolves around Jon Postel, as the single critical piece. Does it then follow that RIPE and APNIC derive their authority from IANA/ARIN? Where does the InterNIC fit into all this? >People do not seem to like to come to terms with the fact that a >few people (mostly Jon Postel) control these Internet resources. >Apparently, this is partly because Jon Postel is a contractor for the >U.S. Government and they have made it clear that they intend to >now help Jon make decisions. Be that as it may ... I thought Jon Postel worked for USC, via ISI, which is contracting IANA services to NSF. If so, he reports to the UC regents, no?? Forgive me if I think that this is a lot like that old country song = "I am my own grand pa." What ever happened to KISS? BTW, thanks for explaining= this. >My suggestion is that the U.S. Government help to make those >decisions via ARIN which they just helped to create. Rather than >have the U.S. Government continue to fund a bunch of non-profit >companies, I suggest that they focus their time and energy to >create the IANA Inc. as part of ARIN or vice versa. It does not >matter how you mix the words. Jon Postel is part of both and >the U.S. Government is part of both. The sooner that they are >in the same place at the same time, decisions can be made to >get the Registry Industry moving forward. Yes! However, wasn't Jon Postel a major player in the DOMAIN MoU/CORE/IAHC thingy? Yet, Ira flat ignored all three of those and as much as slapped = Jon in the face, with a four-by-four, when he released the GreenPaper. = Besides, isn't all this going to DERAIL the Green Paper efforts? _________________________________________________=20 Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20 Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20 (RM993)=20 President and CEO.=20 e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20 Web-pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20 Web-site: http://www.mhsc.com=20 Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20 -----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20 Note: Statements made in this message do not=20 necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All=20 forcasts and projections are to be considered=20 as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20 may not be referenced herein.=20 -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20 --=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:04 1998 Message-Id: <0000194B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:02 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve page...) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_306469E0.5C3D5130" 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. --=_306469E0.5C3D5130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_306469E0.5C3D5130 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:00 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve page...) -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 XAA18430; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:38:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199804170638.XAA18430@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:38:34 -0700 To: Jay Fenello From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve page...) Cc: Gordon Cook , "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Don Mitchell'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'John Curran'" , "'KathrynKL'" , ARIN list , usdh@mailhub1.ncal.verio.com In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980417021120.02f351e0@mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 02:11 4/17/98 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote: >At 10:58 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote: >>Becky Burr is of the opinion that arin is useless....wittingly or not mr >>page, your continued rants are helping to encourage the view that Arin = is >>on the table and free to be redisgned by people like her. > > >Not only do I think ARIN is useFULL, but I think it=20 >is *required*. It offers a natural way to provide=20 >international representation to the new non-profit >corporation! Not "natural" rather, convenient. A little too convenient. >Discussion: > >While almost everyone agrees with the goal >of an internationally representative Board >of Directors supervising the activities of >a new, non-profit corporation, few details >have been discussed. I agree, but I'm not sure it's a consensus, yet. >Two of the most persistent problems with=20 >representation on the Internet is, 1) how=20 >do you define a stakeholder, and 2) how do=20 >you allocate representation. > >Defining a stakeholder is difficult in cyber- >space. How do you determine if a stakeholder=20 >is a real person or some smart software running=20 >on some server someplace? > >So, here are some thoughts to get the ball >rolling. =20 > >1) Some ways to define a stakeholder: > > - One Person, One Vote > - One Netizen, One Vote > - One IP Address, One Vote > - One Domain Name, One Vote > - One Email Address, One Vote > >On the top of the list, you find stakeholder >definitions that are very precise, and *very*=20 >difficult to enforce. > >On the bottom of the list, you have the opposite=20 >problem. These definitions are very loose, yet >easy to enforce. =20 > >Unfortunatley, email addresses are virtually=20 >free. Consequently, they can easily be used=20 >to sway voting and representation. I can have 65500 email addresses in about an hour, from MHSC.COM and four times that from MHSC.NET. >IMHO, IP Addresses and Domain Names both offer >a more balanced approach to this question. They >both have some cost basis, and they more accurately=20 >reflect the stakeholder communities. =20 I prefer Domain Names, but how to handle .SHEESH and company? Do the alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs? >In some ways, it is similar to one of the historical >voting requirements in the U.S., specifically the=20 >owning of property. =20 > >2) Some ways to allocate representation: > >Using Domain Names and IP Addresses to qualify stakeholders >is not only a relatively clean and easy way to establish >representation, but it also offers a nice mix and balance >of interests. =20 >Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented=20 >by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners. These not only=20 >correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and=20 >major commercial interests, but they are already established. >Similarily, gTLD registries could represent their SLD owners,=20 >and the ccTLD registries could represent their SLD owners. =20 >Again, this provides a nice balance of geographic and=20 >psychographic representation. Nope, unacceptable. The SLD owners deserve direct representation as = well.=20 >These are some rough thoughts, so no flames please! Bi-cameral representation structures may work better. Any thoughts? ___________________________________________________=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 --=_306469E0.5C3D5130-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:04 1998 Message-Id: <00001951@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:11 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_306469E0.5D3C5031" 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. --=_306469E0.5D3C5031 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_306469E0.5D3C5031 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:09 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards -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 PAA09671; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:30:06 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A15.1108F8A0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:25:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6A15.1108F8A0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Kim Hubbard'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "Ira Magaziner" Cc: "'John Curran'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "kimh@INTERNIC.NET" , "naipr@arin.net" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Scott Bradner'" Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:25:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Kim, The recent announcement by ARIN to remove various services for maintenance did not meet with rave reviews from the various network operators in North America (NANOG) and around the world. There seems to be an inconsistency in ARIN's operational standards and the standards proposed in the U.S. Government's so-called Green Paper. To this end, would it be possible for ARIN to try to meet the goals that the U.S. Government is proposing that other domain name registries will be required to meet to qualify for inclusion in the legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. operates ? Also, is there any plan to move .ARPA or IN-ADDR.ARPA off of the legacy Root Name Servers ? This seems like a step that ARIN could help to coordinate to make sure that ARIN is independent of those legacy Root Name Servers. This might be an area where ARIN could draw upon volunteers from its members to help host those DNS zones. This would spread the processing power around, reduce the need for ARIN to pay for extra bandwidth and would allow for some extra stability in case ARIN gets into financial trouble. The current web site seems to be mostly focused on the fees that ARIN charges and the justification of those fees. Now that ARIN is starting operations, it might be useful to add more information that can be used to give people an idea of where ARIN stands from an operational standards point of view. This may help to serve as an educational model that other registries can use as they seek endorsement from the U.S. Government for their registries as part of the Green Paper plan. Speaking of education, ARIN may want to beef up that area of community outreach. Education is generally part of most non-profit operations. In my opinion, ARIN could benefit from the years of experience that many of the people in the Registry Industry have gained by working with root servers, DNS and registry software. I suspect that a strong group of volunteers could help to enhance the ARIN web site in this area. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_306469E0.5D3C5031-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:05 1998 Message-Id: <00001949@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:16 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_316568E1.5E3F5332" 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. --=_316568E1.5E3F5332 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_316568E1.5E3F5332 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:14 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude -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 QAA09792; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:38:31 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A1E.A01473E0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:34:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6A1E.A01473E0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Dave Van Allen'" , "'Kim Hubbard'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:33:59 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, April 17, 1998 12:57 PM, Dave Van Allen[SMTP:dave@fast.net] = wrote: @Now that's a framework of suggestions that I can support. @ @S/N ratio just went up a notch round these parts! @ @ There are many areas where people could help to contribute via the non-profit structure set up as ARIN. This is especially the case with ARIN and IANA functions as part of the same body. RIPE is miles ahead of ARIN in this regard. This stands to reason because they have been around much longer. With a lot of work ARIN can come up to speed as a true non-profit company with a philosophy of cooperation. The attitude that ARIN has something that ISPs need and is not going to give away easily must be changed. ARIN now exists to serve the ISPs and other companies, not the other way around. This will change as ISPs and companies use the ARIN structure as a place to hang their projects which can exist in cyberspace, as opposed to only on ARIN's servers. As an example, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone needs to be cleaned up and restructured. A collective effort of ISPs could be launched to make that happen. This would help to spread the work around and reduce the cost to ARIN. Another area that could be addressed is IP address reclamation or recycling. ARIN could help by pointing to recycling centers where people are working to list IP blocks that have been abandoned. Using "neighbor net" techniques, these blocks can be identified and pulled back in to be reissued. The work can be distributed to keep the direct costs to ARIN low. There are many such projects. If ARIN forms working groups like RIPE, they can leverage off of the resources (human and otherwise) on the Internet to get some of these projects going. People claimed that this could not happen under NSI. Now it is time to show why a non-profit can more easily allow many companies to share in the work with the assurance that none of them will profit, including ARIN. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_316568E1.5E3F5332-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:05 1998 Message-Id: <0000194D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:22 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_316568E1.5F3E5233" 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. --=_316568E1.5F3E5233 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_316568E1.5F3E5233 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:19 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from [207.21.137.206] (h207-21-143-160.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.160]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA07377; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com Message-Id: To: From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve) Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) Cc: , , , , , , , , , sob@harvard.edu, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, doug@skycache.com, dont@netsol.com, kimh@arin.net, postel@isi.edu, , , "'Einar Stefferud'" , "'Dave Farber'" , "'Don Heath'" , , , , , , , hongd@slip.net, dpeterson@hamquist.com, "'Kim'" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline April 17, 1998 TO: The Honorable Members of the United States Congress and the Executive Office of the President of the United States THRU: NTIA, Dept of Commerce, U.S. Government DOCUMENT: An Open Letter Excerpt from a to-be-released Book, "The Electronic Commerce Handbook" by Stephen J. Page. (For further information= refer to submissions to DNS@NTIA.DOC.GOV.) RE: Understanding the Internet's Big Picture, Its Relationship to U.S. History, and Its the Impact of Domain Names and IP Numbers on the Future = of the New 21st Century Economy Preface: Due to the timeliness of the decision-making regarding the Internet's evolution and transition into a medium supporting the New Economy also known as 'Electronic Commerce or eCommerce', it seemed appropriate to provide you, the Representatives of the People of the = United States, with some timely ideas and concepts which may help you in your understanding of the Big Picture: the Internet, its possible future relationship with the U.S. government, and its important role in Electronic= Commerce. Begin Text: Jay Fenello wrote: >My thoughts were along the lines of the U.S. system >of balancing representation in Congress. Steve Page: Jay, since we were both a part of the self-organized group = involved in the seeding process of the original competitive free market for TLDs (eDNS), where I was supporting some never-before implemented concepts like the single-digit top level domains (.A-.Z) among others, we have both witnessed up close and personally how consolidation of power can lead to both short term and long term organizational instability. Balancing power widely is what creates long term stability. This has been show to be the case in free market economies where the U.S. economy is now a beacon to the Asian economies as well as the unifying European Union. Balancing voting power widely is what will create long term stability for the mirror-like image of our physically communicating face-to-face world, the "interface-to-interface"-communicating cyber = world. In the traditional geo-political sphere called earth, structures called nations were free to carve up and control wilderness territory, and implement systems which were either harmonious or unharmonious with the environment, with other nations, or with individual inhabitants or "citizens". The more harmonious structures were with the environment, the more successfully they have become over time, because the environment rewards systems which follow the laws of nature and the physical environment and punishes those that do not. (Reward: U.S. govt and economy. Punished: centrally controlled economies and governments.) The U.S. govt is one such structure which exhibits the type of natural balance which respects the reality that individual persons are = born free (and therefore worthy of the inherent protections of rights and freedoms which the Constitution specifically guarantees. Since you mention the U.S. Congress as an example of metaphor = which exhibits balanced representation of individuals, it provides a hierarchical= structure which acts as a filter so that the will of the individuals protected under the Constitution is able to be expressed by a manageable number of people (the Congress). Since it is recognized that the Congress Like the herds of caribou, rhinos, or elephants, and that is the reason that it has remained so attractive to many people from around the world who live in places where there the man-made systems do not respect the human need for freedom. >For this example, IP address owners would be represented by >IP registries in the Internet "Senate", and Domain Name owners >would be represented by TLD registries in the Internet "House". >In other words, IP addresses will be more heavily weighted >in its representation. Steve Page: The Congress model is too simplistic of a model for what needs to be developed, because we are talking about building a foundation for a New Economy which is doubling in size every 100 days. As I proposed during = the eDNS exercise, the three-legged stool of the U.S. system, balancing administrative power of the Executive Branch with the representative power of Congress and with the legal power of the Judiciary is a more appropriate= form of balance. (There is not need to really reinvent the wheel, just adapt the wheel to the new medium. Why? In the New Economy various TLDs will represent the same domain, and may benefit from a cooperative administrative body which facilitates market competition with entities which are dead set against doing electronic commerce over the Net. For instance, the registries of .trucking, .delivery, .express although they may have different registries operating them, but may want to coordinate their marketing efforts to jointly convince the transportation industry to sponsor them as critical elements of network service provider value-added services. This is where my past, present, and future focus on economic "administrative cooperation and marketplace competition" blends nicely with the concept of administration. Just as the Executive Branch of the U.S. government has Dept of Transportation, so the above TLDs could have the Industry Association of Transportation, which helps bring into being industry-specific internetworking standards (domain-specific in DARPA-speak). This can and probably will happen in a variety of industries. The Congress can give = the entire population of DNS and IP number holders a voice, as you point out, but we need to look at what exactly is being built for not only the short term, but for the longer term. It is a NEW ECONOMY. This leads to the last leg of the stool, the Judicial Branch. Here's where things get the stickiest, because we all live in a physical world which has been carved up into fiefdoms called nation-states, between a group's borders. The nation-states were carved into practical chunks by various groups, organized as hordes (or herds) in Europe, tribes in Africa and America, and dynasties in Asia, most controlled by elders and transformed over time into more sophisticated centrally controlled structures. Today, look around and we see two things, the evolution, and a revolution, and what does our observation tell us. First, the most successful evolution has been the U.S., economically and politically. Second, the revolution called Internet is a technical evolution which is undermining traditional economics, politics, and most importantly the geographic dependency of law. What is the answer to building the third leg of the stool? Building a new legal structure of cooperating, traditionally established nation-state members, which is built on a foundation of respect for individual rights and freedoms. This structure will build a legal foundation for "administrative cooperation" upon which all the members cooperate to grow the New Economy, while maintaining marketplace competition (which already exists between nations anyway). Judicial cooperation is unavoidable in a geographically-independent medium. >>Do the >>alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs? > >No, only those registries recognized by the new, non-profit >corporation would have representation. Steve Page: Just like only those judicially cooperating nation-state members would have the ability to influence the policy-making for the New Economy. >>>Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented >>>by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners. These not only >>>correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and >>>major commercial interests, but they are already established. Steve Page: Domain names and IP addresses play exactly the same role as interest rates which affect the supply and demand of currency in the New Economy. ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC therefore presently function as the trans-national operating arm of the Federal Reserve-like system without = the support under law of a benevolent trans-national government. They are operate as the functional cyber-equivalent of the Federal Reserve Banks by providing the 'guiding hand' over the allocation IP = number and DNS name supply which affects the actual flow of commerce through the medium. As we see, their actions affect the price and therefore the = demand for both domain names and IP numbers at the individual "account holder" level of their local bank (modem bank) which is the equivalent of a local branch bank of the regional backbone provider (Member Bank of the Fed) of names and addresses. The structure of the Federal Reserve System, as was pointed out in my posts to NTIA responding to Mr. Magaziner's Green Paper, is the model which we should strive to implement in the long term, because of the importance of names and numbers, functioning as interest rates do, in commmerce. Assuming ARIN/RIPE/APNIC do function as a trans-national Fed-like "global system", if the U.S. government, responsible to the People of the U.S. under the Constitution, is to insure that they do so without fear of tyranny from the consolidation of massive power into the hands of the leaders (evidenced by the comments of Ms. Kim Hubbard, President of ARIN = in response to one of Mr. Jim Fleming's questions), then the U.S. government has a responsibility to recognize and understand the similar processes which are evolving decades apart, but parallel nonetheless: the evolution of the standardization of regional currencies into the "dollar" which stimulated the global economy that we experience today, and the standardization of name/number allocations which WILL stimulate the New Economy over the next several decades. (c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpts from "The Electronic Commerce Handbook". Charging the Battery then Driving Electronic-Commerce through Cyberspace: Domain Names,Internet Numbers, & the Electro-magnetic Frequency (EMF) Energy Economy. by Stephen J. Page. Supporting the extension of the Constitution protections of individual rights and freedoms of the U.S. into cyberspace, and building foundations for the New Economy. Stephen J. Page MBA OD BSc George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979 Business Management Consultant, U.S. Data Highway Corporation Tel: 925-454-8624 F: 925-484-0448 Incorporator, dot Registry, an Industry Association, www.????.????(under contruction) "Helping build administration cooperation for facilitating marketplace competition." Internet .A-.Z Name Registries, www.A-Z-REGISTRY.COM (under revision) email: usdh@ccnet.com Tel: 925-454-8624 Fax: 925-484-0448 end. --=_316568E1.5F3E5233-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:06 1998 Message-Id: <00001955@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:27 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.58395534" 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. --=_32666BE2.58395534 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_32666BE2.58395534 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:24 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists -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 RAA09864; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:21:34 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A24.A321A520@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:17:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6A24.A321A520@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'Carl Oppedahl'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'Don Mitchell'" , "'dnrc-board@domain-name.org'" , "'domain-policy@open-rsc.org'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "'David Farber'" , "'Don Heath'" Cc: "'ho@cs.arizona.edu'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'John Curran'" , "'Jeff Williams'" , "'Karl Auerbach'" Cc: "'Karl Denninger'" , "'KathrynKL'" , "'Ken Fockler'" , "'Kim Hubbard'" , "'John C Klensin'" , "'Michael Dillon'" Cc: "'Jon Postel'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Robert L. Shearing'" , "'Scott Bradner'" , "'Stef@nma.com'" , "'steve'" Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:17:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline In my opinion, ARIN's operations and mailing lists should be easy to learn about and read.... For example...there is no link to this part of the list http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9804 The pattern here is similar to other organizations where Michael Dillon was involved such as the IAHC and ISP/C. Why do people keep supporting this type of behind the scenes activity ? It does not help ARIN move forward. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_32666BE2.58395534-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:06 1998 Message-Id: <00001953@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:55 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.59385435" 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. --=_32666BE2.59385435 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_32666BE2.59385435 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:53 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from [207.21.137.206] (h207-21-143-160.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.160]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA07377; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com Message-Id: To: From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve) Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation) Cc: , , , , , , , , , sob@harvard.edu, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, doug@skycache.com, dont@netsol.com, kimh@arin.net, postel@isi.edu, , , "'Einar Stefferud'" , "'Dave Farber'" , "'Don Heath'" , , , , , , , hongd@slip.net, dpeterson@hamquist.com, "'Kim'" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline April 17, 1998 TO: The Honorable Members of the United States Congress and the Executive Office of the President of the United States THRU: NTIA, Dept of Commerce, U.S. Government DOCUMENT: An Open Letter Excerpt from a to-be-released Book, "The Electronic Commerce Handbook" by Stephen J. Page. (For further information= refer to submissions to DNS@NTIA.DOC.GOV.) RE: Understanding the Internet's Big Picture, Its Relationship to U.S. History, and Its the Impact of Domain Names and IP Numbers on the Future = of the New 21st Century Economy Preface: Due to the timeliness of the decision-making regarding the Internet's evolution and transition into a medium supporting the New Economy also known as 'Electronic Commerce or eCommerce', it seemed appropriate to provide you, the Representatives of the People of the = United States, with some timely ideas and concepts which may help you in your understanding of the Big Picture: the Internet, its possible future relationship with the U.S. government, and its important role in Electronic= Commerce. Begin Text: Jay Fenello wrote: >My thoughts were along the lines of the U.S. system >of balancing representation in Congress. Steve Page: Jay, since we were both a part of the self-organized group = involved in the seeding process of the original competitive free market for TLDs (eDNS), where I was supporting some never-before implemented concepts like the single-digit top level domains (.A-.Z) among others, we have both witnessed up close and personally how consolidation of power can lead to both short term and long term organizational instability. Balancing power widely is what creates long term stability. This has been show to be the case in free market economies where the U.S. economy is now a beacon to the Asian economies as well as the unifying European Union. Balancing voting power widely is what will create long term stability for the mirror-like image of our physically communicating face-to-face world, the "interface-to-interface"-communicating cyber = world. In the traditional geo-political sphere called earth, structures called nations were free to carve up and control wilderness territory, and implement systems which were either harmonious or unharmonious with the environment, with other nations, or with individual inhabitants or "citizens". The more harmonious structures were with the environment, the more successfully they have become over time, because the environment rewards systems which follow the laws of nature and the physical environment and punishes those that do not. (Reward: U.S. govt and economy. Punished: centrally controlled economies and governments.) The U.S. govt is one such structure which exhibits the type of natural balance which respects the reality that individual persons are = born free (and therefore worthy of the inherent protections of rights and freedoms which the Constitution specifically guarantees. Since you mention the U.S. Congress as an example of metaphor = which exhibits balanced representation of individuals, it provides a hierarchical= structure which acts as a filter so that the will of the individuals protected under the Constitution is able to be expressed by a manageable number of people (the Congress). Since it is recognized that the Congress Like the herds of caribou, rhinos, or elephants, and that is the reason that it has remained so attractive to many people from around the world who live in places where there the man-made systems do not respect the human need for freedom. >For this example, IP address owners would be represented by >IP registries in the Internet "Senate", and Domain Name owners >would be represented by TLD registries in the Internet "House". >In other words, IP addresses will be more heavily weighted >in its representation. Steve Page: The Congress model is too simplistic of a model for what needs to be developed, because we are talking about building a foundation for a New Economy which is doubling in size every 100 days. As I proposed during = the eDNS exercise, the three-legged stool of the U.S. system, balancing administrative power of the Executive Branch with the representative power of Congress and with the legal power of the Judiciary is a more appropriate= form of balance. (There is not need to really reinvent the wheel, just adapt the wheel to the new medium. Why? In the New Economy various TLDs will represent the same domain, and may benefit from a cooperative administrative body which facilitates market competition with entities which are dead set against doing electronic commerce over the Net. For instance, the registries of .trucking, .delivery, .express although they may have different registries operating them, but may want to coordinate their marketing efforts to jointly convince the transportation industry to sponsor them as critical elements of network service provider value-added services. This is where my past, present, and future focus on economic "administrative cooperation and marketplace competition" blends nicely with the concept of administration. Just as the Executive Branch of the U.S. government has Dept of Transportation, so the above TLDs could have the Industry Association of Transportation, which helps bring into being industry-specific internetworking standards (domain-specific in DARPA-speak). This can and probably will happen in a variety of industries. The Congress can give = the entire population of DNS and IP number holders a voice, as you point out, but we need to look at what exactly is being built for not only the short term, but for the longer term. It is a NEW ECONOMY. This leads to the last leg of the stool, the Judicial Branch. Here's where things get the stickiest, because we all live in a physical world which has been carved up into fiefdoms called nation-states, between a group's borders. The nation-states were carved into practical chunks by various groups, organized as hordes (or herds) in Europe, tribes in Africa and America, and dynasties in Asia, most controlled by elders and transformed over time into more sophisticated centrally controlled structures. Today, look around and we see two things, the evolution, and a revolution, and what does our observation tell us. First, the most successful evolution has been the U.S., economically and politically. Second, the revolution called Internet is a technical evolution which is undermining traditional economics, politics, and most importantly the geographic dependency of law. What is the answer to building the third leg of the stool? Building a new legal structure of cooperating, traditionally established nation-state members, which is built on a foundation of respect for individual rights and freedoms. This structure will build a legal foundation for "administrative cooperation" upon which all the members cooperate to grow the New Economy, while maintaining marketplace competition (which already exists between nations anyway). Judicial cooperation is unavoidable in a geographically-independent medium. >>Do the >>alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs? > >No, only those registries recognized by the new, non-profit >corporation would have representation. Steve Page: Just like only those judicially cooperating nation-state members would have the ability to influence the policy-making for the New Economy. >>>Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented >>>by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners. These not only >>>correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and >>>major commercial interests, but they are already established. Steve Page: Domain names and IP addresses play exactly the same role as interest rates which affect the supply and demand of currency in the New Economy. ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC therefore presently function as the trans-national operating arm of the Federal Reserve-like system without = the support under law of a benevolent trans-national government. They are operate as the functional cyber-equivalent of the Federal Reserve Banks by providing the 'guiding hand' over the allocation IP = number and DNS name supply which affects the actual flow of commerce through the medium. As we see, their actions affect the price and therefore the = demand for both domain names and IP numbers at the individual "account holder" level of their local bank (modem bank) which is the equivalent of a local branch bank of the regional backbone provider (Member Bank of the Fed) of names and addresses. The structure of the Federal Reserve System, as was pointed out in my posts to NTIA responding to Mr. Magaziner's Green Paper, is the model which we should strive to implement in the long term, because of the importance of names and numbers, functioning as interest rates do, in commmerce. Assuming ARIN/RIPE/APNIC do function as a trans-national Fed-like "global system", if the U.S. government, responsible to the People of the U.S. under the Constitution, is to insure that they do so without fear of tyranny from the consolidation of massive power into the hands of the leaders (evidenced by the comments of Ms. Kim Hubbard, President of ARIN = in response to one of Mr. Jim Fleming's questions), then the U.S. government has a responsibility to recognize and understand the similar processes which are evolving decades apart, but parallel nonetheless: the evolution of the standardization of regional currencies into the "dollar" which stimulated the global economy that we experience today, and the standardization of name/number allocations which WILL stimulate the New Economy over the next several decades. (c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpts from "The Electronic Commerce Handbook". Charging the Battery then Driving Electronic-Commerce through Cyberspace: Domain Names,Internet Numbers, & the Electro-magnetic Frequency (EMF) Energy Economy. by Stephen J. Page. Supporting the extension of the Constitution protections of individual rights and freedoms of the U.S. into cyberspace, and building foundations for the New Economy. Stephen J. Page MBA OD BSc George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979 Business Management Consultant, U.S. Data Highway Corporation Tel: 925-454-8624 F: 925-484-0448 Incorporator, dot Registry, an Industry Association, www.????.????(under contruction) "Helping build administration cooperation for facilitating marketplace competition." Internet .A-.Z Name Registries, www.A-Z-REGISTRY.COM (under revision) email: usdh@ccnet.com Tel: 925-454-8624 Fax: 925-484-0448 end. --=_32666BE2.59385435-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:07 1998 Message-Id: <00001957@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:01 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.5A3B5736" 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. --=_32666BE2.5A3B5736 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_32666BE2.5A3B5736 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:59 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees -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 WAA10249; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:33:02 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A50.25E478E0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:28:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6A50.25E478E0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'dont@netsol.com'" , "'Doug Humphrey'" , "'John Curran'" , "'Ken Fockler'" , "'Kim Hubbard'" , "'Jon Postel'" To: "'Scott Bradner'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:28:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees The U.S. taxpayers have spent substantial sums of money funding the InterNIC via the National Science Foundation. They have also spent money helping to launch ARIN. U.S. officials continue to be involved in helping to steer, not only ARIN, but also the IANA via their contractor Jon Postel who is on the Board of ARIN and helped to found ARIN. In my opinion, the U.S. taxpayers have a right to ask where ARIN is headed and what their return on investment will be. This is especially true because of the substantial assets that have been handed to ARIN at no charge. At the present time there is a lot of work that needs to be done to get ARIN transitioned from the for-profit atmosphere of NSI to a proper non-profit structure that serves the public. Some of this work can involve the integration of the IANA into ARIN which will save everyone time and money and accelerate the implementation of the Green Paper. Beyond this there are many projects that will naturally fall under the ARIN charter and ARIN staff and volunteers can work together to serve the public's needs. Despite the money that has been spent and the work that needs to be done we have a situation that is emerging which does not serve the U.S. taxpayers well. This situation fits a pattern that has been observed over and over during the past few years of Internet Governance debates. The pattern is most easily observed in the following archive from one of the ARIN mailing lists. The pattern consists of a destructive intervention by non-U.S. citizens who somehow gain the confidence of these U.S. companies and get themselves appointed to positions of authority. Because of the nature of the Internet, these visitors operate as if they are U.S. citizens and have no problem dictating what the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) should do, without any concern for being accountable for the result. Much of this destructive and disruptive interference appears to be aimed at wasting people's time and at preventing U.S. citizens from organizing and using their unique stewardship position in the Internet to lead the world to better technology and services. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been observed in many of the key Internet Governance activities over the past few years. Much of it can be attributed to a small number of vocal people who do not seem interested in making investments or developing infrastructure but seem determined to derail any effort that has U.S. Government support. What is particularily sad about the situation is that many young Americans look up to these people and attempt to treat them as U.S. citizens with the return result being these endless filibusters that waste people's time and money. As ARIN moves forward I caution the Trustees that they should look carefullly at what is going on, or more importantly not going on. These filibusters can consume enormous amounts of time and money with no purpose or result. I suggest that the Trustees make an attempt to set some priorities and some goals and then stick to them no matter who arrives to derail the effort. There is a lot of work to be done and strong leadership will be needed to overcome the influences of these people that seek control by creating chaos. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_32666BE2.5A3B5736-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:07 1998 Message-Id: <0000195F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:13 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...") -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_33676AE3.5B3A5637" 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. --=_33676AE3.5B3A5637 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_33676AE3.5B3A5637 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:10 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...") -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from [207.21.137.250] (h207-21-143-142.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.142]) by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02795; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:41:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com Message-Id: To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve) Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...") Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Don Mitchell'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , usdh@ccnet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 4/18/98 Craig Simon writes: >Let's see if I have this straight. > >CORE's *stated* goal was to introduce competition into the DNS >registration business in early 1998 without causing a split in the >DNS. The IAHC process husbanded by ISOC was trying to constitute a new >form of global authority to legitimate this. If you look at >statements made by important members of ISOC, POC, the IAB, etc., you >find all kinds of interesting romantic idealistic thinking about how >the Internet is catalyzing a new form of global society, bolstered by >comments that nation-states are not appropriate agents of Internet >governance. The CORE goal was to grow the Internet faster while >minimizing risk to the integrity of a unified DNS. Steve: So far so good, + or - nanopoints. Craig, >If you look at at what those people say, there is clearly a lot of >wide-eyed idealism there, but material interests are also at play. The >corps that contribute most to ISOC and the Internet standards process >have much to gain as more switches, bandwidth, and hosts are added to >the net. Major concessions were made to trademark interests to get >them to sign on. Steve, Look closely at the professional make-up of the board and you will be able to see the narrowness of their perspectives, engineering, network operations, trademarks, regulated telecom bureacratic management. It was all about filling a powerful void with a minimum of representation. They were in uncharted waters or uncharted space hoping to find virgin = territory to set up a new system. Craig, >The USG blocked CORE, asserting that the Internet is still largely an >American preserve, and that it is mostly up to the USG to determine >how to constitute the future form of Internet governance. The USG >also states it wants to introduce competitive registrars and >registries in ways that would maintain a stable, unified DNS. For the >member of the USG, Internet stability the first priority and the most >acceptable platitude. Thus, the USG takes a risk-minimizing, "go slow" >approach to TLD expansion while it fishes around for ways to keep the >IANA from wandering out of the USG orbit (toward the ITU or parts >unknown). Steve: I would say that the reasons for blocking CORE be better stated that the responsibility for transitioning the Internet rests within the legal framework of the USG, not that the Internet is an American preserve. Craig: >There is also a clear material interest at play here. The Internet is >a golden goose, and the USG does not want anyone tampering with it too >much. And it is very likely that the final form of the Report and >Order issued by Magaziner's group will work to the advantage of >trademark holders based in the U.S. Steve: There appears to be a need to add some sort of trans-national leadership in this uncharted territory. The US, as the R&Der of the various pre-Internet nets (DARPANET/NSFNET) is in the best position to apply the leverage. If one recognizes that the Internet represents a new medium for "electronic commerce" which is the New Economy that the = Commerce Department talks about when they say that it is doubling every 100 days, then the same framework which has provided a foundation for the globalization of financial markets, the U.S. Constitution, provides the stability which allows property ownership (driven by self-interest), innovation (same), and entrepreneurship to flourish. As we have seen, and continue to see every day, freedoms and rights of individuals to behave in their best interests, must be protected, formally, otherwise they will be eroded by those who over time will aggregate power, seeking to control the masses. Craig, >The extended DNS folks who started playing around with alternate roots >in 1996 generally like the USG GP/NPRM process, since it gives CORE a >stiff boot. Nevertheless, if you pinch these people (or read what they >say in threads like this), it turns out they really don't care much >for the principle of DNS unity. These folks thrive on risk. The term >"casino capitalism" was invented for people like them. Material >interests and the prospects of big payoffs come first. Where CORE >folks romanticized the idea of helping to build an Internet-enabled >global civil society, and where the USG wrestles with the often tragic >responsibility of maintaining an existing national civil society, >these alternate DNS folks romanticize the open global market and the >innovation it produces. They seem willing (and eager) to >disenfranchise technological "widders and orphans" according to the >dictates of that capricious market, as a worthy sacrifice on the altar >of the private shared good. Steve: The unity of a functional DNS is a necessary requirement for a functional New Economy. It is exactly the same as the "unity" of mankind being a necessary requirement for a functional world. Until "unity" is recognized in both mirrored spheres, there will be dysfunctionality. Whether the "alternate" supporters care about "unity" does not matter. What does matter is the reality that in a competitively economic environment, people are required to take risks with their scarce energy. (From the minute we are born, we are in the process of dying, so we had better choose how we spend our scarce energy prudently.) You say "these folks thrive on risk". Everyone will either thrive, or not thrive, on the risk-based decisions that they make. You say "casino capitalism" was invented for "people like them". The physical world is one gigantic "energy-casino". Three year olds place their bets that they want to be a Fireman, ten year olds place their bets that they want to be a Pilot, and both spend their energy pursuing it. It truly is a "field of dreams" and the spirit fuels how we spend our energy.Similarly, adults place their bets in college: accounting, engineering, science. You write: "They seem willing (and eager) to disenfranchise technological "widders and orphans" according to the dictates of that capricious market, as a worthy sacrifice on the altar of the private = shared good." From what communist doctrine textbook does that eminate? That statement has no basis and appears written long ago by Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. Craig: >CORE supporters and USG officers both like open markets and >competition, of course, but they share a higher predisposition toward >setting a baseline of social needs, which then justifies action on >behalf of the "public trust," and investment in "public goods." For >example, consider a litmus test related to the role of telecom in >people's lives, but outside the DNS controversy. I imagine that CORE >supporters and members of the USG are more likely to share a support >for the principle of universal service price controls than alternate >DNS advocates. > >Do any of the players here feel mis-characterized by this? > >Craig Steve: CORE supporters may like open markets, but the CORE structure does not support an open market, but a market which is controlled, and = therefore not supported by a Constitution which protects the rights to own property, live freely (therefore act in one's self-interest). USG officers answer to the People, and that is protected by the Constitution. Therefore, every change in economic policy linked to the creative efforts of DOD, DARPA, DOC, NTIA, etc. must flow from there. = Have you wondered why the Dept of Commerce' NTIA is involved. This is all = about the guiding hand of the U.S. Constitution over the evolution of the New Economy. That is the forest. DNS is a clump of trees. (c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved. Excerpts = from the forthcoming book, "The Electronic Commerce Handbook". Supporting the Constitution of the U.S. as the foundation under the evolution of the New Economy called "Electronic Commerce". Stephen J. Page MBA OD BSc George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979 Incorporator, dot Registry, an Industry Association, www.????.????(under contruction) "Helping build administration cooperation for facilitating marketplace competition." Internet .A-.Z Name Registries, www.A-Z-REGISTRY.COM (under revision) email: usdh@ccnet.com Tel: 925-454-8624 Fax: 925-484-0448 --=_33676AE3.5B3A5637-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:08 1998 Message-Id: <00001959@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:25 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the Roots -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_34606DE4.54355938" 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. --=_34606DE4.54355938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_34606DE4.54355938 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:22 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the 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 OAA13050; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:10:05 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6AD3.0C5CE460@pc.unir.net>; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:05:31 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6AD3.0C5CE460@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Kim Hubbard'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the Roots Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:05:30 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Kim, How much does it cost ARIN to manage these names ? Also, how much do these people pay to have reverse resolution service handled directly in the U.S. Government's legacy Root Name Servers ? 254.152.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AAHL.DAH.CSIRO.AU. 254.152.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AAHL.DAH.CSIRO.AU. 2.133.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ACFP1.ACFP.AF.MIL. 3.133.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ACFP1.ACFP.AF.MIL. 7.234.69.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ACG.MAILORDER.COM. 42.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ACTS42.DISA.MIL. 2.23.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AEESA.NAVY.MIL. 12.212.67.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AFSOCSC.AFSOC.AF.MIL. 123.75.77.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AFTAC.AF.MIL. 100.68.235.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AIT.NRL.NAVY.MIL. 101.152.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AIVAX.RL.AF.MIL. 254.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALEX-GW1.ARMY.MIL. 5.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALEXANDRIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 1.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALEXANDRIA-EMH6.ARMY.MIL. 3.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALEXANDRIA-EMH7.ARMY.MIL. 6.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALEXANDRIA-EMH8.ARMY.MIL. 31.136.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALINFM.GE.INFN.IT. 4.132.4.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALTAIR.ALTAIRA.COM. 1.8.54.148.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ALTCE.ALT.COM. 2.160.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AMATERASU.AWARE.COM. 201.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AMC90.ARMY.MIL. 26.195.52.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR AMES-IP.DDN.MIL. 200.51.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ANM1.ACOM.MIL. 3.32.29.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ANUBIS.NOSC.MIL. 2.43.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR APG-EOCSUN1.ARMY.MIL. 1.43.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR APG-SUN1.ARMY.MIL. 205.115.43.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR APOLLO.UNIVERSAL.COM. 59.90.49.145.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR APOU01.AKZONOBEL.NL. 1.177.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR APPNET.CLARION.EDU. 3.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-80X.ARMY.MIL. 2.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 100.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 229.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-EMH3.ARMY.MIL. 5.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-EMH3.ARMY.MIL. 206.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-HOST-IM6.ARMY.MIL. 2.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY1.ARMY.MIL. 226.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY1.ARMY.MIL. 227.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY2.ARMY.MIL. 4.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY2.ARMY.MIL. 228.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY3.ARMY.MIL. 3.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-PROXY3.ARMY.MIL. 150.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-RSK.IM4.ARMY.MIL. 230.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-WWW.ARMY.MIL. 6.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ARPSTL-WWW.ARMY.MIL. 1.119.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ASRMKBS1.ASRMKBS1.NAVY.MIL. 1.240.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ASRMKBS2.ASRMKBS1.NAVY.MIL. 65.18.176.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BADLANDS.RIS.SDBOR.EDU. 3.48.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAILEYS-CEAC.ARMY.MIL. 9.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAILEYS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 240.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAILEYS-EMH4.ARMY.MIL. 13.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAILEYS-HQMTMC.ARMY.MIL. 81.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAILEYS-IBSOPS.ARMY.MIL. 9.244.145.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAUGH.ORG. 2.113.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BAYONNE-TACOS.ARMY.MIL. 15.183.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BBSCBS-SPT.ARMY.MIL. 7.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BELLOWS.SSPH.NAVY.MIL. 2.150.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BENNING-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 120.102.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BIGFOOT.SSP23.NAVY.MIL. 3.224.55.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BIONET.BIO.NS.CA. 100.196.35.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUE1.NCTSW.NAVY.MIL. 3.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-AMS1.ARMY.MIL. 4.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 5.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 8.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-EMH3.ARMY.MIL. 1.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-GW1.ARMY.MIL. 67.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC1067.ARMY.MIL. 75.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC1075.ARMY.MIL. 155.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC155.ARMY.MIL. 156.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC156.ARMY.MIL. 157.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC157.ARMY.MIL. 80.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC180.ARMY.MIL. 36.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC36.ARMY.MIL. 37.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-PC37.ARMY.MIL. 7.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-SAAC.ARMY.MIL. 2.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS1.ARMY.MIL. 100.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS100.ARMY.MIL. 101.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS101.ARMY.MIL. 102.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS102.ARMY.MIL. 103.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS103.ARMY.MIL. 104.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS104.ARMY.MIL. 105.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS105.ARMY.MIL. 106.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS106.ARMY.MIL. 107.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS107.ARMY.MIL. 108.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS108.ARMY.MIL. 109.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS109.ARMY.MIL. 110.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS110.ARMY.MIL. 111.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS111.ARMY.MIL. 112.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS112.ARMY.MIL. 113.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS113.ARMY.MIL. 114.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS114.ARMY.MIL. 115.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS115.ARMY.MIL. 116.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS116.ARMY.MIL. 117.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS117.ARMY.MIL. 118.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS118.ARMY.MIL. 119.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS119.ARMY.MIL. 120.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS120.ARMY.MIL. 121.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS121.ARMY.MIL. 122.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS122.ARMY.MIL. 123.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLUEGRASS-TS123.ARMY.MIL. 0.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BLYSCSDS-GW.ARMY.MIL. 37.71.94.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BOTES2.BO.CNR.IT. 1.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR BREMERTON-GW.MRMS.NAVY.MIL. 6.9.198.150.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR C1-DEPLOY.ARMY.MIL. 130.158.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR C7F.PACOM.MIL. 9.21.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CARSON-3BRIGADE.ARMY.MIL. 6.22.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CARSON-64FSB.ARMY.MIL. 2.146.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CARSON-ACPERS.ARMY.MIL. 6.41.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CARSON-EMH4.ARMY.MIL. 189.144.139.208.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CATOOSA.INDY.NAVY.MIL. 33.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCEL-1.DISA.MIL. 34.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCEL-2.DISA.MIL. 35.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCEL-3.DISA.MIL. 36.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCEL-36.DISA.MIL. 1.0.11.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCSE.KFUPM.EDU. 2.1.147.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CCSVWB1.GOV.ZA. 132.72.86.207.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CGNS1.USCG.MIL. 29.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CHATTER14.NAVY.MIL. 45.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CINCVIEW.DISA.MIL. 6.136.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CLMNGE.GE.INFN.IT. 122.215.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CMH-SMTP.ARMY.MIL. 19.218.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CMP.PEOCU.NAVY.MIL. 20.218.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CMPEDN.PEOCU.NAVY.MIL. 11.253.88.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CODA.INTERACT.ORG. 2.200.21.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR COL1.TELECOM.COM.CO. 2.100.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CON-NS.CONCORD.NAVY.MIL. 1.100.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CONCORD-GW.NAVY.MIL. 131.154.77.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR CPCASEY-ACIRS.KOREA.ARMY.MIL. 1.181.187.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DADDY.PEPPER.COM. 1.73.69.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DANTES.VOLED.DODED.MIL. 3.73.69.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DANTES.VOLED.DODED.MIL. 11.240.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DAWN.NAVY.MIL. 24.217.65.165.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DDDC025.HA.OSD.MIL. 72.58.158.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DDRS.SSC.AF.MIL. 2.133.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DEATHSTAR.COSMOSBBS.COM. 6.180.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DEC5500.SGIA.IMP.MX. 17.152.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DEC59.RUK.CUNI.CZ. 52.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DEMOSS10.DISA.MIL. 1.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DINFOS.OSD.MIL. 15.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC1-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 13.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC2-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 16.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC4-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 7.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC5-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 9.121.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC6-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 9.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC6-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 11.121.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC7-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 11.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIPC7-SA-TX.DISA.MIL. 162.254.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DITCO.DISA.MIL. 163.254.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DITCONMGT.DITCO.DISA.MIL. 2.15.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DIX-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.83.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DJCSE1.JS.MIL. 2.84.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DJCSE2.JS.MIL. 5.183.189.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNRDNS.DNR.STATE.WI.US. 99.128.53.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS-SJ.IP-VIBES.COM. 9.128.53.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS-SJ2.IP-VIBES.COM. 4.183.166.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS.ENTERWAY.NET. 1.37.44.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS.FRAUNHOFER.ORG. 130.6.26.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS.MERCERNET.COM. 179.81.159.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS.UCHS.ORG. 2.1.239.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS1.SUPERCOMP.ORG. 10.1.239.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS2.SUPERCOMP.ORG. 100.105.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DNS3.AU.WANG.COM. 1.209.156.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DODDS-WASH.AF.MIL. 98.201.5.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DOTNEWS.NHTSA.DOT.GOV. 23.253.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DRACO.ARIN.NET. 2.51.103.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DRUM-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.79.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DSICSC3.LES.MIL. 100.136.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DSISVR1.LES.MIL. 100.76.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DSISVR2.LES.MIL. 51.147.240.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR DTICAM.DTIC.DLA.MIL. 8.112.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EA-IBS1.ARMY.MIL. 9.112.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EA-IBS2.ARMY.MIL. 12.101.24.167.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EAGLE.USAA.COM. 1.246.55.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EDMICS-GW.NAVY.MIL. 2.212.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EFDNORTH.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL. 35.88.4.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EFDSOUTH.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL. 34.100.4.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EFDSWEST.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL. 248.20.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EMAIL.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL. 5.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EMERALD.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL. 30.200.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EMMA.ITEK.NORUT.NO. 102.123.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EPSILON.AFSOC.AF.MIL. 2.188.157.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR EUR.ACCESS.COM. 1.166.98.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FACSO.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL. 3.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FALLSCHURCH-ACIRS2.ARMY.MIL. 9.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FALLSCHURCH-ACIRS9.ARMY.MIL. 1.236.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FCCN01.FCCN.PT. 1.253.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FCDSSA1.NAVY.MIL. 2.253.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FCDSSA2.NAVY.MIL. 2.43.87.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FERC.FED.US. 2.204.29.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FIINIX.METRONET.COM. 251.214.80.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FIX-EAST.DDN.MIL. 123.228.37.209.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FLOYD.NETSAFA.NAVY.MIL. 10.253.88.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FORTE.INTERACT.ORG. 1.251.48.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FREIBURG.ITT-SC.DE. 10.200.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FS.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL. 2.147.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FTBNHRSN-IGNET.ARMY.MIL. 2.132.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FTJACKSN-AGEIP.ARMY.MIL. 6.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FTMEADE-CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL. 1.47.138.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FTSILL-AMEDD.ARMY.MIL. 2.88.249.129.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR FXWIDEGW.FUJIXEROX.CO.JP. 2.5.203.147.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GATEKEEPER.ALTRIS.COM. 73.17.170.173.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GFGS01.UNILEOBEN.AC.AT. 60.131.67.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GOOBER.MBHS.EDU. 112.199.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GORGON.TFT.TELE.NO. 8.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GROUCHO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.= 9.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GUMMO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL. 1.250.154.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW1.DARMSTADT.ARMY.MIL. 50.1.85.131.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR GW2.DFSC.DLA.MIL. 2.148.0.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HAL9000.TMM.CL. 4.227.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HANNIBAL.CORVU.COM.AU. 1.8.137.134.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HAP.ARNOLD.AF.MIL. 7.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HARPO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL. 1.13.210.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HECKELE.ACIPCO.COM. 58.229.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HELKA.IIF.HU. 9.90.49.145.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HERA.OSS.AKZONOBEL.NL. 0.15.37.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HILL2-GW.AF.MIL. 2.17.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HOLBRD-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL. 1.178.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HOST.DI.FCT.UNL.PT. 10.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HP9000.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL. 2.6.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HPSVR2.HCTG.SAIC.COM. 3.113.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HSC2.HONEYWELL.OZ.AU. 6.225.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HUGBOX.SZTAKI.HU. 5.175.137.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR HWRHQ.HWR.COM. 2.42.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR INDGAP-AFMIS.ARMY.MIL. 2.222.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR INDGAP-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.188.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR INDIANTO-TCACCIS.ARMY.MIL. 65.1.46.174.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR INET-GATEWAY.CO.SANTA-CLARA.CA.U= S. 3.58.225.152.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR IRSNIC.IS.IRS.GOV. 2.6.66.136.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR IRWIN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 133.29.31.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ISIS.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL. 191.178.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ISOLDE.DI.FCT.UNL.PT. 3.16.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JACKSON-DATA.ARMY.MIL. 2.16.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JACKSON-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 10.108.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JAXV1.NADJX.NAVY.MIL. 6.59.4.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JCDBS.ITSI.DISA.MIL. 2.123.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JCSEC4TML.JS.MIL. 251.83.98.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JDI.BRAGG.ARMY.MIL. 179.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JEDI.CCI.DE. 65.245.181.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JPOBD.OSD.MIL. 4.148.3.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JRTS.JEDMIC.NAVY.MIL. 2.4.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR JTF6-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.164.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR KAUKAU.HNL.MRMS.NAVY.MIL. 150.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR KNOWHOW.CCI.DE. 1.159.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR KYX.NETGUY.COM. 1.178.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LAHS.LOSALAMOS.K12.NM.US. 2.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL. 1.171.133.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LAMS.LOSALAMOS.K12.NM.US. 100.59.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LANCASTER-ACCHRM.ARMY.MIL. 150.163.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LANHOST1.DITCO.DISA.MIL. 20.192.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LAVA.NOORD.BART.NL. 10.109.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LEAV-TACWAR.ARMY.MIL. 70.127.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LESSVR1.LES.MIL. 150.127.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LESSVR2.LES.MIL. 2.161.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LEX.PRF.CUNI.CZ. 2.17.117.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LEZVAX.OEAW.AC.AT. 113.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LIA-SERVER-1.ARMY.MIL. 114.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LIA-SERVER-2.ARMY.MIL. 107.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LIA-SERVER-3.ARMY.MIL. 2.1.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR LOUIS.NOSL.SEA06.NAVY.MIL. 51.80.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR M1000.NPMOC.NAVY.MIL. 2.213.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MAIN.ARCENT.ARMY.MIL. 102.81.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MARS.ARMY.MIL. 9.1.179.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MARS.ARMY.MIL. 20.177.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MARS.MYAPC.COM. 7.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-CPAC.ARMY.MIL. 13.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 35.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-EMH3.ARMY.MIL. 4.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-EMH4.ARMY.MIL. 2.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-IDS1.ARMY.MIL. 164.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-IIS.ARMY.MIL. 1.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-MPS1.ARMY.MIL. 17.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC017.ARMY.MIL. 20.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC020.ARMY.MIL. 12.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC12.ARMY.MIL. 188.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC188.ARMY.MIL. 190.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC190.ARMY.MIL. 195.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC195.ARMY.MIL. 196.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC196.ARMY.MIL. 26.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC26.ARMY.MIL. 54.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-PC54.ARMY.MIL. 6.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCALESTR-WWW.ARMY.MIL. 2.11.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCCLELLAN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.133.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MCLEAN-UNISYS.ARMY.MIL. 6.37.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MEADE-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL. 201.211.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MEADE-DCSBA.ARMY.MIL. 2.220.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MELPAR-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 2.181.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MELPAR-EMH3.ARMY.MIL. 2.20.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MELPAR-EMH5.ARMY.MIL. 2.208.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MELPAR-EMH6.ARMY.MIL. 2.221.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MELPAR-EMH7.ARMY.MIL. 3.139.187.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR METAFW.METASW.COM. 10.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR METIS.USNO.NAVY.MIL. 2.0.253.149.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MH1.JS.MIL. 1.150.107.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MIDPAC.HNL.MRMS.NAVY.MIL. 1.104.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MIKE.OUTSIDE.COM. 1.195.52.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MOFFETT-FLD-MB.DDN.MIL. 12.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MONSTER.DINFOS.OSD.MIL. 23.90.133.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MORLICH.TURING.COM. 0.247.131.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MSCPAC-GW.NAVY.MIL. 1.3.27.140.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MTMC-GWY2.ARMY.MIL. 2.142.146.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR MYCROFT.RS.NAVY.MIL. 3.184.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NASNI.NAVY.MIL. 2.119.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NCAD-EMH13.ARMY.MIL. 5.119.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NCAD-EMH17.ARMY.MIL. 10.11.252.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NED10.MED.NAVY.MIL. 100.115.43.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NEPTUNE.UNIVERSAL.COM. 200.43.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NMS1.FLEET.NAVY.MIL. 1.1.229.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NOC.SC92.NET. 6.124.225.152.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NOGATE1.IS.IRS.GOV. 15.9.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.AFIWC01.AF.MIL. 100.63.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.ANS.NET. 1.154.177.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.BHSU.EDU. 1.113.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.CAPMKT.COM. 3.72.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.CHOB.EDU. 3.186.19.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.CITYVU.COM. 189.174.176.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.DOAS.STATE.GA.US. 50.10.161.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.FHSO.NAVY.MIL. 13.59.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.HEALTH.GOV.SK.CA. 3.200.96.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.IONET.NET. 200.166.238.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.NETVIRTUAL.COM. 2.194.184.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.NIMIR.COM. 1.229.180.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.NORTHERN.EDU. 10.206.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.NPC.COM. 10.72.72.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.PEACH.NET. 1.7.132.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.PERU.EDU. 70.10.161.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.PML500.NAVY.MIL. 1.224.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.PROFIRE.CO.JP. 15.44.203.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.SOS.STATE.TX.US. 2.121.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.UXBRIDGE.AF.MIL. 1.185.79.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS.WAVLAN.PROCYON.COM. 2.24.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.AOC.GOV. 129.158.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.BLUE-HWY.NET. 3.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL. 1.1.235.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.COMPUDYN.COM. 2.165.166.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.CWV.NET. 1.54.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.DINFOS.OSD.MIL. 4.161.3.196.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.DYNAMIQUE.COM. 43.12.102.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.HASIMONS.COM. 66.41.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.IGNET.ARMY.MIL. 3.152.56.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.JNTF.OSD.MIL. 1.100.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.NSWCL.NAVY.MIL. 10.1.159.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.SDK.SI. 3.121.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS1.UXBRIDGE.AF.MIL. 4.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL. 55.1.235.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.COMPUDYN.COM. 21.218.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.DSWA.MIL. 6.132.137.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.FLOCHART.COM. 21.192.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.IVG.COM. 2.152.56.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.JNTF.OSD.MIL. 3.100.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.NSWCL.NAVY.MIL. 50.185.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NS2.REPAIR.NAVY.MIL. 11.1.201.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NSNAME.EUTEC.EXXON.COM. 2.19.24.137.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NSWSES-GW.NSWSES.NAVY.MIL. 1.199.58.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NTSC-NAVAIRHQ-GW.NAVY.MIL. 252.247.104.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NTSVR02.WILLIAMS.AF.MIL. 0.130.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR NWSCHS-GW.NAVY.MIL. 200.104.24.167.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OAK.USAA.COM. 2.118.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OAKLAND-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 1.247.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OALAN.NAMRL.NAVY.MIL. 1.198.87.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ODIN.EDICT.COM. 2.147.78.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OIBT.DWHL.DE. 1.237.76.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ONREUR.NAVY.MIL. 3.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPAL.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL. 140.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPEN81.SATX.DISA.MIL. 141.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPEN82.SATX.DISA.MIL. 70.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPEN83.SATX.DISA.MIL. 142.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPEN84.SATX.DISA.MIL. 11.12.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OPMED1.MED.NAVY.MIL. 18.235.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR OZONE.HSI.COM. 38.222.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR P1380-N01.MEDNET.AF.MIL. 3.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PARADISE.SSPH.NAVY.MIL. 33.16.176.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PASQUE.SD.NET. 1.175.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PC1NET.CLARION.EDU. 1.176.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PC2NET.CLARION.EDU. 2.131.32.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PDC.CPG1.NAVY.MIL. 129.171.1.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PDV.COM. 3.0.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PEER03.VWM.COM. 52.34.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PENTAGON-DELGROSSOB.ARMY.MIL. 131.34.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PENTAGON-RENO.ARMY.MIL. 14.185.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PERA14.REPAIR.NAVY.MIL. 2.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PERACV.NAVY.MIL. 6.78.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PERAEAST.NAVY.MIL. 66.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PERASMTP.NAVY.MIL. 2.5.219.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PMH.TORONTO.ON.CA. 1.94.169.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PMRMA-WWW.ARMY.MIL. 50.142.146.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR POIROT.RS.NAVY.MIL. 65.28.147.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR POKEY.MAXM.COM. 1.153.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PRAHA1.FF.CUNI.CZ. 45.9.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PROTEUS.AFIWC01.AF.MIL. 2.0.8.7.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PROTOLABA.DISA.MIL. 1.23.168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR PROXY-EXT.CORONA.NAVY.MIL. 2.26.117.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR QIINFO.OEAW.AC.AT. 2.0.11.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RAZI.KFUPM.EDU. 185.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RC-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL. 2.51.238.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RD-NET.EDSDRD.EDS.COM. 6.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD06.ARMY.MIL. 7.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD07.ARMY.MIL. 8.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD08.ARMY.MIL. 9.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD09.ARMY.MIL. 11.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD11.ARMY.MIL. 14.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD14.ARMY.MIL. 15.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD15.ARMY.MIL. 18.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVER-RRAD18.ARMY.MIL. 5.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR REDRIVERAD-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 52.4.214.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RELAY2.NIMA.MIL. 1.16.131.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RITCHIE-GW1.ARMY.MIL. 100.35.29.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ROMEO.CCEH.NOAA.GOV. 2.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RRAD02.ARMY.MIL. 3.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RRAD03.ARMY.MIL. 4.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RRAD04.ARMY.MIL. 105.236.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR RSSERV.BA-MOSBACH.DE. 82.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA04.SATX.DISA.MIL. 80.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA05.SATX.DISA.MIL. 81.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA05.SATX.DISA.MIL. 96.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA06.SATX.DISA.MIL. 97.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA06.SATX.DISA.MIL. 88.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA17.SATX.DISA.MIL. 89.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA17.SATX.DISA.MIL. 92.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA20.SATX.DISA.MIL. 93.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SA20.SATX.DISA.MIL. 2.94.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SAIPH.DISA.MIL. 6.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SAPHIRE.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL. 2.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SAVANNA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 100.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SAVANNA-WWW.ARMY.MIL. 8.141.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SBATH.NAVY.MIL. 1.188.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SCO.VHALL.NL. 2.133.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SENECA-EMH.ARMY.MIL. 130.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SEOUL-1SIG.KOREA.ARMY.MIL. 133.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SEOUL-EMH1.KOREA.ARMY.MIL. 115.102.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SERVICES.SSP23.NAVY.MIL. 18.20.236.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SERVINTER.CSJC.QC.CA. 2.137.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SF-6ARMY.ARMY.MIL. 2.138.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SF-PROFS.ARMY.MIL. 1.1.148.162.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SIERRA.PNW.NET. 33.75.206.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SIM.IRK.AETC.AF.MIL. 2.44.103.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SIMA.SFO.MRMS.NAVY.MIL. 2.193.108.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SIWASH.BC.CA. 98.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SKYNET.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL. 2.250.197.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SLRI04.MSHRI.ON.CA. 34.80.237.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SM1-SUN1.CEGEP-CHICOUTIMI.QC.CA.= 92.129.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SMTPGW.NCTSW.NAVY.MIL. 8.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SMTPGW.SSPH.NAVY.MIL. 20.80.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SMTPLINK.NPMOC.NAVY.MIL. 88.141.153.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SNAKE.ARIN.NET. 10.14.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SND10.MED.NAVY.MIL. 1.31.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SOCRATES.HEALTH.GOV.SK.CA. 1.219.148.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SOL.AGGREGATE.COM. 1.98.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SOLBOURNE.C2DEL.DISA.MIL. 1.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPAWAR-GW1.NAVY.MIL. 253.2.32.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPB.SWFPAC.NAVY.MIL. 169.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPEEDY.CCI.DE. 212.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPICA.USNO.NAVY.MIL. 3.24.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPMCMR.SPMC.GOV.SK.CA. 4.32.105.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SPSUP-1.NAVY.MIL. 211.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR STRAT2-1SIG.KOREA.ARMY.MIL. 105.86.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SUN1.IPCPUGET.NAVY.MIL. 20.108.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SUN551.NADJX.NAVY.MIL. 3.96.172.142.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SUNMGR1.STENTOR.CA. 33.16.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SUNNY.K2.NET. 1.245.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SUSOPS.NAMRL.NAVY.MIL. 52.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SVDA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 171.30.251.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SVVAN340.SIERRASYS.COM. 250.163.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SW.SCOTT.DISA.MIL. 1.96.42.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SWI.PSY.UVA.NL. 30.96.42.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SWISUN20.SWI.PSY.UVA.NL. 103.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS1.SATX.DISA.MIL. 143.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS10.SATX.DISA.MIL. 145.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS11.SATX.DISA.MIL. 144.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS12.SATX.DISA.MIL. 115.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS21.SATX.DISA.MIL. 113.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS22.SATX.DISA.MIL. 116.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS24.SATX.DISA.MIL. 107.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS25.SATX.DISA.MIL. 109.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS26.SATX.DISA.MIL. 109.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS26.SATX.DISA.MIL. 111.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS27.SATX.DISA.MIL. 104.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS3.SATX.DISA.MIL. 102.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS4.SATX.DISA.MIL. 101.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SYS6.SATX.DISA.MIL. 1.225.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR SZTAKI.HU. 5.129.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TAC.FI. 9.146.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TAC0.ARMY.MIL. 1.50.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TAIBA.UFC.BR. 66.146.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TASA1.ARMY.MIL. 130.146.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TASA2.ARMY.MIL. 130.45.138.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TASA2.ARMY.MIL. 30.170.120.146.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TELE.FMHA.GOV. 34.253.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TEST.ARIN.NET. 6.3.214.131.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR THREEWAY-GW.RL.AF.MIL. 251.160.235.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TIGGER.ADMIN.ESU.EDU. 36.46.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TIUR.NORSAR.NO. 2.149.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TOOELE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 9.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TOPAZ.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL. 4.69.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TRFKB-EMH1.NAVY.MIL. 2.72.75.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TRITON.DMSO.MIL. 2.32.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TRV1.TRVNET.NET. 4.32.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TRV2.TRVNET.NET. 30.90.133.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TUMMEL.TURING.COM. 239.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TYCHO.USNO.NAVY.MIL. 15.160.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR TYCLE.AWARE.COM. 34.151.166.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR UCMSUNIX.UCMSO.COM. 11.51.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USADAC-CHEMTNG.ARMY.MIL. 27.50.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USANCA-SMTP.ARMY.MIL. 1.50.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USANCA-SUN1.ARMY.MIL. 30.205.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USARC-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 2.46.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USASAC-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 2.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR USFK.KOREA.ARMY.MIL. 7.15.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR UXB-WIMS.AF.MIL. 161.30.251.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR UXVAN068A.SIERRASYS.COM. 99.218.48.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR VAX.DARPA.MIL. 2.47.143.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR VAX.DMSSC-FCVA.MIL. 124.229.226.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR VGER.NEXNET.NAVY.MIL. 26.14.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WARREN-GW1.ARMY.MIL. 4.129.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WASHDC1-OSIGW.DISA.MIL. 37.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WEB.CCELNET.DISA.MIL. 25.150.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WWW-BENNING.ARMY.MIL. 6.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WWW.DINFOS.OSD.MIL. 6.81.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WWW.DINFOS.OSD.MIL. 10.74.144.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WWW.ISSY.CNET.FR. 59.2.214.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR WWW.NIMA.MIL. 10.15.151.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR XMAIL.HA.OSD.MIL. 10.0.2.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-ADACS.ARMY.MIL. 1.0.1.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL. 8.0.2.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL. 1.0.6.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-GW.ARMY.MIL. 5.2.121.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-HST1.ARMY.MIL. 20.2.114.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-HST2.ARMY.MIL. 10.1.71.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-HST3.ARMY.MIL. 45.2.114.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-HST4.ARMY.MIL. 6.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-NOTES1.ARMY.MIL. 4.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-WWW1.ARMY.MIL. 5.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR YUMA-WWW2.ARMY.MIL. 1.24.139.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. PTR ZEPPO.GEOSURV.GOV.NF.CA. --=_34606DE4.54355938-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:08 1998 Message-Id: <0000195D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:31 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_34606DE4.55345839" 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. --=_34606DE4.55345839 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_34606DE4.55345839 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:28 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA15678; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:12:53 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6B6A.51802560@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:08:21 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6B6A.51802560@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Kent Crispin'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'cgomes@internic.net'" , "'Clough, Christopher'" Cc: "'Don Heath'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Karl Denninger'" , "'James Love'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" Cc: "'Simon Higgs'" Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:08:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday, April 18, 1998 4:04 PM, Kent Crispin[SMTP:kent@SONGBIRD.COM] = wrote: @ @In fact, the only level that really requires lockin is the DNS level @itself -- it's intrinsic to the design of DNS, but it's not intrinsic @to anything built on top of DNS. @ @-- @Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", Kent, I know that people do not like to think about multiple TLD clusters or the "cloning" of the popular TLDs in various regions. If you DO = consider that reality, then you might add some market complexities to your models that help to show you why "lockin" is not something CORE or anyone else can control. Only the collective forces of the marketplace can prevent lockin. I claim that we have yet to see where those forces lead us because groups like PAB/POC/CORE do not want to break from their soviet-style system. Until true capitalism and free market dynamics are allowed to work, your concerns about lockin are artificially derived and only serve to spread fear in the market place that is going to come about despite your objections. If you encourage a system that makes TLDs scarce then lockin becomes more likely. I find it ironic that the PAB/POC/CORE people start by = limiting the number of TLDs and then scream about lockin. Why not first start with the real problem which is artificial market manipulation? Why not first start by trying to get all of the people with little or no involvement in the Registry Industry out of the way ? Why not allow the collective forces of the marketplace show us what is reality ? Why postpone the inevitable and help to make the potential problems worse by contraining the marketplace in such a manner that it literally explodes with chaos when it finally gets a chance to operate ? The Registry Industry has yet to see cloning occur. I predict that we will see it soon with the .COM TLD. The U.S. Government and NSI are facilitating this via the transition period that we are now in. As cloning occurs, I predict that companies will become more aware of the true cost of owning a .COM name. Yes, the price will go up but not due to any one particular registrar or registry. The price will go up because of the perceived value, prestige, stability and acceptance of the .COM TLD. To date, this has never been reflected in a .COM name cost because of government and industry subsidies. These price increases would happen in the PAB/POC/CORE models or other more natural models. They do not happen because of lockin but because of the collective willingness of .COM owners to seek a name under that meaningless, generic, tag which has only become popular because other tags have not been allowed, partly thanks to PAB/POC/CORE. As the price increases occur, companies will begin to seek alternative TLDs. If no alternatives are available, then lockin becomes a problem. Domain name market manipulations are the real problem. We currently have a split in the Registry Industry. We have the PAB/POC/CORE on one side, lead by the ITU and ISOC, and we have the free market people on the other side. The ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE group wants to manipulate the marketplace via their own contrived regulations. The other groups want to allow the marketplace to seek equilibrium via a hands-off approach. Clearly, the U.S. Government (your employer) will be supporting the hands-off approach. As the Registry Industry progresses (without the manipulations of the ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE) in the next few months, I hope that you are able to differentiate price increases and cloning from lockin. I suggest that you give the maketplace several years to reach equilibrium. At least as much time should be alloted as has been afforded to the ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE crowd in constraining the marketplace. Companies have yet to determine the full extent of the damage that has been done by groups like yours. This will only be possible when the marketplace is allowed to speak and not some self-appointed groups of people that continue to promote artificial market manipluations. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_34606DE4.55345839-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:09 1998 Message-Id: <00001961@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:37 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_35616CE5.56375B3A" 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. --=_35616CE5.56375B3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_35616CE5.56375B3A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:35 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA15756; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:30 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6B6F.6F40C6E0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:44:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6B6F.6F40C6E0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" , "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Christopher Ambler'" , "'Clough, Christopher'" , "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: "'Dan Steinberg'" , "'David W. Maher'" , "'Don Heath'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" , "'Karl Auerbach'" Cc: "'Karl Denninger'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'Richard J. Sexton'" , "'Robert Shaw'" Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:44:57 -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 1:01 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@MHSC.COM]= wrote: @ @One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN. @ Roeland, What you may mean here is... ARIN/IANA has the potential to decide which .COM cluster is selected to be included in the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government. To that end, ARIN/IANA can decide if the NSI .COM TLD cluster is the selected choice. ARIN/IANA could select a different .COM TLD cluster, for example one from CORE. Since NSI (WorldNIC) has yet to deploy their own .COM TLD cluster, this decision has not been made. Eventually it will have to be made because .COM will have to move off of the U.S. Government Root Name Servers to be truely commercial and at arm's length. It is not clear when this decision will be made. The ARIN/IANA "company" or IANA Inc. as the Green Paper suggests, will be the likely body making this decision. There has to be some group that decides what is entered into the legacy Root Name Server cluster supported by the U.S. Government and that group will have to be closely regulated by the U.S. Government. The ARIN/IANA group is the only likely candidate because ARIN was created with the help of the U.S. Government and ARIN controls many of the DOD IP allocations via their control over the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_35616CE5.56375B3A-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:09 1998 Message-Id: <00001963@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:43 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_35616CE5.57365A3B" 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. --=_35616CE5.57365A3B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_35616CE5.57365A3B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:41 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA15875; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:29:49 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:25:18 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Karl Auerbach'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: The Importance of ARIN Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:25:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this point. NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still needs to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper. The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN Board. All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly because of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses. On Sunday, April 19, 1998 2:57 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl@CaveBear.com] = wrote: @> One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN. @ @Oh no, please no, not that. The mere thought of ARIN sends waves of ^%@! @through my fingers. It's not that ARIN is a bad thing in concept, at @least for regulating the aggregation of IP addresses. But there there = are @some ancillary things and personalities about it that really irk me. But @that's not important right now. @ @> >So, it is not a "dead horse". Rather, it is a very live problem that = just @> >happens to smell a lot like a horse that has been dead for a balmy = week or @> >two. @> @> Where is that code you were talking about. @ @Huh? I haven't mentioned any code. Perhaps you have mixed me with the @other "Karl" (Karl D.). @ @(I do distribute free binaries of in my not-very humble opinion, worlds @finest network troubleshooting tool that I wrote, but I suspect that's = not @what you are talking about.) @ @ --karl-- @ @ @--=20 @DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to @To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" @For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" @ @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_35616CE5.57365A3B-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:10 1998 Message-Id: <00001965@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:49 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_36626FE6.50315D3C" 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. --=_36626FE6.50315D3C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_36626FE6.50315D3C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:47 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN -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 IAA22527; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199804191549.IAA22527@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:46 -0700 To: Jim Fleming From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN Cc: "'Karl Auerbach'" , "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'ARIN list'" In-Reply-To: <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 09:25 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > >I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this = point. >NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still needs >to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper. > >The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure >to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN Board. >All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at >arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly = because >of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses. What's wrong with DOD taking care of their own registry? Lord knows, they certainly have the processing power, at usno.navy.mil or NORAD. IMHO, I've never been entirely comfortable with .MIL in the Internet anyway. But, I'm a professional paranoid. >On Sunday, April 19, 1998 2:57 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl@CaveBear.com] wrote: >@> One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN. >@ >@Oh no, please no, not that. The mere thought of ARIN sends waves of = ^%@! >@through my fingers. It's not that ARIN is a bad thing in concept, at >@least for regulating the aggregation of IP addresses. But there there = are >@some ancillary things and personalities about it that really irk me. But >@that's not important right now. >@ >@> >So, it is not a "dead horse". Rather, it is a very live problem that just >@> >happens to smell a lot like a horse that has been dead for a balmy week or >@> >two. >@> >@> Where is that code you were talking about. >@ >@Huh? I haven't mentioned any code. Perhaps you have mixed me with the >@other "Karl" (Karl D.). >@ >@(I do distribute free binaries of in my not-very humble opinion, worlds >@finest network troubleshooting tool that I wrote, but I suspect that's = not >@what you are talking about.) >@ >@ --karl-- >@ >@ >@--=20 >@DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to >@To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" >@For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP" >@ >@ >@ > >- >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 --=_36626FE6.50315D3C-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:10 1998 Message-Id: <0000195B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:54 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_36626FE6.51305C3D" 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. --=_36626FE6.51305C3D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_36626FE6.51305C3D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:52 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN -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 LAA00500; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:32:36 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6B86.379F0500@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:28:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6B86.379F0500@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Karl Auerbach'" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:28:02 -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 10:49 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com= ] wrote: @At 09:25 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @> @>I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this = point. @>NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still = needs @>to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper. @> @>The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure @>to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN = Board. @>All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at @>arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly = because @>of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses. @ @What's wrong with DOD taking care of their own registry? Lord knows, they @certainly have the processing power, at usno.navy.mil or NORAD. IMHO, = I've @never been entirely comfortable with .MIL in the Internet anyway. But, = I'm @a professional paranoid. @ The issue is not just .MIL All of the IPv4 Internet users currently use the same reverse resolution scheme which ties them to... IN-ADDR.ARPA The best way to view that string of characters is as a TLD. You might want to apply the term "psuedo TLD" (pTLD) to this. Once you do that you will see that many of the same issues surrounding the TLD debates apply to IN-ADDR.ARPA and therefore ARIN/IANA because they control all of what is added to the left of that string. The DOD has massive allocations of IPv4 addresses. Those are reflected in IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD delegations. One of the differences in an IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD delegation as opposed to a .COM delegation is the fact that IPv4 address asset rights are transferred with the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation. This is why registrations under IN-ADDR.ARPA are so valuable. The U.S. Government can allow the TLDs like .COM/.NET/.ORG find their way in the marketplace. This is not the case with the IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD. This is why the ARIN/IANA "company" needs to be closely regulated by the U.S. Government as a non-profit company that serves the Internet community. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_36626FE6.51305C3D-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998 Message-Id: <00001967@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:02 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.52335F3E" 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. --=_37636EE7.52335F3E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_37636EE7.52335F3E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:00 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: From Roger Marquis -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 OAA00715; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:15:52 -0500 Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:11:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: From Roger Marquis Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:11:18 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: Roger Marquis Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,ba.internet= Subject: Re: First proposal - all who need space get it Date: 19 Apr 1998 15:46:04 GMT Organization: Roble Systems (http://www.roble.com) Lines: 42 Message-ID: <6hd67s$6s2$1@news.ncal.verio.com> References: <6h8tm7$i4g$2@news.ncal.verio.com> <6h91tb$dl9$1@ns1.vrx.net>= =20 <6h95m6$dcq$1@shell3.ba.best.com> <6ha824$ihl$1@ns1.vrx.net>=20 <6hb2cn$aa0$1@news.ncal.verio.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gw1.softcom-micro.com Xref: ns3.vrx.net comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:1749 In comp.protocols.tcp-ip paul@No-UCE.anastrophe.com wrote: >Your parti pris is only thinly disguised by the ad hominem. For want of a >cogent argument... If we could get this thread off of the ad hominem track for just a minute and actually read the original posts you'll see there are some critical problems being addressed, including: * Network Solutions split off ARIN without halving their fee, * ARIN has created a fee structure that bears no relationship to the cost of providing reverse DNS resolution and netblock registration, * The ARIN fees heavily discriminates against smaller ISPs, startups and businesses that do not require a /19, * ARIN has not adequately solicited input from the Internet community as was standard (RFC) procedure before Network Solutions took over the Internic, * The corporate structure of ARIN, like Network Solutions, gives the appearance of for-profit intent, * ARIN has not been consistent in the application of its own requirements for netblock allocation, * ARIN has not made any visible effort to reclaim the numerous /8 and /16 netblocks that are currently underutilized and in many cases completely unused, * ARIN has not addressed the problems with netblock hoarding and resale that are beginning to impact Internet based businesses and Internet commerce (with companies like Whole Earth Networks charging $1,000 per year for a class C, regardless of bandwidth), * ARIN controls a valuable public resource with no oversight or regulation. If those are not enough reasons to justify Karl Denninger's proposal I don't know what might be. Roger Marquis - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI --=_37636EE7.52335F3E-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998 Message-Id: <00001969@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:09 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.53325E3F" 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. --=_37636EE7.53325E3F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_37636EE7.53325E3F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:07 -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. --=_37636EE7.53325E3F-- From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998 Message-Id: <0000196F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:15 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.4C2D4120" 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. --=_37636EE7.4C2D4120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_37636EE7.4C2D4120 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:13 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -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 NAA22982; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:20:17 -0700 Message-Id: <199804192020.NAA22982@condor.mhsc.com> X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:20:16 -0700 To: Jim Fleming From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" In-Reply-To: <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At 14:11 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: > >From: Roger Marquis >Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,ba.interne= t >Subject: Re: First proposal - all who need space get it >Date: 19 Apr 1998 15:46:04 GMT >Organization: Roble Systems (http://www.roble.com) >Lines: 42 >Message-ID: <6hd67s$6s2$1@news.ncal.verio.com> >References: <6h8tm7$i4g$2@news.ncal.verio.com> <6h91tb$dl9$1@ns1.vrx.net>= =20 ><6h95m6$dcq$1@shell3.ba.best.com> <6ha824$ihl$1@ns1.vrx.net>=20 ><6hb2cn$aa0$1@news.ncal.verio.com> >NNTP-Posting-Host: gw1.softcom-micro.com >Xref: ns3.vrx.net comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:1749 > >In comp.protocols.tcp-ip paul@No-UCE.anastrophe.com wrote: >>Your parti pris is only thinly disguised by the ad hominem. For want of = a >>cogent argument... > >If we could get this thread off of the ad hominem track for just a >minute and actually read the original posts you'll see there are some >critical problems being addressed, including: > > * Network Solutions split off ARIN without halving their fee, This indicates that NSI did some cost-shedding, yet kept the money. Their margins just grew by the amount of the shed cost. > * ARIN has created a fee structure that bears no relationship to the > cost of providing reverse DNS resolution and netblock registration, This is evident, even from external analysis. IP-block registration is a = fixed annual-cost activity. Current external estimates are at about $1.5MUS per year, in fully-burdened worst-case scenario.=20 > * The ARIN fees heavily discriminates against smaller ISPs, startups > and businesses that do not require a /19, I can, however, see some of the technical problems. My concern is that the best-possible solutions have not yet been tried, to remedy this situation. There are issues of IP-fragmentation which have also not been adequately proven. Yet, taken to be self-evident. What we have as best-practices may = not be best-possible-practices. > * ARIN has not adequately solicited input from the Internet community > as was standard (RFC) procedure before Network Solutions took > over the Internic, > * The corporate structure of ARIN, like Network Solutions, gives > the appearance of for-profit intent, Are the corporate by-laws electronically available? Under which jurisdictio= n was ARIN incorporated? I would like to review them. > * ARIN has not been consistent in the application of its own > requirements for netblock allocation, DSLnetworks, right now, is fully compliant with RFC2050. They easily have = a fully populated /21, their application for a new /19 has been ignored, according to Milton at DSLnetworks. This is ONE case in which this seems = to be true. > * ARIN has not made any visible effort to reclaim the numerous > /8 and /16 netblocks that are currently underutilized and in many > cases completely unused, This may require some political clout which ARIN may not yet posses. > * ARIN has not addressed the problems with netblock hoarding and > resale that are beginning to impact Internet based businesses and > Internet commerce (with companies like Whole Earth Networks charging > $1,000 per year for a class C, regardless of bandwidth), Some sort of enforcement mechnism needs to be discussed in an open = fashion. > * ARIN controls a valuable public resource with no oversight or > regulation. > >If those are not enough reasons to justify Karl Denninger's proposal I >don't know what might be. Although I'm begining to have some empathy for ARIN's position, I still = don't have much sympathy. Way too many short-cuts are being taken on something = that is MUCH too important. In my proposal "KISS TLDs" I make a case and proposal for a corporate structure that answers some of these issues for TLDs. They can be applied to = IP-block registry as well. Given that a Domain POC also has an IP-block, alternatively assign an = IP-block POC, then issue ONE share per POC. The registration fee is actually a = share purchase.=20 The following is extracted from MHSC.COM submission to the Green Paper. > > Conclusion/submittals > > There have been a number of submittals suggesting various forms of = policing > the new registrar system. Of these, the best idea I have heard was that = of a > not-for-profit corporation. However, I would add an extra ingredient = that > would make the entire system self-policing. The registrants should be = the > majority stockholders in this corporation. Those who are directly effected by > a system are often the best policing agents. I strongly suggest a = private > corporation, with the only voting shares being held by the registrants. > a) A TLD registrar would be very nice here. Their function would be very > simple, maintain the TLD name-space, operate the root-servers, and = assign > authority. That is all. It should be prohibited from doing anything = more. So > as not to become "in competition" with its own customer-base.=20 > b) Registration cost would be the annual budget, divided among the > registrants.=20 > c) All TLD registrants would own ONE share, per TLD, in the corporation = that > actually runs the TLD registry. This way the registrants, in fact, own = the > Registrar, and therefore the Registry, in common.=20 > d) Annual meetings would be held to vote on things, like the annual = budget. > Proxies could be solicited/assigned/pleaded as in any other corporation.= =20 > e) Any profits would be paid back out to the shareholders as any = corporation > would pay out dividends.=20 > f) All executive offices should be elective, as well as board seats.=20 > g) The Registry shall have no right to deny service to any potential > registrant, other than for name-space conflict. However, all TLD = registrants > will be required to show a working public SLD registration system, = within 6 > months, of TLD registration, or lose the TLD. All registration fees are = due > on application.=20 _________________________________________________=20 Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20 Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20 (RM993)=20 President and CEO.=20 e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20 Web-pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20 Web-site: http://www.mhsc.com=20 Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20 -----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20 Note: Statements made in this message do not=20 necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All=20 forcasts and projections are to be considered=20 as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20 may not be referenced herein.=20 -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20 --=_37636EE7.4C2D4120--