From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 5/1/98 3:27am
Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
NOTE ==> This posting is being made part of the public
record so that historians can better understand the forces
that contributed to the foundations of Internet governance.
It is also being copied to my private press list, which
includes over 50 reporters that have been covering the
Domain Name debate. Most of the major papers of record,
news, and wire services are on this list.
At some point in the future, this press list may also be
made part of the public record.
Last week, Reuters carried an Article titled:
"EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
I quickly wrote an email to the editor because I thought the
article was misleading and biased. Specifically, the title
implied that the European Union had made some critical comments
to the U.S. Government, yet the article was really just a bunch
of critical comments from Don Heath, president of the ISOC.
I went on to question his qualifications to speak for the
entire European Union, and pointed out that he was one of the
lead architects of the IAHC plan, now more formally known as
the gTLD-MoU.
I went on to applaud their coverage of this important topic,
and suggested a more *balanced* coverage of the U.S. Green
Paper process.
Finally, I referenced a recent Green Paper proceeding that
described in detail some very serious problems that exist today
in Internet management, and some equally serious suggestions on
some ways to improve them in the new IANA, Inc.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Iperdome.htm
The following day, a Yahoo search showed that Reuters had
changed the title of their article to:
"INTERVIEW-EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
Unfortunately, this is an example of too little, too late.
The original title had already been copied in hundreds of
news outlets throughout the world, including News.com and Wired.
Today, Associate Press ran an article titled:
"White House to release new Internet management plan soon"
While it is more accurate and less biased than the Reuters
piece, it still fails to cover the real story behind this
debate, nor the potentially profound implications of its
outcome.
So, while the U.S. Government trys to find serious solutions to
some serious problems, the press has resorted to covering this
debate from the ISOC perspective. Why?
I don't know. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge. Maybe it's due
to a powerful PR campaign. Whatever the reason, it may have a
profound impact on our collective futures, and should be part
of the public record.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
-- A.J. Liebling----
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(bburr), Ira Magaziner
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@MHSC.COM>
Date: 3/23/98 5:00pm
Subject: Domain Marks (was: domain police)
At 06:33 PM 3/22/98 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Doesn't the GP only state that the Registry and Registrars are to request
>>certification from the applicant that the requested name does not infringe
>>the Trade Mark Rights of another?
>>
>>SAme with Company names and Business name sin AU (as well as Domain Names).
>> It's the appplicants reponsibility to ensure no conflict.
>>
>>That's how we operate.
>
>But, what do you do if a conflict is presented? One can do a "due
>diligence" trademark search but to do so in the international business
>community is virtualy impossible. If it were an absolute requirement for
>internet business than we can shut the whole mess down right now and save
>ourselves the grief. Someone, somwhere, can claim a apriori restraint on
>virtually *any* name. Ergo, no new domains and a radical reduction in
>existing domains. This is not good.
>
>We need some common-sense, lacking that, we need to keep the TM rascals out
>of the domain name business.
Iperdome addresses this issue through the concept
of a Domain Mark(sm) as part of our response to the
Green Paper. Please see:
http://www.iperdome.com/dms/
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
CC: NTIADC40.SMTP40("DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET"...
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("weisberg@texoma.net")
Date: 3/24/98 12:35pm
Subject: Re: Who wrote the GP?
At 09:46 AM 3/24/98 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>Can anyone verify or expand upon the following comment to the GP?
Shortly after the final version of the IAHC plan was
announced, many people and organizations came out against
that plan with proposals that include many of the concepts
that have been incorporated into the GP.
Iperdome, IO Design, MCS Net, PSI, NSI, CIX, and the ISP/C
were among the first to do so.
After the first round of public comments as administered
by the NTIA, many other companies and organizations like
the Cato Institute added their thoughtful comments to
this process.
Robert's claim that NSI wrote the GP sounds like sour grapes
to me, and discounts the multitude of contributors who are
ultimately responsible for the current direction of the GP.
IMHO & FWIW.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
>From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
>To: NTIA Green Paper Comments <dns@ntia.doc.gov>
>Date: 3/20/98 6:42pm
>Subject: Comments on Green Paper.
>
>To Whom it May Concern:
>
>The Green Paper preserves NSI in the commanding position of being
>Registry and Registrar with a thin veil between them,
>managing three highly esteemed, well known gTLDs. The GP then creates
>five weak net entities each limited to one hitherto
>unknown gTLD. It would be difficult to imagine creating a more effective
>system to assure the success of behemoth NSI and the
>failure of most if not all of the new registries.
>
>At the just completed Internet meeting in Los Angeles, Donald Telage,
>Senior Vice President for Network solutions, claimed that
>the Green Paper solution was the proposal that NSI submitted to the USG
>Interagency Task Force back in October, 1997.
>
>If such be the case, and Mr. Telage so stated in a public Internet
>venue, it would appear that NSI has deliberately plotted to bring
>about the failure of "most if not all of the new registries", as I have
>suggested, above.
>
>
>--
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns),NTIADC40.SMTP40("DOMAIN-POL...
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 3/28/98 8:14pm
Subject: Re: The IAHC has opened itself to the Internet Community
At 10:02 AM 3/27/98 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 3/27/98 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>The closed IAHC process was dominated by the a priori folks
>
>It would be interesting to see the basis for making such a sweeping
>assertion, especially since it is quite wrong.
>
>>so that the result was foregone. The NOI/NPRM process is
>>open and has engaged a broad diversity of players - although
>
>Well, let's see:
>
>Decisions for the US government process are being made by a few bureaucrats
>and politicians in the US government. All of the workings inside that
>process are entirely and complete closed to the rest of the world.
>Decisions for the gTLD MoU are made by a diverse set of people from roughly
>12 different, internationally divers, organizations, with direct
>participatory review by a large and equally diverse advisory body.
>Proposals for individual changes are now posted and comments solicited,
>before decisions are made.
>
>The US government staff has talked to many people. The gTLD MoU folks have
>talked with many people.
>
>The US government conducts no public "dialogue" to discuss and negotiate
>the details and revisions for their plan. The gTLD MoU has had continuous
>discussion for the entire 1 1/2 years of its existence, through sustained
>participation in many mailing lists.
>
>The US government plan is totally US centric. The gTLD MoU plan is fully
>global.
>
>Since Tony is a strong proponent of the USG's activity and strongly
>negative about the gTLD MoU, I'm sure we would also be quite fascinated to
>see the basis for his continuing to repeat The Big Lie that the USG has
>been open and the gTLD MoU closed.
>
>d/
>
>ps. Since Tony can't be bothered with pursuing reasoned discussion,
>preferring instead to sustain the guerilla tactics of tossing out
>mis-statements and then diving back into the bushes, perhaps someone else
>can explain the basis for his rather strange (and erroneous) assessments?
The Green Paper process is being conducted by the
U.S. Government to get *out* of Internet governance.
The IAHC process was conducted by the IANA, ISOC,
ITU, and WIPO to get *into* Internet governance.
Seems like quite a difference to me ;-)
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
--
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
###
From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 3/30/98 2:43am
Subject: Re: The Clock is NOW Ticking
> As yet another follow-up, I suggest that people start to
> compile a complete description of the people and facilities
> involved in the legacy Root Name Server Cluster that the
> U.S. Government is going to use to introduce the new TLDs.
there is no such thing as a root name server cluster, nor are
the ones that operate now accurately describable as "legacies".
there are servers for every zone, including ".". the ones for
"." are called "root name servers". there are 13 of them. they
all publish exactly the data given to them by InterNIC, and InterNIC
only gives out data which has been given to it by IANA.
> The people from the U.S. Government that will be giving
> Jon Postel orders to make the changes may not be aware
> of who will be carrying out those orders. To help accelerate
> the process, any information that we can compile or
> recommendations we can make will help to accelerate the
> process. Here is a start.
speaking as the operator of F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, i have always trusted
jon postel to know who he should be taking "orders" from and i will
continue to do so. when i agreed to operate a "root name server" i
also agreed to publish only IANA-approved data therein.
> ...
>
> F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
>
> Internet Software Consortium (ISC)
>
> Hostname: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
> Address: 192.5.5.241
> System: DEC ALPHA running BIND 4.9.5
>
> Host Administrator:
> Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul@VIX.COM
> +1 415 747 0204
>
> Domain Server
>
> Record last updated on 09-Oct-96.
> Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.
>
> ...
>
> As mentioned in a previous posting. I suggest that the U.S.
> Government move the above servers to secure facilities and
> make sure that they are directly managed by U.S. Government
> employees or contractors with signed agreements. In the case
> of the last root server (I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) I suggest that
> it be deleted from the RSC at the same time as the other 4
> servers that were added during the past year.
there is no such thing as an RSC.
> As NSI points out in their Green Paper response[1], this work
> has to start now. U.S. taxpayers should no longer have to
> put up with games being played on their critical Internet
> infrastructure. The people listed above should get a visit from
> the proper U.S. Government DOD agencies to make sure they
> are aware that the U.S. Government is not playing games. If they
> do want to continue playing games, then the U.S. Government
> should delete those Root Name Servers from the above list.
i have never played a game. the source of authority for "." is the IANA.
> The U.S. Government is better off having a few Root Name Servers
> in its cluster that it can control as opposed to a large collection with
> no accountability. Also, as soon as .COM and some of the other
> TLDs are moved off of the above servers, they will have less load.
>
> The clock is now ticking on the reconfiguration of the Root Name
> Servers and the TLD Name Servers. Let's not lose sight of the goal
> which is to get the new TLDs entered so the world can move on
> to more productive dicsussions.
i have always believed that the general internet community, including most
of the fortune 500 as well the large international companies, depends upon
reliable service with responsible checks and balances from a source with
strong international accountability.
that said, the Internet Software Consortium will comply with (a) all court
orders, (b) all applicable laws, (c) all IETF standards, and (d) all IANA
instructions or requests.
i have been told that the IANA is in full cooperation with the DOC, and so
i believe that the Internet Software Consortium's F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET server
is being operated in full conformance with the DOC's wishes. if this is not
the case, i would like to be told.
CC: "'weisberg@texoma.net'" <weisberg@texoma.net>
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 4/1/98 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Government involvement
At 08:48 AM 4/1/98 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Governments see the arguments over DNS as a way to get control over the
>Internet. Bureaucrats are beginning to appreciate the real potential of
>the Net, and the threat that it represents to things dear to their hearts,
>like raising taxes and controlling other people's behaviour. The DNS
>row is a Good Thing as far as they are concerned. It justifies their
>taking control of gTLDs - and just incidentally the entire domain name
>system and the allocation of IP address space.
Come on Jim,
You've been involved long enough to know that the US
Green Paper was a direct response to a small group of
people trying to take over the Internet.
>Why is the US government's assertion of jurisdiction over the Internet
>unwarranted? Because there is no legal basis for this assertion.
>For a longer reply see http://www.euroispa.org/papers/dns2.html
>
>Why is it unwise? Because the US government's attempt to seize control
>of an immensely valuable thing that belongs to all of the people of the
>world is provoking retaliatory actions by other governments -- and
>justifying those retaliatory actions.
The only groups attempting to seize control of the
Internet were the IANA, ISOC, ITU and WIPO. In case
you missed it the first time around:
The Green Paper process is being conducted by the
U.S. Government to get *out* of Internet governance.
The IAHC process was conducted by the IANA, ISOC,
ITU, and WIPO to get *into* Internet governance.
Seems like quite a difference to me ;-)
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 4/8/98 9:16pm
Subject: Re: How many angels ...
FYI:
>Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 18:12:37 -0400
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
>Subject: Re: How many angels ...
>Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>Hi Alexander,
>
>While your position has some merits, I personally
>think you are over-estimating the current evolution
>of authority and public infrastructure on the Internet.
>
>There is no single authority for the cyber frontier.
>There never has been. One of the results of the Green
>Paper process will be to remedy this situation.
>
>There is no public infrastructure for the DNS system.
>There are 13 root servers, some of which are funded,
>some of which are volunteered. Collectively, these
>servers are *not* coordinated by any single authority.
>
>[That's why many have suggested that the root servers
>should be under contract to the new, non-profit
>corporation. Some have even suggested that these
>servers should be under contract immediately, to
>prevent any further "tests" that could fracture
>the Internet.]
>
>So, in many ways, the new frontier we call the Internet
>is very much like the wild west. And just like the early
>"pioneers" faced hardship, unlawfullness, attempted theft,
>and even death (business failure), so to have the early
>"pioneers" in the new domain name industry.
>
>Historically and culturally, the United States has
>encouraged this spirit and innovation. That's one
>reason why the FCC has historically recognized and
>rewarded companies that have been "pioneers" in
>other industries.
>
>In closing, we are truley breaking new ground in a
>new frontier. We must choose wisely, for the decisions
>we are about to make will set precedents that will be
>with us for a very long time.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 4/10/98 11:04am
Subject: Re: How many angels ...
At 04:16 PM 4/9/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>Right now people seem to say that there are many different roots:
>IANA, eDNS, AlterNIC, GRS, AURSC, uDNS(is this last one still running?).
GRS is not a traditional root server.
>If you don't count IANA, my contention is that the others are basically the
>SAME root. It's true that there are various groups of root servers, but the
>fact that all of them respect integrally the creation and delegation of the
>others means that it is ONE root zone.
While the remaining root servers are coordinated through
rough consensus to prevent collisions, they are certainly
not ONE root zone.
To determine this for yourself, simply compare the TLDs
available under eDNS (very few) with the TLDs available
under AURSC or the Alternic (very many).
Understanding this concept is required to understand
why some people are suggesting that Europe create its own
root servers, complete with their own listing requirements,
trademark policies, and administrative processes.
As long as all of the world's root servers coordinate
to prevent collisions, the Internet will not fracture.
There will be certain TLDs that remain visible world-
wide, while others will be visible through a subset
of the various root servers.
Personally, I think the US Green Paper process will garner
the required consensus, and is the best solution available.
However, if certain forces insist on implementing their
plan at the expense of a single unified root, a European
Root Confederation is a good plan B.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
--
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 4/14/98 12:26am
Subject: Re: FW: The only question left to be answered...
FYI:
At 07:50 PM 4/11/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 11, 1998 at 10:28:22PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>> At 05:35 PM 4/11/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >The question you raise is much more interesting in the case of the
>> >many POC representatives that will be elected by PAB. Can a recall
>> >vote be held? That hasn't been determined yet. How do you think it
>> >should go?
>>
>> You make it sound like the PAB is currently responsible
>> for appointing members to POC.
>>
>> Have I missed something, or are you confusing the issue
>> by talking in the hypothetical, future tense.
>
>I said "will be elected". Is that confusing to you?
Yes, see below . . .
>As you undoubtedly know, there has been a proposal for some time that
>PAB will elect about half of POC -- the proposal is on the gTLD web
>site. It has been out for comment for a *long* time.
Yes, a very *long* time.
Those who are new to these discussions should know:
- The POC is the power structure under the MoU.
- POC members were selected by the original
members of the IAHC (IANA, ISOC, ITU, WIPO).
- The POC is not now nor ever has been accountable
to any other stakeholders on the Internet.
- Only *after* the US Gov. intervened did the POC
agree to change how their members were selected.
In spite of those minor changes, the original members
of the IAHC (IANA, ISOC, ITU, WIPO) *still* retain
majority control over the POC appointments.
So Kent, while you pretend that these changes are imminent,
I find nothing in the historical actions of the POC that would
support your claims. If anything, the POC has stubbornly refused
any reform that would limit their unilateral abilities to control
the Internet :-(
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
--
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>
Date: 4/15/98 5:16am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
Jon and all,
Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > At 13:59 4/14/98 -0500, Doug Davis wrote:
> > >> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
> > >
> > >Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
> > >who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
> > >every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?
>
> Because there is potentially a lot of sensitive information that goes into
> the application and explanation of why you think you qualify for your ARIN
> assigned CIDR block. ARIN even has a form NDA online
> (http://www.arin.net/nda.html) so if you're really worried about
> disclosure of your sensitive info, you can legally bind ARIN to keep your
> secrets.
That's fine indeed. Key term here is "Sensitive Info". Which should
be protected at a any rate. This however does not preclude, disclosure
of necessary information that should outline the who, what, where, when
and why's a certain allocation is granted. Also how much should be addedin that
group as well. This is a PUBLIC resource after all.
>
>
> > Also, it would be nice to have the equivalent of a whois, for IP-blocks.
> > That is, given an IP addr, who owns it?
>
> That's been around for some time. Used to be "whois 24.0", now
> "whois 24.0@rs.arin.net".
>
> This thread seems to be expanding both in topic and To: list. My
> appologies for not trimming the recipient list...but I don't know which
> people are on which lists. Hope you all have procmail dupe filters :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | http://noagent.com/?jl1 for cheap
> Network Administrator | life insurance over the net.
> Florida Digital Turnpike |
> ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
CC: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
Date: 4/15/98 5:23am
Subject: Re: Calling Jimmy's bluff RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer
Michael and all,
Michael Dillon wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> > @well Jim. Do you have a 19? how did you get it.......? complete details
> > @jim.... Put the shoe on the OTHER FOOT...... there are a lot of us who
> > @would like to know.
>
> > What exactly is your role again in ARIN ?
> > Are you on the Board ?
> > Are you paid by ARIN ?
> > How about the U.S. Government ? Do they pay you ?
>
> In the light of this exchange of questions, I find it extremely suspicious
> that you have not made any reply whatsoever to my suggestion that you, Jim
> Fleming, are being paid by the telco monopoly to act as an agent
> provocateur and general disruptive agent in all froms dealing with
> Internet infrastructure in an attempt to force the government to step in
> and regulate the Internet so that the telco monopolies can control it by
> their manipulation of the levers of power.
>
> Currently the management of the Internet is too distributed and diffuse
> for anyone to control and manipulate it. The telco monopolies would love
> to have a bureaucracy in place to lobby and manipulate as they have done
> with the FCC for generations.
>
> For those who may not have seeen it, I attach my earlier message to Jim:
Attach away! Doesn't really have any relevance here. Conspiracy theories
are just that Theories. They require some intense investigation before they
are considered creditable. The questions you ask of Jim, though I am not
defending him because he doesn't need it, are for you to research. You
are inferring and intent, now prove that intent. If you can't or won't, than
your creditability is diminished accordingly.
>
>
> ---------- Attached message ----------
> > I can understand why you would like to sit in Canada
> > and dictate the future of U.S. policies
>
> I suppose you understand this because you like to sit in the British
> Virgin Islands and dictate the future of U.S. policies. Maybe we should
> just let the residents of the United States decide these things for
> themselves. For my part, I'm just trying to clarify that ARIN is not and
> should not be a matter of national politics. ARIN is a primarily technical
> body that is essential to the operation of the Internet infrastructure.
>
> I sometimes wonder who pays you to sit on a sailboat in the Caribbean and
> raise havoc with every group that is working to build and improve the
> Internet. I used to think that you were paid by some foreign government to
> act as an agent provocateur but I couldn't figure out why any one of them
> would want to attack the Internet because so few people in the political
> world realize what is happening.
>
> But I think I have you figured out. Now I believe that you are being paid
> by telephone company interests to raise havoc wherever you can. The telcos
> really do have a lot to fear from the unregulated Internet since there are
> no leverage points that they can manipulate to control things as they were
> used to doing with the FCC and the PUCs. You seem to have a pattern of
> attacking every one of the independent non-bureaucratic efforts to manage
> elements of the Internet infrastructure, all the time calling for
> government intervention. I cannot believe that you would do this if you
> were not being paid a hefty sum of money and the fact that you spend so
> much time on your sailboat in the Caribbean outside of US jurisdiction
> makes me doubly suspicious.
>
> --
> Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
> http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Regards,
CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/15/98 7:31pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
At 08:12 PM 4/14/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>Steve, for one thing I wonder what relevence Flemings slander regarding
>ARIN and IP numbers has to the subject of this list?
Hi Gordon,
While I know very little about IP address assignments, I
*have* heard persistent rumors that they have historically
(pre-ARIN) been used as leverage over ISPs. If this is true,
then there is a direct relationship to the DNS debate.
The first time I heard these rumors was when I was trying
to promote eDNS to some local ISPs. It appeared that they
were afraid to break ranks with the IANA et al, and that
they were IAHC supporters for the same reason.
Now I don't know if these rumors are true, but I suspect
that NTIA should at least be aware of the allegations.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
Date: 4/15/98 11:47pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
Damn Gordon,
I haven't seen you in this form since you admitted
to being an ornery old curmudgeon :-)
At 11:50 PM 10/9/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Oct 1997 Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
>> Based on your Tuesday posting, I can't figure out how you can
>> be against the Congress and the NTIA and the White House and
>> the IAHC all at the same time!
>>
>hey not for nothing do they call me an ornery curmudgeon. :-)
Anyway, I think you are over reacting to my posting:
At 09:24 PM 4/15/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>At 08:12 PM 4/14/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>>Steve, for one thing I wonder what relevence Flemings slander regarding
>>>ARIN and IP numbers has to the subject of this list?
>>
>>Hi Gordon,
>>
>>While I know very little about IP address assignments, I
>>*have* heard persistent rumors that they have historically
>>(pre-ARIN) been used as leverage over ISPs. If this is true,
>>then there is a direct relationship to the DNS debate.
>>
>Rumors is what they are and were as I tried to explain to you this morning,
>apparently unsuccessfuilly. If you are going to leave the door open for
>BBURR@ntia.doc.gov to think that someone who here-to-fore has had a highly
>responsible and intelligent role in the DNS side of this debate (yourself)
>now wants to appraise her that maybe Fleming's research is valid while its
>only his solutions are whacky, you are not being helpful to any of us in
>the internet. I hope that one or more members of this list who are senior
>to me (and there are many) will step forward and help to convince you that
>those conclusions of yours are misguided.
If I have a reputation as a highly responsible and intelligent
person in the DNS debate, it is *because* I am open to asking
hard questions, and I am open to forming my own opinions based
on input from everyone, including Jim Fleming.
>As I told you this morning before bringing this subject up, it would have
>been wise to read several tens of megabytes of traffic of CIDR-d and its
>impact on IPv4 address space management along with its impact on the issue
>of route agregation and route announcements to the defaultless core, and
>the tremendous arguments over whether to make this a current best practice.
>This all happened between roughly early 1993 and mid 1995. Yes it gave
>leverage, but yes what was also done was done because IT HAD to be done to
>allow the internet to continue to grow. Other than from Flemings
>vituperative pen, it has not been a significant issue for more that two
>years.
As I admitted, I know little about IP address assignments
since I have never had to deal with this issue. My only
interest in this topic is in how it relates to the DNS
debate in particular, and Internet governance in general.
>>The first time I heard these rumors was when I was trying
>>to promote eDNS to some local ISPs. It appeared that they
>>were afraid to break ranks with the IANA et al, and that
>>they were IAHC supporters for the same reason.
>>
>>Now I don't know if these rumors are true, but I suspect
>>that NTIA should at least be aware of the allegations.
>
>So while I must conclude that I am not a big fan of IANA, I must ask why on
>earth Jay to you feel compelled to come back to this list that deals with
>DNS policy and raise 'rumors' about 'appearances' of being 'afraid'? To
>the best of my knowledge you have not walked out on the end of limbs like
>this before. Therefore it is especially disturbing to hear you raise
>issues which have been for the most part decided and forgotten, but now in
>the context of Flemings and Denninger's current attack on ARIN, are highly
>inflamatory. Destroy an independent ISP controlled system for IP number
>allocation and you will compell NTIA to take over IP allocation, a task for
>which it has zero qualification. Under conditions like that DNS registries
>will go no where because the internet itself will be running into a brick
>wall. the telcos however will be happy because this will be a first step
>toward governmnet regulation and control of the internet.
Gordon, where on earth did I attack ARIN?
I didn't, and I find it curious that you
are suggesting that I did.
>I thought i knew you fairly well and i am flabergasted to see you
>apparently compelled to actions that give the appearance of endorsing the
>current destructive attacks on ARIN. Besides, as has already been said
>here today, comments like yours, if you must raise them, belong on NAIPR
>not on this list!!
Gordon, please remember that most of us on ORSC
were not privy to the entire thread being discussed.
Your objections to Steve Page, Jim Fleming, and now
Karl Denninger all suggest that they were somehow
attacking ARIN. This is not obvious from the few
postings that have been made to this open list.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/15/98 7:36pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
Gordon Cook respectfully writes:
>um.... yes Brian I have read the policy and I believe that I have been
>quite respectful of steve in my replies to him. if being a member of
>open-rsc.org means on the other hand showing respect for mr fleming who
>clearly shows it for no one else then I guess you should remove me from the
>list.
Steve "takes a moment" with his thumb and forefinger pinching the bridge of
his nose then writes:
Let's try not to get personal, please. In a face-to-face world,
people can generally recognize when someone is lying. They blink
excessively, avert their eyes, turn pale, there are lots of sensory
(visual) cues which help us human beings determine who is a source of truth
and who is a source of less-then-truth.
In this very delicate medium, delicate because it is subject to the
escalating abuse caused by one person's negative energy filtering outward
and "infecting" others, accusing people of "lies" is the worst thing that
an educated person can do to another person. When all is said and done, we
only have our reputation, you know, Gordon. Put yourself in Jim Flemings
shoes for a minute and imagine if you can what it would be like to be the
subject of the following:
Steve Page infected by GORDON COOK's *LIES* wrote: (I inserted your name
instead of Jim Flemings.)
Steve continues:
Respect is all that is required to keep things moving forward and
"seeking the light". Show respect for another person's experience
(subjective and unique), their knowledge (accummulated through formal and
informal education) and their point of view, because it is just as valid as
yours, or mine, or anyone elses. When you attempt to linguistically skewer
someone, to the educated person, it says much more about you than it says
about the person you are attempting to skewer. Think about that. Take a
moment of your own, it might put a smile on your face. Count to 100. Push
back from the interface and go look at a smiling face. I guarantee you
that the energy that you will receive will infect you, and it would do us
all a favor. (This goes for everyone. BTW, I would have been infected with
the specific ideas regardless of the source of the ideas because I believe
in the preciousness of the jewel-like document called the Constitution. )
This is not to be confused with Nettiquette. It is common courtesy
and common sense. The accuser, without requirement of a burden of proof
supporting accusations is able to play the role of judge and jury, and just
by making the accusation, create doubt in the mind of others in the
community at large about the *person* him/herself. In a world that is
becoming more uncivilized by the nanosecond, and it is compounded by the
amount of time spent staring at interfaces instead of faces, it is the most
unfair, uncivilized, and destructive thing that can be done to another
person's "online personna". (In the physical world, baseless accusations
would be discounted by the average person who recognizes that individuals
deserve the benefit of the doubt. In fact, when stepping back and "taking
a moment" in the physical territory where I walk this earth, it is the type
of emotional outburst of Mr. Cook toward Jim Fleming, which reads like a
temper tantrum (it may not be, but it reads like one which makes it the
same thing in a faceless medium). All of this makes a person who tends
toward deliberation wonder "what part of his brain did that response come
from?"
Gordon Cook:
>Fleming has a very unique ability to lie in the most respectful manner
>imaginable. Now I can take anything he dishes out to me, but when I see
>him falsely accuse arin, nsf, nsi and lord knows whom else of all manner of
>crimes, it bothers me. because I don't have a boss he can get to there is
>little that he can do to cause me any personal grief. but i have seen
>instances where he has acquired, in an atmosphere of free exchange, a
>statement made by another and inadvertantly passed on to him by a third
>party. I have then seen him go behind the scenes and do his best to cut
>the first person's throat. he is devious and excedingly dangerous. i urge
>all of you to be aware of that.
Steve Page:
There you go again, inserting the skewer. Try to recognize that
his perspectives are different from yours. Different does not equate to
lying. To imply his perspectives are lies should be treated by any
reasonable person as an attempt to "kill the messenger". He appears to be
interested in promoting some new ideas which seem to have timely merit,
like combining the ARIN and IANA Inc. function, under the emerging
authoritative oversight of the formerly sleeping and now awakening giant.
It is up to individuals to determine whether Mr. Flemings
accusations are true or false. The more evidence of what happened, who did
what with whom, that is able to be flushed out, will allow everyone to be
able so see the truth in the light of day. In your opinion, he is making
false accusations. That is very different that him making false
accusations. Time will tell. You agree to disagree that's all.
Childishness takes away from the merit of the ideas which will either take
root or not.
Gordon Cook:
>A further part of his most recent action has been to send some message to
>this list as fall out from the flamefest that he started a day or so on
>NAIPR.... and to cc half the government who again, not having been treated
>to his years of unfounded accusations, may not have good grounds for
>judging him. may I ask how reasoned discourse is facillitated when Steve
>Page, listening to Fleming starts sharing Fleming's judgement that Arin is
>likely corrupt? and so far I have seen no one here argue otherwise???
Steve Page:
Reasonable discourse promotes the search for truth which is
dependent upon the examination of ideas. There are many variations of
ideas which should be explored for usefulness and practicality at a
critical period in formulating policy and action.
Above, you state "Steve Page, listening to Fleming, starts sharing
Fleming's judgement that Arin is likely corrupt." WRONG. If you the
professional journalist that the Cook Report implies that you are, your use
of vocabulary is incredibly imprecise. When I read Mr. Flemings posts, I
do so in exactly the same way I read others (Steinberg, Rutkowski, Stef,
Sexton...) and apply some of his ideas against my experiential database (my
brain).
After reading Jim Flemings posts I recognize that there was a
moderate to high probability that the oversight functions of the U.S.
government were lax in their tacit support of the ARIN process, just as
they were lax in their oversight of IANA in its handling of the DNS mess,
thereby allowing opportunism and cronyism to win out over deliberation and
balance in the short term.
You used the term "corrupt", not me. I used the term "tyranny" to
describe the unbridled power which can eminate from being completely in
control of billions of dollars in resources with no checks and balances.
Corruption can exist in any form of organization where the rules are rigged
for a less than legitimate purpose, like for one's own selfish gain. (I'm
not Webster's sorry.) Tyranny is the unbridled use of consolidated power to
force individuals to act against their will because there are no viable
alternatives. (Again, that's my rough definition.)
Apparently, ARIN has no competition. Is that a fact or not? It
seems that it is true. It controls a bunch of valuable assets that people
want. Is that a fact or not? If people or companies don't want the
assets, then let them give them all of the unused IP number addresses back.
I don't think we will see anyone doing that because the assets are valued
on the balance sheets.
The next question: Is there any oversight balancing ARIN's enormous
power? It does not seem so. Should there be oversight? Based upon the
public response of the President of ARIN (Kim Hubbard) to disclose what
would otherwise be private information regarding a customer of ARIN's (Jim
Fleming), I applied the principle of "what if she were doing disclosing my
information like that?" Quite simply, she demonstrated the behavior of a
tyrant, which she could only do because there are no alternatives in the
marketplace. (
Having spent 15 years in various areas of the health care industry,
where sensitive treatment of patient business transactions and record
information is a stringent requirement (not merely good business practice),
I recognize the clear dangers to the little guy, the customer of Ms.
Hubbard's behavior. With no alternatives, Mr. Fleming and others are
forced to live within Ms. Hubbard's "system", with no protections under
law. If I am mistaken somewhere, please clarify my mistakes for me. I am
seeking the light of truth. Shine it on. (Pun)
Gordon Cook:
>DNS has not been my specialty. ARIN has and, a year ago between April and
>June 18th when it got the green light, I did everything I knew how behind
>the scenes to help get arin sprung loose. Two of the initial board members
>actually thanked me privately for my efforts saying they had a noticeable
>positive impact. i also have been authoritatively told that Becky Burr as
>recently as january was still not reconciled to Arin's continued existence
>and, in this context, I sit here and see flemings lies cc'ed to her.
Steve Page:
So, you are an "insider" who has influenced the formation of ARIN.
That explains your defensiveness. Fair enough. The world needs
knowledgeable insiders to perform useful services, except when they violate
the spirit of the governing system under whose jurisdiction the specific
protections are expressly guaranteed to insure against i.e. "taxation
without representation", or "unregulated monopoly" or "right to free
speech" etc. etc.
Gordon Cook:
>Brian I am no saint. I have gotten to know Stef pretty well in the last 6
>months and stand in awe of his diplomatic skills. What he (and you and
>richard Sexton have accomplished here is extremely impressive). What you
>still need to try to accomplish here i think is critically important for
>the future of the KIND of internet that *I* want to see. I support you in
>those efforts totally. However if your rules allow fleming to spill his
>anti Arin poison onto this list that I thought was to try to solve DNS
>problems, and to spill the poison with no rebuttal,** then I ask you to
>unsubscribe me, because not being aware of the mayhem will enhance my
>working day immeasurabley.
Steve Page:
Intolerance of others' intellectual position occupies a dangerous
position on the slippery slope of totalitarian behavior. It will always be
with us, unfortunately, but it is worth fighting. Serbia's Milosevic is
the latest proponent of intolerance and he uses it against ethnic Albanians
who choose to speak their own language. Intolerance reaches a point where
two sides no longer speak. Then they use guns (flames). It is a path to
nowhere. Gordon, don't leave us. The place just wouldn't be the same
without you. We value your diverse opinions and viewpoints, just as we do
Jim's.
Gordon Cook:
>**Now I am sure you will say, oh just be nice to him...tell him he is wrong
>and why. I am NOT saintly enough for that. because his behavior will be
>to ignore the points made ask 43 new questions and continue his attack. he
>is NOT educable.....not even by an absolute world class pro like stef.
Steve Page:
Try not to project forward what someone else may or may not do. We
are ALL educable that's what makes us human. It is our language program
which is able to scale up our knowledge exchanged between other sources
which infect us over time. It works exactly like the scaling up of the
Internet from 4 sites to millions. Some of us have different knowledge sets
which are more embedded than others. Stef, like the good Senator moving
between the Irish, has positioned himself as a definer of critical issues.
I'm trying to position my writing as adding some of the background material
(education) so that we might first understand the human factors affecting
the successful adoption of the next generation of organization of
naming/numbering by the marketplace, with an emphasis on preservation of
rights and freedoms for individuals.
Supporting the role of the Constitution in the preservation of rights and
freedoms in new media,
Steve Page
MBA OD BSc
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/f: 925-484-0448
>
>
>
>
>>Gordon,
>> If you are going to be on our domain-policy@open-rsc.org list, you
>>must follow the rules for polite discourse. I am fairly certain that
>>you have been sent a copy, and since it is your profession to read
>>things I am also fairly sure that you have read them.
>>
>> If you disagree with something that somebody has said on our list, you
>>must find a way to state that disagreement without resorting to the
>>vehement and overly emotional language of the message to which I am
>>replying now.
>>
>> Brian Reid
>> on-duty Sergeant-at-arms of open-rsc.org
>
>***************************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
>cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
>***************************************************************************
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 4/16/98 12:41am
Subject: FW: ARIN + IANA = TITA.NIC ? or TITAN Inc.
----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:46 PM
To: 'arin-council@arin.net'
Subject: ARIN + IANA = TITA.NIC ? or TITAN Inc.
There are days when the Internet seems like a large community were
everyone cares. There are other days when it finally settles down to be
a small collection of people that care, surrounded by a substantial
number of spectators. Today is one of those days.
I really appreciate the people that have written to me privately to express
their concerns about how to best bring about an end to the ongoing Internet
resource allocation "wars". Most seemed to respond to the idea that the
ARIN corporate vehicle could be quckly revamped to house the proposed
IANA Inc. This will help to accelerate the transfer of governance functions
to a diverse set of people. This will also help to avoid the almost impossible
job of forming an IANA Inc., from scratch, with a group that is unbiased.
In other words, by using the ARIN structure, the people in place will be
pressed into service in an area where they did not volunteer. This is a
good thing, because as people have pointed out, one of the criteria for
allowing people to be involved with the IANA Inc. should be that they have
NOT volunteered for that job. If they have, they are suspect and the public
scrutiny will slow the process down.
With the ARIN structure, the staff, Board, Advisors, investors and members
are in place and may have a chance to be viewed as an unbiased group
because they were brought together for a more limited purpose. They can
expand their charter to include the IANA Inc. even if that is only for a short
time. Thus ARIN could be a bootstrap group to help create the IANA Inc.
if that clearly becomes a necessary step. In the interim, progress can be
made to get new TLDs created, to add more structure to IP allocations and
to bring an end to the disputes.
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. Some would argue that this is the best thing
that can happen to the IPv4 Internet. They feel that it is time for a new service
model to replace the aging structures. If this is the destiny of the net, then
neither ARIN nor the IANA Inc. will be able to impact that evolution. Unfortunately,
we are at a unique time in history where we are all faced with a large abyss.
It seems worthwhile to make one last attempt to ensure that the IPv4 core
has stewardship to carry it across the abyss. If ARIN can be used to first
carry the IANA Inc. then maybe the IANA Inc. can in turn pull ARIN across
without everyone plunging into the abyss...like the TITA.NIC...
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/16/98 2:37am
Subject: RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
On Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:17 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@> On Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:54 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@> @>
@> @ The names below were strictly for the temporary board required to
@> @initially incorporate ARIN and create Articles of Incorporation.
@> @
@>
@> Yes, we all understand the need to "bootstrap".
@> Has the Board been legally expanded beyond NSI ?
@
@Yes. The current members of the board are John Curran, Scott Bradner,
@Ken Fockler, Doug Humphrey and Don Telage. Jon Postel and I are ex-officio
@members.
@>
@> BTW...speaking of bootstrapping. Can the ARIN vehicle
@> be used to bootstrap the IANA Inc. ? In other words, can
@> the current ARIN machine be used to pick up the IANA Inc.
@> and give it a ride for a while to get it started ?
@
@Are you asking whether ARIN can afford to do this? This is something
@the board will have to officially speak to. In my opinion, we do not
@have the financial stability to bootstrap anything.
@
By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
As I have mentioned, RIPE is getting into the TLD business to broaden
their base. Their domain name was recently put on hold because they
did not pay NSI. I think that it is critical that people consider the business
issues (and not just the technical issues) when they plan these registries.
If the U.S. Government provides an edorsement then people are going
to flock to the company (like ARIN). Financial stability should be a high
priority.
Has anyone considered what would happen if ARIN fails financially ?
Are there contingency plans ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com>
Date: 4/16/98 5:29am
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
Tom and Kim,
Tom Glover wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>
> > >
> > Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
>
> Jim has never had a grasp of anything. Especially reality.
I see that some clever editing was done here. Be that as it may. If you
read Jim's post carefully, you would see that he is not implying that
ARIN is paying Gordon Cook or himself anything at all. Possibly this is
an attempt at a ploy to discredit Jim Flemming? Or are we just taking
potshots because he maybe ahd brought to the light of day a raw nerve?
>
>
> >
> > Kim
> >
> > > On Thursday, April 16, 1998 4:58 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
> > > @>
> > > @> By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
> > > @> and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
> > > @
> > > @Gordon Cook is my consultant just like you are in fact these days lots
> > > @people have decided to consult me on ARIN issues :-)
> > > @>
> > >
> > > There is one small difference...you have to pay Gordon...here is his "ad"
> > >
> > >
***************************************************************************
> > > The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
> > > 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
> > > (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
> > > cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
> > > subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> > >
***************************************************************************
> > >
> > > Other people like myself work as volunteers...in all of these debates
> > > it is always important to try to make a list of the people and then
> > > also give an estimate of how much they are being paid per hour to
> > > work on this stuff...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Jim Fleming
> > > Unir Corporation
> > > IBC, Tortola, BVI
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tom
> ________________________________________________________________________
> | "The Egg Domain" | "An engineer without a manager, |
> | tomg@egg.com | is like a fish without a bicycle." |
> | http://www.egg.com/ | |
> | | |
Regards,
CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu'" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.e...
Date: 4/16/98 8:11am
Subject: RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 3:08 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
<snip>
@
@Remember that you can't "own" integers...
@
You can "own" the right to have domain names based
on integers to be directed in a manner that benefits you
financially.
ARIN is in the domain name business. They are a registry
just like other TLD registries. It is a shame that U.S. Government
officials were mislead with all of this hocus pocus about integers.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'KathrynKL'" <KathrynKL@aol.com>
Date: 4/16/98 8:16am
Subject: FW: ARIN Board Expanded ?
Kathryn,
How did people allow the U.S. Government to be mislead about ARIN ?
ARIN is in the domain name business. Just because the names they
handle are <integer>.<integer>.IN-ADDR.ARPA style, this does not
make them worth less. As it turns out, the domain names that ARIN
sells (or leases) are worth more on average when compared to .COM names.
Again, why was ARIN handed billions of dollars in domain name assets
with no strings attached ? What is the U.S. Government thinking ?
JF
----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:03 AM
To: 'Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU'
Cc: naipr@arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 3:08 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU wrote:
@On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:25:24 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
@> Hmmmm....that is easy to solve...ARIN controls billions
@> of dollars in IP address assets...I have a feeling that there
@
@To repeat my earlier question: How was this "billions" calculated?
@
We have been through this before. If I recall, you were
not able to reconcile the fact that ARIN collects money
based on the IP address blocks that they control. If you
continue to believe that ARIN is providing services that
are somehow decoupled from those IP addresses and
IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names, then I suggest that you
remove the access that ARIN has to modifying the
delegations on those domain names and see how long
ARIN is able to sell services.
ARIN is in the domain name business. It just so happens
that the names people buy/lease from them are odd looking
compared to .COM names. That does not make them any
less valuable. If you multiply what ARIN charges to sell/lease
a block by the number of blocks you will quickly get to the
total valuation of the assets that the U.S. Government has
handed to ARIN, at apparently no charge. First you have to
get ARIN to disclose all of the blocks they control. Since they
control the IN-ADDR.ARPA entries, some would claim that
they control the entire IPv4 address space. That is billions
of IP addresses but the asset value is higher because of the
recurring revenue factors. In other words, an appartment that
leases for $12,000 per year could be worth $120,000 when
you place the asset value on it. Again, we have been through
this before.
This does not include the value of the InterNIC contact database
or the ASNs. The ASNs are very limited in supply. They are
similar to seats on a stock exchange. ARIN currently sells
them for $500 each which is probably a bargain, given the
long-term potential of them. I think ARIN has now added a
renewal fee of $30 per year for ASNs. It is unclear if that applies
to the ASNs that were issued for FREE by the InterNIC and
other registries.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/16/98 9:58am
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
>
> By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
> and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
Gordon Cook is my consultant just like you are in fact these days lots
people have decided to consult me on ARIN issues :-)
>
> As I have mentioned, RIPE is getting into the TLD business to broaden
> their base. Their domain name was recently put on hold because they
> did not pay NSI. I think that it is critical that people consider the business
> issues (and not just the technical issues) when they plan these registries.
> If the U.S. Government provides an edorsement then people are going
> to flock to the company (like ARIN). Financial stability should be a high
> priority.
ARIN is financially stable for the services that ARIN provides now, but
no we do not have a bunch of money to fund or bootstrap services like
the ones you're suggesting.
-kim
>
> Has anyone considered what would happen if ARIN fails financially ?
> Are there contingency plans ?
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("cook@net...
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date: 4/16/98 9:41am
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
Dave and all,
Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:13 AM 4/16/98 -0700, Tom Glover wrote:
> >On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
> >> Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
> >Jim has never had a grasp of anything. Especially reality.
>
> Honest, folks. All that is accomplished by sending these notes is to
> encourage Jim further. It truly does not matter whether the content of the
> message is positive or negative. Any activity encourages him.
This is Daves opinion of course. He doesn't want to have anyone that
disagrees
with him or his ideas post anything, that is why he filters most people. This
is inconsistent in any real attempt to work "Together" with anyone. Bad
attitude.
>
>
> Absolutely the only course of action that stands any chance of reducing the
> irritation he causes is to simply ignore (and filter) him.
Well Dave, you negative attitude is much worse, though you disguise very well.
You ant many of the MoUvment folks take this attitude with anyone that
doesn't agree with you *View* of things. Typical of someone that is NOT a team
player. Hence, most likely why the MoU is not broadly supported by the
Internet community. Bad leadership breads this kind of reaction. Your
comments here are stark evidence to that.
>
>
> d/
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
> dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
> www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Regards,
CC: Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/16/98 10:41am
Subject: ARIN Financing
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 4:58 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@ARIN is financially stable for the services that ARIN provides now, but
@no we do not have a bunch of money to fund or bootstrap services like
@the ones you're suggesting.
@
My suggestion is to use some of the 30% Internet Intellectual Infrastructure
Fund that was supposed to be used for this sort of thing. The NFS had NSI
collect that money and apparently it has sat idle collecting a minimal amount
of interest in someone's bank. Actually, it was probably not idle, it has not
been used for the purpose it was collected.
I suggest that ARIN request funding from the NSF to finance the IANA Inc.
transition. This would be lower cost than having ARIN trying to launch "GAR"
as a separate entity. Since it takes time to set up corporate structures,
Boards, Advisors, etc. the duplication can be avoided because the IANA Inc.
functions are very close to the ARIN activities. Also, since Jon Postel is on
the Board of ARIN as the IANA, this should make the transition easier.
With this structure the ARIN advisors and Board members can then start
to make decisions that should have been made by the NSF. If it turns out
that there are large activities that really require a separate company or
structure I would imagine that the experts ARIN advisors and Board members
would be able to point this out and vote to make it happen.
The alternative is to sit like the people in the lifeboats around the Titanic
and watch as the NSF and the rest of the U.S. Government take the Registry
Industry to the bottom via inaction or endless debates about who will lead
the IANA Inc. and how it will be funded, etc. All of that can be avoided by
helping to facilitate the creation of the IANA Inc. This should not cost much
and could happen quickly, if the ARIN advisors and Board want to move the
Registry Industry forward....which is my goal...
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@internic.net>
Date: 4/16/98 11:24am
Subject: ARIN Force One
Kim,
Is it true that ARIN is constructing a 747
called "ARIN Force One" ?
I hear it will be able to carry the ARIN Board, the
advisors and the "press" (like Gordon Cook).
I also heard that it will be equipped to be capable
of mid-air refueling and will have servers and satellite
communications links to the Space Shuttle and MIR.
What is that going to cost ?
Do you think that you could get by with a used 707 ?
Will "ARIN Force One" be ready for the next NANOG meeting
or the IETF meeting in Chicago ? You could sell tickets and
give tours and raise money to help fund the IANA Inc.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/16/98 10:59am
Subject: RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 4:58 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@> By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
@> and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
@
@Gordon Cook is my consultant just like you are in fact these days lots
@people have decided to consult me on ARIN issues :-)
@>
There is one small difference...you have to pay Gordon...here is his "ad"
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
Other people like myself work as volunteers...in all of these debates
it is always important to try to make a list of the people and then
also give an estimate of how much they are being paid per hour to
work on this stuff...
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/16/98 12:05pm
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
>
Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
Kim
> On Thursday, April 16, 1998 4:58 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
> @>
> @> By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
> @> and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
> @
> @Gordon Cook is my consultant just like you are in fact these days lots
> @people have decided to consult me on ARIN issues :-)
> @>
>
> There is one small difference...you have to pay Gordon...here is his "ad"
>
> ***************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
> cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Other people like myself work as volunteers...in all of these debates
> it is always important to try to make a list of the people and then
> also give an estimate of how much they are being paid per hour to
> work on this stuff...
>
>
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("cook@net...
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/16/98 12:12pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:05 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
@
I would suggest that you subscribe to his newsletter to
make sure that you know what is going on at ARIN. He
seems to keep pretty close tabs on things.
You are correct...ARIN does not pay me...I never said it did...
that is why I used the word "volunteer"...that may not have been clear...
BTW...How much does ARIN pay you ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/16/98 12:24pm
Subject: Re: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!.
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> 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.
While I and in agreement with you on minimal regulation. I am not in favor
of total industry self regulation. It hasn't worked in the past (Hence the SEC,
for example), and it is not going to work now for the same reasons. With
more competition in the market place in the registry industry, some de-facto
standards will of course become expected. But this is a far cry form real
regulation and the damage that can be done in the mean time is too great
for the industry to suffer and there is not need for that to occur in any event.
Putting the fox in charge of the hen house just isn't a viable alternative.
>
>
> 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.
I agree, ahd hence my concerns. What the GP makes available is for a
completely independent newly formed body to recommend regulations with
industry input to help with establishing those minimal regulations.
>
>
> 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?
This would be a bad thing. concentration of that much control in the wrong
hands posses a danger to the Internet community as a whole. Hence what
the GP is proposing, that being a Newly reformed IANA that has some
Government oversight along with Public oversight (The Internet community and
stakeholders). This is in stark contrast to what the IANA does now, and
what the MoU would propose.
>
>
> 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.
See my comment above.
>
>
> 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.
Yes some of the "Super structure" as you refer to it is indeed yet to be
established as some have seen the need to get established. This spawned
the early IAHC effort I believe. Yet their approach was just to replace
one monopolist structure with a collective dictatorship type of structure.
That type of structure, is not an improvement, rather it just give a slightly
larger group a strangle hole on the most important key elements of the
Internet (DNS and IP numbers in the case of ARIN).
In contrast, what the GP seeks to do is provide for a structure that
ALL of the participants, stakeholders and Internet community members
have control on a very broad basis and the ability to shape and form
the future of the internet without it being dictated to them. This the
MoU/IAHC and the IANA does not provide for.
>
>
> 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?
No, the number of IP registries should not and could not cause collisions
if some minimal regulations are in place that have good enforcement behind them.
Same applies Domain Name registries. Uniqueness of these IP's and gTLD's/TLD's
can and should be part of those minimal regulations.
> _________________________________________________
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC
> (RM993)
> President and CEO.
> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Web-pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com
> Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA
> -----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------
> Note: Statements made in this message do not
> necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All
> forcasts and projections are to be considered
> as forward-looking and presume conditions which
> may not be referenced herein.
> -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------
Regards,
CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
###
From: Jim Fleming <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("abenhase@gte.net","JimFleming@DOO...
Date: 4/16/98 1:00pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
If the Board of Directors of ARIN is going
to be expanded then that should be put into
the planning for ARIN Force One.
I have suggested to Don Heath that the ISOC
should probably have a seat on the ARIN Board.
The ISP/C and CIX may also be good groups to
recommend people. The CORE registrars could
be included and maybe some of the other groups
mentioned in the U.S. Government's Green Paper.
It might also be good to have some members
from Mexico, South America, Africa and the
Caribbean. Those are areas that evidently can
be reached via ARIN Force One, although I do
not think there is any place to land it in
the Caribbean. I will check.
Giving ARIN control over all of the IP addresses
via the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names is like handing
a small group all of the rights to oil-wells
around the world. It seems prudent to expand
the Board that oversees that group to make
sure people's interests are served.
Jim Fleming
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("arin-cou...
###
From: Jim Fleming <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("abenhase@gte.net","JimFleming@DOO...
Date: 4/16/98 1:11pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
Does anyone know when the next ARIN Board Meeting is ?
The past Board Meeting minutes do not seem to be on
the ARIN web site. Did that get overlooked ?
RIPE recently failed to pay their domain name renewal
and their name went on hold. One of the things that the
ARIN Board should probably do is to make a list of the
critical things that have to be done each month and
make sure that someone is on top of them.
One of the disadvantages of these "communal" non-profit
companies, like ARIN, is that it is easy for people to
forget to do the i's and cross the t's. They can get so
caught up in their volunteer work and public service
that they forget the business aspects of the operation.
Are the ARIN Board members reviewing the business plan
of ARIN ? Are there measurable milestones ? What is the
plan ?
Jim Fleming
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("arin-cou...
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/16/98 2:07pm
Subject: Re: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!.
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> 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:
> ><snip>
> >@
> >@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?
Not exactly. ARIN only has a contract with the IANA to allocate a certain
group of IP addresses.
>
>
> >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??
I would say he is or should be.
> 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.
Good question. Something allot of folks would like to know.
>
>
> >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?
It is my belief that Jon Postel was manipulated int the IAHC process from
pressure
brought to bear from the ISOC and Don Heath in particular, along with others.
> 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?
The answer to you question is, all this really brought the NEED for the GP
in part.
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC
> (RM993)
> President and CEO.
> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Web-pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com
> Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA
> -----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------
> Note: Statements made in this message do not
> necessarily reflect the position of MHSC. All
> forcasts and projections are to be considered
> as forward-looking and presume conditions which
> may not be referenced herein.
> -----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------
Regards,
CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/16/98 3:47pm
Subject: Re: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!.
Jim and all,
Jim Fleming wrote:
> On Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:07 PM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> <snip>
> @
> @ Not exactly. ARIN only has a contract with the IANA to allocate a certain
> @group of IP addresses.
> @
>
> Jeff,
>
> I doubt if you can find any "contract" between ARIN and the IANA.
Well if not than what was Kim's comment when you ask her about whatIP's and under what
"Arrangement" are they allocating them and she supplied
a list of the blocks an groups that they have a "Contract" to allocate? Prey
tell.
> If you recall, the Internet insiders have spent a lot of time trying to make
> sure that the IANA (Jon Postel) has no legal structure so that they can
> say there are no contracts, just community consensus, commonly called
> "party line". This allows them to change the plan based on unquestioned
> decisions from Jon Postel. There does not have to be meeting notes nor
> any audit trail. The done deals just get announced.
I find this hard to believe myself. But if so, than there should be someone
within the DOJ looking into this in that it is clearly a scenario where
Restrain of Trade and Antitrust can indeed flourish. But I remain skeptical
of this being so. Possibly Kim would care to elaborate?
>
>
> A contract would imply a legal written document that people can read
> and interpret in conjunction with other written laws. This is what the
> U.S. Government is trying to do with the Green Paper and the IANA Inc.
> You will note the resistance they get from people that do not want things
> clearly written down. This removes the option for arbitrary decisions to
> be made that courts and/or law enforcement agencies can not easily track
> because there is no paper trail.
Well if so, this is a most unusual situation and needs some addressing from
a competent legal body to look into.
>
>
> ARIN is a legal structure. The U.S. Government has spent a lot of time
> and money helping to create ARIN. Jon Postel (the IANA) is part of ARIN.
> For the first time in the history of the Internet people can point to one
> place where resources are stock-piled and decisions are being made
> that can be documented. I suggest that people build upon this one legal
> structure and not allow everyone to regress and disperse into multiple
> vague structures that never seem to be capable of making the decision
> to add TLDs to the Root Name Servers or to allocate other resources
> fairly.
I agree.
>
>
> In summary, put all of the (remaining) eggs in one basket and watch that basket...!!
Unfortunately this is not the case, in that ARIN is in a unique position at present.
So now we have two baskets at least, maybe three. Not that this is a bad thing
at all, rather it doesn't seem to support your contention exactly.
>
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
Regards,
CC: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
###
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "abenhase@GTE.NET" <abenhase@GTE.NET>
Date: 4/16/98 3:20pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
On Thursday, April 16, 1998 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker[SMTP:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
wrote:
@At 12:21 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
@>You know Jim,
@>
@>Your commentaries are amusing at some very low
@>primate levels, and would ultimately be better
@>served (and commented upon) on the alt.fan.comedy
@>newsgroup. Give it a rest would you, and leave
@>this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
@
@I've removed Jim from this note.
@
You have ?
=====
Dave,
What do you think about using ARIN to be the corporate "vehicle"
for the IANA Inc. mentioned in the U.S. Government's proposal ?
This will help to accelerate the introduction of new TLDs and should
add very little impact to ARIN since Jon Postel (IANA) is already on the
Board of ARIN.
Are you interested in accelerating the introduction of new TLDs ?
If you recall, you promised people you would have registries operational
in early 1997. If ARIN is used to carry the IANA Inc., you might be
able to only be one year late.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI
CC: "arin-council@arin.net" <arin-council@arin.net>
###
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: 4/16/98 5:20pm
Subject: Re: what jim fleming hasn't told us: "a Manager at the InterNIC informed Jim
Fleming . . . and made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC become millionaires
Cordon and all,
Gordon Cook wrote:
> Jim has a burr under his saddle blanket. He ordinarily doesn't talk about
> it. But to NTIA he was disarmingly candid. Read the second paragraph.
> The only problem is that *contrary to what he says below,* he was given his
> ipv4 allocation. Seems he is quite selective in what he says. But it
> seems also pretty clear that perceiving himself to have been slighted by
> the keepers of ipv4, he went out and "invented" a whole new ip system.....
> ipv8 to replace the ipv4 that he perceived to be corrupt. Since then he
> has been determined at any cost to destroy those whom he believes to have
> wronged him.
>
> Let me make one other thing clear. If someone at the internic had
> actually "made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC
> become millionaires," NSI would have been terribly stupid not to have fired
> that person sumarily. Some may hate NSI, but I have yet to see a strong
> consensus that believes they are stupid.
>
> Jim's whole piece in all its glory can be found at:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-2.htm
>
> Fleming writes:
> Besides NAPLPS, Jim Fleming and Unir Corporation have been involved
> in the Registry Industry since 1982 when Unir Corporation was formed. At
> that time, Unir Corporation began selling unique 32 bit integers with framed
> certificates to be used by individuals on communication networks. This was
> likely the first commercial registry for network addresses in the world.
> Between 1984 and 1992, Jim Fleming and Unir Corporation assisted AT&T
> Bell Labs in the development of a distributed, object-oriented network
> platform based on the C+@ (cat) Programming Language, which has historical ties to
>
> Java.
>
> In 1995, Jim Fleming became involved in the public aspects of Internet
> Governance when a Manager at the InterNIC informed Jim Fleming that he did not
> have
> enough experience with communication networks to be delegated IPv4 addresses and
> made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC become
> millionaires. For the past three years, Jim Fleming has worked, largely
> full-time, trying
> to help open up the Registry Industry so that people do not have to play ball with
> the
> InterNIC. During that time, he has developed the IPv8 Plan which encompasses
> Address
> Management, a Transport Protocol and an overall approach to Internet
> Governance. It is based on the simple concept of a "structured root".
Gordon, you and I have talked a couple of times on the phone. I am
supprised at you "Evaluation" of what Jim has said here. I suppose one
could draw the conclusions that you have drawn, but to characterize them
in this way, is really suprising to me. I don't get this reading about Jims
submission to the NTIA at all. Rather I get the impression and reading
that he is suggesting and adjunct to the IPv4 IP address space. I don't
understand his submission as one that is biased on any disgruntlement
form and IPv4 IP address space that he may have applied for.
From what Jim has written me, he does not have any IPv4 IP addresses.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------
>
> Good Morning, my name is Jim Fleming and I am a U.S. Citizen. I was born in
> East St. Louis, Illinois in 1951 and I spent most of my childhood in St.
> Louis, MO.
> I currently reside in Naperville, Illinois a suburb of Chicago. I commute
> on a regular
> basis to the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands. I have
> testified in
> the past before FCC and U.S. Government hearings, as well as International
> Standards
> making bodies. I am currently retained as an expert litigation consultant
> for a large
> on-line services company based in the United States of America.
>
> Recently, I have commented that I did not feel that it was necessary to
> provide
> comments to your proceeding because I generally support its direction and feel
> that many of the stakeholders are on board and support the deals that have
> been
> struck. Because of continued personnel threats from a small group of vocal
> people
> who claim to be associatted with the ISOC/IETF, I feel that it is important
> to make
> sure that my background and views are part of the public record. Since the
> ISOC
> does not take steps to distance itself from these right-wing, hate-group,
> members,
> it is important to use these forums to make sure that the American people are
> presented with a balanced picture of who is concerned about the future of
> the Internet.
> ***************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
> cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> ***************************************************************************
Regards,
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("naipr@ar...
###
From: steve <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/16/98 5:03pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
4/16/98
Gordon Cook writes:
>Mr.Page walks from the health care field into a new environment where he
>knows virtually nothing about the warring tribes and cultures and the
>complexity of several years of prior history and assumes it looks like the
>little guy has a bad deal because only Arin hands out IP numbers. I'll
>wager he knows not a thing about the technology that makes this either a
>reasonable or an unreasonable course. But since our free speech is
>constitutionally protected, he excercises it and in doing so inadvertantly
>helps to support some who have been here for several years and are trying
>to destroy what others have built.
Steve writes:
Do some homework before you make statements which affect people's
reputations. You know absolutely nothing about what I know and what I do
not know but you make a false assumption assume it's true and proceed below
to follow it in a tantrum-like rave. Seek the truth Gordon. Hint #1: if
you want to get educated about who I am and what I do, check who was
Project Manager for one of two 1993 Network Architecture ARPA grants funded
in Silicon Valley. Hint #2: the other grant was called CommerceNet, the
original ARPA-funded proposal for "commercializing the Internet". If you
don't care to know the truth, then continue to make absolutely false
assumptions and spread them as Gospel truth. People will recognize what
you are doing. In this light, the substance of the Cook Report and your
journalism need to be exposed. What would you call you statements above?
I'd call it dishonest, and that is being charitable.
Gordon Cook writes:
>He makes a bunch of naive assumptions which have no support in fact and
>then complains that he is educable when my temper grows short. He could
>have kept his response in private and did not. He could have also chosen
>to keep it private when stef asked us to keep it off list this morning and
>he did not. i am not a touch typist steve so it would take me a LONG time
>to educate you. I have devoted devoted 35% of my newsletter to this
>subject in the past year, thats roughly 175,000 words. And Mr. Page if
>you really want education i will send you the last year for free. Just
>PROMISE me you will READ them, because this *IS* a complex subject and
>getting educated takes time!!! And EFFORT.
Steve Page:
Please use your language more judiciously. You are clearly
intending to be hurtful to someone you know absolutely nothing about, and
you've proven it. Is that an example of your journalistic integrity? Do
you expect people to treat you seriously? Respectfully? Sure you do. So
do I, so does anybody. Why not practice a bit of the Golden Rule, "Do unto
others..."? You might feel better.
Gordon Cook writes:
>I understand oh so well at this moment Randy Bushes' frustrations with the
>clueless. I have spent the last 8 years involved more than full time with
>the net. There is a part of the culture that outsiders may consider RUDE.
>But it is there and I think i know why.... if the folk building the net had
>to take time to educate every newcomer they would have no time to build the
>net. The culture says observe and, until you are sure you understand, be
>hesitant with the amount of questions you ask in public. And though you
>may think us arrogant as hell don't assume that you know better than we.
Steve Page:
People might think you are arrogant because of how you appear to
disdain others who have not had the good fortune to spend more than
full-time over 8 years studying and reporting on very interesting and
fundamental minutiae. You clearly demonstrate disdain, maybe not arrogance
above, attempting to justify rudeness while cloaking yourself along with
others under a veil of 8 years "more than fulltime" (whatever that means).
Comparing one's length of time involved with the net may be a nice
measuring stick when talking to the engineers who were developing the
immature foundational technologies, but the Net has been changing lately,
growing doubling every 100 days (reported in media yesterday). That's a
lot of new people. Your arrogance serve you better if it was transformed
with a bit of humility. People would respect you more if you were more
humble.
Gordon Cook:
>I had an extremely productive two weeks until 48 hours ago because I
>managed to stay out of this stuff for a while. Then i got a phone call
>appraising me of some events and expressing grave concern. I'd be happier
>not to have had the call, but when people you know well and believe in tell
>you that others are being screwed, do you turn your back to them and say
>tough i am busy? There are some here who have bosses and would get stepped
>on bloody hard for saying anything. They are hurting and hurting hard. i
>at least can speak out and I have. But as I said in answer to jay fenellos
>remarks, with my elders here being silent, i am feeling foolish in pulling
>out my sword and getting ready to fall on it. i called one elder in
>frustration just now. he opined that he had been reading none of the
>thread because of long practice of not reading a thread that fleming
>appears to have been associated with. He advised me to be silent and let
>you get your education from fleming.
Steve Page:
Elders? Your use of the familial parent-child relationship reference gives
an indication that you view the open information process of these lists as
something the "the family", from the elders on down, controls. The
traditional family structure is a hierarchically organized social structure
where power has traditionally been associated with age or time spent
learning how life operates. It is similar to the hierarchical military
command and control structure where power is associated with
"time-in-grade". Your reference to command and control structures is
highly inappropriate when discussing evolving economic systems, because a
command and control economy is called "communism". Based upon the
principles supported by the Constitution and everything which has flowed
from it over the last 200+ years, which includes DARPA's funding of
CommerceNet in 1993, the structure which we are attempting to build is not
a closed structure like a "family", but an open and inclusive structure
(hence Open-RSC). Those of you who have paid your dues in "time" and who
have been annointed by unnamed elders as "under-elder" or elder-in-waiting,
or elder-wannabee, or elder-servant had wake up to the fact that New
Economies are not like families which can be controlled from the top.
(Revisit the history of communism, 1945-1990.)
Gordon Cook:
>At this point if Brian cares to unsub me that is fine, if he does not I'd
>value any privately sent instructions on how to have Eudora filter to trash
>all comments from Jim Fleming and Mr. Page.
Steve Page:
You have the right to NOT read anything I write. You have the right NOT to
disagree with what I write. It is a Constitutionally protected right. We
agree to disagree, very simply. I am very secure with what I know (and
trying to learn more each day to fill in gaps), because I can support and
demonstrate and prove things that I know to be true for anyone who wants to
take the time and seek my proof of "what exists" and "how things work".
(I've got a model, not a secret, but it is difficult to explain things in
the here-and-now medium without being called long-winded. (No offense
taken Stef. :-) Calling what I write worthy of trash. you are trashing the
ideas which are supported by the Constitution, and indirectly trashing
ideas which support the eliminating unseen hierarchical family structures
from controlling what should rightly, under the Constitution, be controlled
by all People.
Gordon Cook:
>PS: I am reading the diff-serv working group mail list. i am even
>understanding good parts of it. Once in the last month I asked the list
>owner a private question. I got a prompt answer. I would never ever dream
>of asking a public question on that list. Please Mr Page, acquire some
>expertise before you take sides. And please when the list owner says
>things are off topic LET the MATTER DIE !
>***************************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
>cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
>***************************************************************************
Steve Page:
When it comes to free speech versus the tyranny of totalitarian
"families" the matter will never die. It is unfortunately another example
of the battle between 2 opposing forces in nature's grand drama. My
sincere apologies for violating any implied rules of list behavior. I
guess that the Elders (Net Police) are going to filter (trash) my comments,
and if they do it to me, they will censor anyone who doesn't follow the
unwritten rules, the cyber equivalent of getting "whacked" by a
"goodfella".
Gordon, you have made it very clear to anyone who reads your recent
posts why the Dept of Justice may have ignored your attempts to shame them
into providing a last ditch effort to save the Bode case. Based upon your
writing above and the results of your lobbying Janet Reno, it appears that
both your style and your substance are somehow damaged, hopefully not
beyond repair. The good news is we can all stand to change. Striving for
a bit more humility might be a good first step to becoming more saintly
(see yesterday's posts) but you've got to want to improve. You've got the
will to do so if you can recognize your present limitations which your
writings unveil.
As I've said in the past as a proponent of the open and inclusive
economic models, such as the Common Private Trust. It can welcome all
diversity no matter how mafia-esque. That's the beauty of such an open
model, it can even support the views of those who support controlled models
who are unwilling to recognize that individuals are born free into the
physical environment we call earth who will eventually return freely, and
whose experience on the planet is meant to be a balance between that
fundamental freedom of that individual with the needs of the set of all
individuals.
Supporting freedom of the individual, whose rights are protected in the
Constitution.
Stephen J. Page
MBA OD BSc
George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979
Business Management Consultant, U.S. Data Highway Corp.
Tel: 925-454-8624
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
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 5/1/98 12:18am
Subject: Re: Predictions Part II
At 12:47 PM 4/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I have been told by a number of people that my predictions
>were too "doom and gloom." I'm afraid I cannot agree.
>
>Think about it - many seem to think that the NPRM will
>defer the question of new TLDs to IANA II. This means
>that we're in a "holding pattern" until September. This also
>puts us right back to where we were 4 months ago: CORE
>claiming that they'll be online "real soon now," but now it's
>worse, as they'll start claiming that since they were an IANA
>approved function, the new IANA will approve them once
>it's up and running.
>
>And we'll have at least 5 more months of round-and-round,
>with nobody knowing what's going on.
>
>Companies that are spending hard cash for facilities to run
>registries will continue to bleed the money, while NSI
>continues to own the only game in town.
>
>If anyone really thinks that the NPRM will enact the immediate
>term proposal that was in the GP (5 new registries to start
>for now), please say so, because at this point, I don't hold
>much hope for it.
>
>I am not optimistic anymore. I think that the ORSC is going
>to do just what it sets out to do, and come up with a plan, but
>that it's going to be ignored. If the above scenario happens,
>CORE will never even have a discussion with ORSC, as
>they're not in a position to want or need to.
>
>The new IANA will be formed, and we'll start over again from
>square one.
As I've publically stated, delaying the decision to add new
TLDs would be unfair for many reasons.
However, in the big scheme of things, establishing the new
IANA Inc. with an internationally representative board of
directors *is* fundamentally more important.
If we can agree on *how* to agree in the future, then *all*
will benefit down the road. If we can't agree, then we will
have many more years of wasted time and wasted resources.
IMHO, we should do what we can to ensure that the representation
for the new IANA Inc. is fair, un-biased, and un-likely to be
captured by any narrow interest group.
If these efforts fail, then ORSC can play a vital role in
providing options for stability in the resulting chaos.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(bburr), Ira Magaziner
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 5/1/98 11:46am
Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
FYI:
>Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 03:27:00 -0400
>To: dns@ntia.doc.gov
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@iperdome.com>
>Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
>Cc: Ira Magaziner, bburr@ntia.doc.gov,
> domain-policy@open-rsc.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>
> NOTE ==> This posting is being made part of the public
> record so that historians can better understand the forces
> that contributed to the foundations of Internet governance.
>
> It is also being copied to my private press list, which
> includes over 50 reporters that have been covering the
> Domain Name debate. Most of the major papers of record,
> news, and wire services are on this list.
>
> At some point in the future, this press list may also be
> made part of the public record.
>
>
>Last week, Reuters carried an Article titled:
>
> "EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>I quickly wrote an email to the editor because I thought the
>article was misleading and biased. Specifically, the title
>implied that the European Union had made some critical comments
>to the U.S. Government, yet the article was really just a bunch
>of critical comments from Don Heath, president of the ISOC.
>
>I went on to question his qualifications to speak for the
>entire European Union, and pointed out that he was one of the
>lead architects of the IAHC plan, now more formally known as
>the gTLD-MoU.
>
>I went on to applaud their coverage of this important topic,
>and suggested a more *balanced* coverage of the U.S. Green
>Paper process.
>
>Finally, I referenced a recent Green Paper proceeding that
>described in detail some very serious problems that exist today
>in Internet management, and some equally serious suggestions on
>some ways to improve them in the new IANA, Inc.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Iperdome.htm
>
>The following day, a Yahoo search showed that Reuters had
>changed the title of their article to:
>
> "INTERVIEW-EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>Unfortunately, this is an example of too little, too late.
>The original title had already been copied in hundreds of
>news outlets throughout the world, including News.com and Wired.
>
>Today, Associate Press ran an article titled:
>
> "White House to release new Internet management plan soon"
>
>While it is more accurate and less biased than the Reuters
>piece, it still fails to cover the real story behind this
>debate, nor the potentially profound implications of its
>outcome.
>
>So, while the U.S. Government trys to find serious solutions to
>some serious problems, the press has resorted to covering this
>debate from the ISOC perspective. Why?
>
>I don't know. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge. Maybe it's due
>to a powerful PR campaign. Whatever the reason, it may have a
>profound impact on our collective futures, and should be part
>of the public record.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
> -- A.J. Liebling----
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 5/1/98 3:27am
Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
NOTE ==> This posting is being made part of the public
record so that historians can better understand the forces
that contributed to the foundations of Internet governance.
It is also being copied to my private press list, which
includes over 50 reporters that have been covering the
Domain Name debate. Most of the major papers of record,
news, and wire services are on this list.
At some point in the future, this press list may also be
made part of the public record.
Last week, Reuters carried an Article titled:
"EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
I quickly wrote an email to the editor because I thought the
article was misleading and biased. Specifically, the title
implied that the European Union had made some critical comments
to the U.S. Government, yet the article was really just a bunch
of critical comments from Don Heath, president of the ISOC.
I went on to question his qualifications to speak for the
entire European Union, and pointed out that he was one of the
lead architects of the IAHC plan, now more formally known as
the gTLD-MoU.
I went on to applaud their coverage of this important topic,
and suggested a more *balanced* coverage of the U.S. Green
Paper process.
Finally, I referenced a recent Green Paper proceeding that
described in detail some very serious problems that exist today
in Internet management, and some equally serious suggestions on
some ways to improve them in the new IANA, Inc.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Iperdome.htm
The following day, a Yahoo search showed that Reuters had
changed the title of their article to:
"INTERVIEW-EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
Unfortunately, this is an example of too little, too late.
The original title had already been copied in hundreds of
news outlets throughout the world, including News.com and Wired.
Today, Associate Press ran an article titled:
"White House to release new Internet management plan soon"
While it is more accurate and less biased than the Reuters
piece, it still fails to cover the real story behind this
debate, nor the potentially profound implications of its
outcome.
So, while the U.S. Government trys to find serious solutions to
some serious problems, the press has resorted to covering this
debate from the ISOC perspective. Why?
I don't know. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge. Maybe it's due
to a powerful PR campaign. Whatever the reason, it may have a
profound impact on our collective futures, and should be part
of the public record.
Regards,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
-- A.J. Liebling----
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(bburr), Ira Magaziner
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/15/98 9:24pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
>At 08:12 PM 4/14/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>Steve, for one thing I wonder what relevence Flemings slander regarding
>>ARIN and IP numbers has to the subject of this list?
>
>Hi Gordon,
>
>While I know very little about IP address assignments, I
>*have* heard persistent rumors that they have historically
>(pre-ARIN) been used as leverage over ISPs. If this is true,
>then there is a direct relationship to the DNS debate.
>
Rumors is what they are and were as I tried to explain to you this morning,
apparently unsuccessfuilly. If you are going to leave the door open for
BBURR@ntia.doc.gov to think that someone who here-to-fore has had a highly
responsible and intelligent role in the DNS side of this debate (yourself)
now wants to appraise her that maybe Fleming's research is valid while its
only his solutions are whacky, you are not being helpful to any of us in
the internet. I hope that one or more members of this list who are senior
to me (and there are many) will step forward and help to convince you that
those conclusions of yours are misguided.
As I told you this morning before bringing this subject up, it would have
been wise to read several tens of megabytes of traffic of CIDR-d and its
impact on IPv4 address space management along with its impact on the issue
of route agregation and route announcements to the defaultless core, and
the tremendous arguments over whether to make this a current best practice.
This all happened between roughly early 1993 and mid 1995. Yes it gave
leverage, but yes what was also done was done because IT HAD to be done to
allow the internet to continue to grow. Other than from Flemings
vituperative pen, it has not been a significant issue for more that two
years.
>The first time I heard these rumors was when I was trying
>to promote eDNS to some local ISPs. It appeared that they
>were afraid to break ranks with the IANA et al, and that
>they were IAHC supporters for the same reason.
>
>Now I don't know if these rumors are true, but I suspect
>that NTIA should at least be aware of the allegations.
So while I must conclude that I am not a big fan of IANA, I must ask why on
earth Jay to you feel compelled to come back to this list that deals with
DNS policy and raise 'rumors' about 'appearances' of being 'afraid'? To
the best of my knowledge you have not walked out on the end of limbs like
this before. Therefore it is especially disturbing to hear you raise
issues which have been for the most part decided and forgotten, but now in
the context of Flemings and Denninger's current attack on ARIN, are highly
inflamatory. Destroy an independent ISP controlled system for IP number
allocation and you will compell NTIA to take over IP allocation, a task for
which it has zero qualification. Under conditions like that DNS registries
will go no where because the internet itself will be running into a brick
wall. the telcos however will be happy because this will be a first step
toward governmnet regulation and control of the internet.
I thought i knew you fairly well and i am flabergasted to see you
apparently compelled to actions that give the appearance of endorsing the
current destructive attacks on ARIN. Besides, as has already been said
here today, comments like yours, if you must raise them, belong on NAIPR
not on this list!!
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/16/98 1:10am
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
Jay I have just forwarded you a dozen messages from naipr which you are not
reading...these should enlightened you as to my remarks about who is
interested in destroying arin.
now will you please honor stef's request to take this OFFLINE!?
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("amr@chao...
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
Date: 4/16/98 10:58pm
Subject: Final response to steve page's "free speech" was Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and
the GP Process
READERS WILL PLEASE NOTE THAT as per Stef's request I HAVE *NOT* SENT THIS
RESPONSE TO domain-policy@open-rsc.org
>4/16/98
>
>Gordon Cook writes:
>
>>Mr.Page walks from the health care field into a new environment where he
>>knows virtually nothing about the warring tribes and cultures and the
>>complexity of several years of prior history and assumes it looks like the
>>little guy has a bad deal because only Arin hands out IP numbers. I'll
>>wager he knows not a thing about the technology that makes this either a
>>reasonable or an unreasonable course. But since our free speech is
>>constitutionally protected, he excercises it and in doing so inadvertantly
>>helps to support some who have been here for several years and are trying
>>to destroy what others have built.
>
>Steve writes:
> Do some homework before you make statements which affect people's
>reputations. You know absolutely nothing about what I know and what I do
>not know but you make a false assumption assume it's true and proceed below
>to follow it in a tantrum-like rave.
To Mr. Page:
Kilobytes of MR Page's pontifications deleted.
You yourself said you came from the health care field.... I was only using
the information that *YOU* provided. You walk in to open-rsc in on of the
most delicate periods of the nets existense and, starting the thread,
pontificate that Fleming, who is the most destructive personality on the
net today and one who ought to be sued for libel as well, has some really
pretty good ideas about how arin ought to be taken over and re-designed. I
am sure you have your expertise.... that doesn't mean I don't know an oder
of magnitude more about the issues on which, given your contsitutionally
protected right of free speech, you presume to continue to have the
god-given right to speak out. Doing your best to character assasinate me
while *purposefully* continuing to ignore Einar Stefferud's request to the
*BOTH* of us this morning to cease and desist.
Stef was one of the builders of the net, "mr" page. He is also a superb
diplomat and with open-rsc is trying to prove that the net can solve its
own problems. Where then do you get the god given right to walk in, take
the side of fleming who is one of the least savory characters on the net,
start a thread that is off topic, copy the government on that thread and
then *CONTINUE* your rants to the government and to the list AFTER Stef
asks BOTH of us on the list THIS morning top *STOP*?
You who know so much about the internet are a GUEST on open rsc and you do
NOT have the right on a list with rules that you agree to when you join it
to continue to contravene them when you are asked to halt. Hopefully you
will hear from stef on that score.
As far as your concern with elders goes, if you are that dense that you can
only be offended at my statement, I suggest an experiment. (1) Join the
IETF list at ietf.org. (2) post your comment there from two days ago in
favor of flemings ideas. (3) post your most recent attack on me making
sure that they all understand you are just excerising your constitutionally
provided right to "free speech". (4) observe the response you get. (5)
see if you can draw any meaningful conclusions.
As I said this morning the clue level on open rsc is higher than the clue
level at NTIA. And that bothers me. if fleming and deninger drive kim
out of arin and arin collapses and becky burr and NTIA step in to take over
IP administration, that would be a huge gift to the telcos and the ITU.
Why? because they could use it as amunition that magaziner's work is
failing and that the ITU has to be dragged in to restore stability.
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.
Your behavior gives no credit to those who would like to run DNS registries
SINCE you display no concern for the political complexities on which the
very existence of such an industry depends. I would look for another line
of work if I were you.
I have never filtered anyone before. but i will have to use my Eudora docs
tonight to see if I can filted both you and fleming to trash. i wish no
further contact with you...... is that clear?
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("naipr@ar...
Date: 4/16/98 11:44pm
Subject: what jim fleming hasn't told us: "a Manager at the InterNIC informed Jim
Fleming . . . and made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC become millionaires
Jim has a burr under his saddle blanket. He ordinarily doesn't talk about
it. But to NTIA he was disarmingly candid. Read the second paragraph.
The only problem is that *contrary to what he says below,* he was given his
ipv4 allocation. Seems he is quite selective in what he says. But it
seems also pretty clear that perceiving himself to have been slighted by
the keepers of ipv4, he went out and "invented" a whole new ip system.....
ipv8 to replace the ipv4 that he perceived to be corrupt. Since then he
has been determined at any cost to destroy those whom he believes to have
wronged him.
Let me make one other thing clear. If someone at the internic had
actually "made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC
become millionaires," NSI would have been terribly stupid not to have fired
that person sumarily. Some may hate NSI, but I have yet to see a strong
consensus that believes they are stupid.
Jim's whole piece in all its glory can be found at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-2.htm
Fleming writes:
Besides NAPLPS, Jim Fleming and Unir Corporation have been involved
in the Registry Industry since 1982 when Unir Corporation was formed. At
that time, Unir Corporation began selling unique 32 bit integers with framed
certificates to be used by individuals on communication networks. This was
likely the first commercial registry for network addresses in the world.
Between 1984 and 1992, Jim Fleming and Unir Corporation assisted AT&T
Bell Labs in the development of a distributed, object-oriented network
platform
based on the C+@ (cat) Programming Language, which has historical ties to
Java.
In 1995, Jim Fleming became involved in the public aspects of Internet
Governance
when a Manager at the InterNIC informed Jim Fleming that he did not have
enough
experience with communication networks to be delegated IPv4 addresses and
made it clear that people that "play ball" with the InterNIC become
millionaires.
For the past three years, Jim Fleming has worked, largely full-time, trying
to help open
up the Registry Industry so that people do not have to play ball with the
InterNIC.
During that time, he has developed the IPv8 Plan which encompasses Address
Management, a Transport Protocol and an overall approach to Internet
Governance.
It is based on the simple concept of a "structured root".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("kimh@ari...
Date: 4/17/98 12:00am
Subject: catching flemings lies (was) RE: ARIN Board Expanded ?
Fleming:
>By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
>and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
>
Cook: I am not and never have been Kim's consultant. I have never
received any money or gratuities of any kind from ARIN and i have no
expectation of recieving any.
and that includes newsletter subscriptions. ARIN has never been a subscriber.
Not that you give a damn jimmy.
Fleming:
>As I have mentioned, RIPE is getting into the TLD business to broaden
>their base.
Cook: false. karenberg corrected the record here a few days ago, but
fleming cruises on and ignores the correction.
Dave crocker: ya know what, the only way to deal with Typhoid Jim is
indeed to ignore him. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. SO jim continue your lies,
and spread your slander.... hope fully these threads have been all the
education that IRA and Becky need to filter you to dev/nul.
>-
>Jim Fleming
>Unir Corporation
>IBC, Tortola, BVI
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: 4/7/98 11:55am
Subject: Re: PAB comments on Domain Name System hearing
Kent,
Absolutely superd submission. Well written, entirely on point, and
thoroughly correct.
Thanks!
d/
________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: Becky Burr <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com>
Date: 4/16/98 3:27pm
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
At 09:13 AM 4/16/98 -0700, Tom Glover wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>> Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
>Jim has never had a grasp of anything. Especially reality.
Honest, folks. All that is accomplished by sending these notes is to
encourage Jim further. It truly does not matter whether the content of the
message is positive or negative. Any activity encourages him.
Absolutely the only course of action that stands any chance of reducing the
irritation he causes is to simply ignore (and filter) him.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("abenhase@gte.net")
Date: 4/16/98 12:56pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:21 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>You know Jim,
>
>Your commentaries are amusing at some very low
>primate levels, and would ultimately be better
>served (and commented upon) on the alt.fan.comedy
>newsgroup. Give it a rest would you, and leave
>this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
I've removed Jim from this note.
He is well known, on a large number of mailing lists, for his frequent and
peculiar postings. He is among the interesting set of personalities which
thrive on ANY response from others. No effort at reasonable or forceful
tone and no amount of correction to his errors has any effect.
The only thing that stands any chance of working, with such personalities,
is to ignore them. Utterly and completely. Simply do not respond.
This is greatly facilitated by setting up an email receipt filter which
automatically moves all messages from him into the trash.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@BUNYIP.COM>
Date: 4/23/98 12:14pm
Subject: The DNS is not a directory
At 10:18 AM 4/23/98 -0400, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>DNS is currently used as a directory system. To quote the
>line from E.T. "this is reality, Greg". You may not like
Peter,
The DNS is used less as a directory system than current mythology claims.
In fact, I claim it isn't used as a directory system at all.
The fact that, for example, you can use the name of my company and guess my
web address does encourage people to think of the DNS as a directory
service -- i.e., as a mechanism for doing searching -- but it is
technically wrong and it fails frequently. In addition, the limited extent
to which people believe their current use of the DNS is the same as a
directory service is based on a phenomenon which doesn't scale.
Here's why:
1. The "searching" is done by the user (or the user's client software),
not the DNS. The user guesses a specific domain name. If they guess
correctly, they win. If they guess incorrectly, they get to guess again.
In contrast with a true directory service, they are never given a list of
multiple hits from which to choose.
2. Most of the successful pseudo-directory use of the DNS today is
predicated on having the domain name end in .com. (If you know enough
about the organization you can sometimes guess .edu or .org correctly; it
is very rare to guess .net correctly and even more rare to choose between
.net and .com, when there is the same second-level domain under both.)
Besides the high rate of failure for the .com "heuristic" just within the
set of gTLDs, it ignores the 200+ ccTLDs, much to the irritation of the
rest of the world. (There is an IMAP email client, called Simeon, made by
Esys. Quick. Guess their domain name.)
3. As the number of domain names grows, one or both of two phenomena
happen: For a new registrant the name that is most appropriate to choose
is unfortunately already taken, so now you must choose one that is less
appropriate. That ALWAYS means harder to guess. And/or adding top-level
domains makes guessing the right TLD impossible.
d/
ps. As I've commented to you privately, I think that the whois++ concept
is quite wonderful, since it allows laying a relational data model on top
of a hierarchical (and other) storage mechanism. That is exactly what the
DNS is, and so it would be a very interesting exercise, indeed, to develop
a whois++ layer on top of the DNS. That new layer very much WOULD BE a
directory service. Even better, this added functionality can be created
incrementally, without disturbing the installed base of data or service.
That's would be an stunning accomplishment and exactly what the Internet
loves, since we like to protect the installed base.
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("arin-cou...
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Date: 4/23/98 11:37pm
Subject: Re: The DNS is not a directory
At 12:08 PM 4/24/98 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
>If you define a directory system as a system that gives multiple hits,
>you are definitely right. But the technical view that "it doesn't always
>work, so it's useless" is completely wrong. This is an user interface
My definition was in terms of taking "search" specifications, rather than
"lookup" specifications. The simplest distinction is whether you are
permitted to do partial specifications for a key. For directories, you
are. For mapping services like the DNS, you are not.
Hence this is much different from a user interface issue; it pertains to
the definition of the underlying functional engine.
>Also, it's important to understand that currently, doing a search
>in a yellowpage-like search engine takes significantly more time
>than guessing, including the time it takes to get the search page,
The fact that searching takes time is the reason we do not want to
postulate a real directory service as a replacement for the DNS, in the
middle of every email and web reference.
>So such a search always looses to an estimated 2-3 guesses (most
>probably even 4-5 guesses), and it definitely always looses to
So the basic rule is that a search engine is faster than guessing, if the
guessing isn't trivial. I agree. (Quick. What is the url for Southwest
Airlines?)
>The ccTLDs are not a problem. I have "guessed" many domain names in
>Switzerland and Japan, the countries I am familliar with. If you
>wouldn't live in the US, I don't think you would see that as a big
>problem.
I'll let you know in a couple of months, but I've already been told by
others in other countries that they find things like the web browser
default guessing of .com to be quite maddening.
>I agree that it's absolutely unclear how guessing might scale with
>more TLDs, but one thing is rather clear: If it doesn't, and there
I wasn't claiming that it was unclear how well guessing scaled. I am
claiming that it doesn't scale. The only thing that is unclear is at what
scaling point it fails. (By many measures, it already has.)
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: Peter Deutsch <peterd@BUNYIP.COM>
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: Patrik F
Date: 4/24/98 10:22am
Subject: Re: The DNS is not a directory
At 08:06 AM 4/24/98 +0200, Patrik F„ltstr”m wrote:
>I definitely claim that the DNS is a directory system which can handle
>lookups, not searches.
Patrik,
you are correct.
the reason for making the distinction in terminology is that most people
participating in these types of discussion use the term generically and do
not draw the search/lookup distinction. as often happens, it is necessary
to modify use of the formal, technical term to suit what works for a larger
audience.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: Peter Deutsch <peterd@BUNYIP.COM>
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@DOORSTEP.UNETY.NET>
Date: 4/16/98 12:54pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:21 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>You know Jim,
>
>this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
>certain that everyone here agrees with me.
Not really. I thought ARIN Force One was hysterical.
Waiting for my ride, I remain,
yours sincerely.
CC: "'Gordon Cook'" <cook@netaxs.com>
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: "Jim Fleming" <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/16/98 2:35pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:57 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>Enough said...this is exactly what I mean;
>obviously others do not feel the same way that I
>do....
>
>Possibly the first iteration was amusing, but Jim
>just can not seem to stop himself there. He has to
>continue until he gets people annoyed.
>
>-Andrew
This argument has arisen on every mailing list I've ever been on
in 15 years, and the only ting that seems to work is "if you
don't like it, don't read it. Delete it, or filter it out".
Complaints about poeple and the subsequent meta-deiscussions
about poeple complaining about people complaining about
poeple are usually worse than the original person folks
are complaiing about.
I'll say no more about this.
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("arin-cou...
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/24/98 10:52am
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
At 03:44 PM 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>
>> It might help if you put together 6 or 8 servers and watch
>> the packets flowing and how the whole thing works. You
>> might be surprised.
>
>What difference would that make to the policy of not allowing people to
>just create their own TLDs, and (by your own admission) need to specifically
>ask each 'Cluster' owner to host them for me?? Still seems like a crazy
>idea.
>
>Owain
Scientific thinking means that if we are faced with a problem, we
approach it without preconceived ideas and sentiments like fear, greed
and hatred. We approach it with a cool head and collect data which we
eventually try to fit together. This is all there is to it. It may
sound simple and easy. What makes it difficult is the fact that our
brain is not made to search for truth. It is but another organ of
survival like fangs or claws, so the brain does not search for truth,
but for advantage. It tries to make us accept this truth, what is only
self interest, allowing our thoughts to be dominated by our desires.
-Biochemist Szent-Gyorgyi on Scientific Thinking
"Moderation is a fatal thing: Nothing succeeds like excess." - Oscar Wilde
"It is surprising what a man can do when he has to, and how little most
men do when they don't have to." - Walter Linn
"Testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but it is
hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence." - E. W. Dijkstra.
I dread success. To have succeeded is to have finished one's business
on earth, like the male spider, who is killed by the female the moment
he has succeeded in his courtship. I like a state of continual
becoming, with a goal in front and not behind.
-- George Bernard Shaw
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will
walk carefully.
-- Russian Proverb
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right
thing to do. The hard part is doing it." - Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Pressure creates short-term possibilities, long-term concerns.
- Anon.
"Government is not a reason, not an eloquence; it is a force. Like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-p...
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
Date: 4/27/98 9:11am
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root
At 11:15 AM 4/27/98 +0000, you wrote:
>OK, you are forcing me to reply.
Yeah, there's a gun to my head, too.
>How can anyone have a normal discussion with Jim Fleming??:
By phone: +1 (630) 717-1072
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-p...
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/27/98 9:10am
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
At 11:05 AM 4/27/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>> Point your second DNS server entry to noc.mhsc.com and
>> it'll resolve nicely.
>
>Why should I?? For all I know noc.mhsc.com could contain bogus entries for
>exiting domains. They could claim they were authoratative for .COM and
>then make up all the enties for SUN.COM, SGI.COM etc.. and point the
>mail and webserver addresses anywhere they wanted. No thanks.
Isn't that like saying "I don't like asparagus so I'm not going to try it".
I'm tryig to figure out who has a vested interest in making the network
notwork.
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-p...
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/15/98 9:24pm
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
>At 08:12 PM 4/14/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>Steve, for one thing I wonder what relevence Flemings slander regarding
>>ARIN and IP numbers has to the subject of this list?
>
>Hi Gordon,
>
>While I know very little about IP address assignments, I
>*have* heard persistent rumors that they have historically
>(pre-ARIN) been used as leverage over ISPs. If this is true,
>then there is a direct relationship to the DNS debate.
>
Rumors is what they are and were as I tried to explain to you this morning,
apparently unsuccessfuilly. If you are going to leave the door open for
BBURR@ntia.doc.gov to think that someone who here-to-fore has had a highly
responsible and intelligent role in the DNS side of this debate (yourself)
now wants to appraise her that maybe Fleming's research is valid while its
only his solutions are whacky, you are not being helpful to any of us in
the internet. I hope that one or more members of this list who are senior
to me (and there are many) will step forward and help to convince you that
those conclusions of yours are misguided.
As I told you this morning before bringing this subject up, it would have
been wise to read several tens of megabytes of traffic of CIDR-d and its
impact on IPv4 address space management along with its impact on the issue
of route agregation and route announcements to the defaultless core, and
the tremendous arguments over whether to make this a current best practice.
This all happened between roughly early 1993 and mid 1995. Yes it gave
leverage, but yes what was also done was done because IT HAD to be done to
allow the internet to continue to grow. Other than from Flemings
vituperative pen, it has not been a significant issue for more that two
years.
>The first time I heard these rumors was when I was trying
>to promote eDNS to some local ISPs. It appeared that they
>were afraid to break ranks with the IANA et al, and that
>they were IAHC supporters for the same reason.
>
>Now I don't know if these rumors are true, but I suspect
>that NTIA should at least be aware of the allegations.
So while I must conclude that I am not a big fan of IANA, I must ask why on
earth Jay to you feel compelled to come back to this list that deals with
DNS policy and raise 'rumors' about 'appearances' of being 'afraid'? To
the best of my knowledge you have not walked out on the end of limbs like
this before. Therefore it is especially disturbing to hear you raise
issues which have been for the most part decided and forgotten, but now in
the context of Flemings and Denninger's current attack on ARIN, are highly
inflamatory. Destroy an independent ISP controlled system for IP number
allocation and you will compell NTIA to take over IP allocation, a task for
which it has zero qualification. Under conditions like that DNS registries
will go no where because the internet itself will be running into a brick
wall. the telcos however will be happy because this will be a first step
toward governmnet regulation and control of the internet.
I thought i knew you fairly well and i am flabergasted to see you
apparently compelled to actions that give the appearance of endorsing the
current destructive attacks on ARIN. Besides, as has already been said
here today, comments like yours, if you must raise them, belong on NAIPR
not on this list!!
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>
###
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("domain-policy@open-rsc.org")
Date: 4/16/98 1:10am
Subject: Re: IP-block fees, ARIN, and the GP Process
Jay I have just forwarded you a dozen messages from naipr which you are not
reading...these should enlightened you as to my remarks about who is
interested in destroying arin.
now will you please honor stef's request to take this OFFLINE!?
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("amr@chao...
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@DOORSTEP.UNETY.NET>
Date: 4/16/98 12:54pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:21 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>You know Jim,
>
>this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
>certain that everyone here agrees with me.
Not really. I thought ARIN Force One was hysterical.
Waiting for my ride, I remain,
yours sincerely.
CC: "'Gordon Cook'" <cook@netaxs.com>
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("abenhase@gte.net")
Date: 4/16/98 12:56pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:21 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>You know Jim,
>
>Your commentaries are amusing at some very low
>primate levels, and would ultimately be better
>served (and commented upon) on the alt.fan.comedy
>newsgroup. Give it a rest would you, and leave
>this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
I've removed Jim from this note.
He is well known, on a large number of mailing lists, for his frequent and
peculiar postings. He is among the interesting set of personalities which
thrive on ANY response from others. No effort at reasonable or forceful
tone and no amount of correction to his errors has any effect.
The only thing that stands any chance of working, with such personalities,
is to ignore them. Utterly and completely. Simply do not respond.
This is greatly facilitated by setting up an email receipt filter which
automatically moves all messages from him into the trash.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
CC: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>
###
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
To: "Jim Fleming" <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/16/98 2:35pm
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
At 12:57 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Andrew M. Benhase wrote:
>Enough said...this is exactly what I mean;
>obviously others do not feel the same way that I
>do....
>
>Possibly the first iteration was amusing, but Jim
>just can not seem to stop himself there. He has to
>continue until he gets people annoyed.
>
>-Andrew
This argument has arisen on every mailing list I've ever been on
in 15 years, and the only ting that seems to work is "if you
don't like it, don't read it. Delete it, or filter it out".
Complaints about poeple and the subsequent meta-deiscussions
about poeple complaining about people complaining about
poeple are usually worse than the original person folks
are complaiing about.
I'll say no more about this.
CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("arin-cou...
###
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com>
Date: 4/16/98 3:27pm
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
At 09:13 AM 4/16/98 -0700, Tom Glover wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>> Jim you're grasping again. ARIN doesn't pay Gordon or you.
>Jim has never had a grasp of anything. Especially reality.
Honest, folks. All that is accomplished by sending these notes is to
encourage Jim further. It truly does not matter whether the content of the
message is positive or negative. Any activity encourages him.
Absolutely the only course of action that stands any chance of reducing the
irritation he causes is to simply ignore (and filter) him.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 249 6205
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
###
From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
To: Recipient list suppressed
Date: 5/1/98 11:46am
Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
FYI:
>Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 03:27:00 -0400
>To: dns@ntia.doc.gov
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@iperdome.com>
>Subject: Media Bias and the NPRM
>Cc: Ira Magaziner, bburr@ntia.doc.gov,
> domain-policy@open-rsc.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>
> NOTE ==> This posting is being made part of the public
> record so that historians can better understand the forces
> that contributed to the foundations of Internet governance.
>
> It is also being copied to my private press list, which
> includes over 50 reporters that have been covering the
> Domain Name debate. Most of the major papers of record,
> news, and wire services are on this list.
>
> At some point in the future, this press list may also be
> made part of the public record.
>
>
>Last week, Reuters carried an Article titled:
>
> "EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>I quickly wrote an email to the editor because I thought the
>article was misleading and biased. Specifically, the title
>implied that the European Union had made some critical comments
>to the U.S. Government, yet the article was really just a bunch
>of critical comments from Don Heath, president of the ISOC.
>
>I went on to question his qualifications to speak for the
>entire European Union, and pointed out that he was one of the
>lead architects of the IAHC plan, now more formally known as
>the gTLD-MoU.
>
>I went on to applaud their coverage of this important topic,
>and suggested a more *balanced* coverage of the U.S. Green
>Paper process.
>
>Finally, I referenced a recent Green Paper proceeding that
>described in detail some very serious problems that exist today
>in Internet management, and some equally serious suggestions on
>some ways to improve them in the new IANA, Inc.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Iperdome.htm
>
>The following day, a Yahoo search showed that Reuters had
>changed the title of their article to:
>
> "INTERVIEW-EU reminds U.S. it doesn't own Internet"
>
>Unfortunately, this is an example of too little, too late.
>The original title had already been copied in hundreds of
>news outlets throughout the world, including News.com and Wired.
>
>Today, Associate Press ran an article titled:
>
> "White House to release new Internet management plan soon"
>
>While it is more accurate and less biased than the Reuters
>piece, it still fails to cover the real story behind this
>debate, nor the potentially profound implications of its
>outcome.
>
>So, while the U.S. Government trys to find serious solutions to
>some serious problems, the press has resorted to covering this
>debate from the ISOC perspective. Why?
>
>I don't know. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge. Maybe it's due
>to a powerful PR campaign. Whatever the reason, it may have a
>profound impact on our collective futures, and should be part
>of the public record.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
> -- A.J. Liebling----
###