- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 3:24 PM, Ben Black[SMTP:black@zen.cypher.net] wrote: @ kook fight in the parking lot at 3 o'clock after school! @ @ Ben, I missed where you fit into this picture. Can you fill everyone in ? Thanks... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

3 2

RE: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
by Jim Fleming 30 May '97

30 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 3:31 PM, Ben Black[SMTP:black@zen.cypher.net] wrote: @ i'm watching and laughing at you from the sidelines. @ @ On Thu, 29 May 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > On Thursday, May 29, 1997 3:24 PM, Ben Black[SMTP:black@zen.cypher.net] wrote: @ > @ kook fight in the parking lot at 3 o'clock after school! @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Ben, @ > @ > I missed where you fit into this picture. @ > Can you fill everyone in ? @ > @ > Thanks... @ > Enjoy the show, you have not seen anything yet. Stay tuned. Things are going to get better after July 4, 1997 and even better after July 4, 1998. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

2 1

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 29 May '97

29 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 2:18 PM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:edns@vrx.net] wrote: @ At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: <snip> @ @ The word around Washington is IAHC is in trouble. @ The promises made by the IAHC have not come to pass. Consumers are confused. Brokers are pre-registering duplicate names and no one seems to be concerned. The IAHC advocates appear to be endorsing these practices. Now, the people involved in the Registry Industry have to help clean up the mess. That appears to be the main activity at this point. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >* As to the author of the DNS, Paul often takes critical positions but I'm >not aware of his taking a specific stance against the IAHC plan. Perhaps you havn't looked, or asked. I asked him about it. There are things he likes and dislikes about both plans. Plus, he was quoted in Web Week in an interview where he said, more or less the same thing. >>which is enough to render it useless. > > How easily you ignore the many and diverse signatories. The only parties that accepted the initial reccommendation without reservation were British Telcom and the country of China. Stunning examples of social responsability, both. There are just too many people I know and respect (none of whom are players in this game, or who you could classify as "pirates" yo ho ho) that have been around the net a long time and have contibuted to it in no small way that think the plan you've put forth is just plain evil. >>Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise > > You seem to forget that that is exactly what the IAHC was. After 2 >years of failed effort, IANA asked the IAHC to formulate a compromise plan. >We did. It is now being implemented. Yeah, and I planted a mango tree in the backyard. All it has to do now is grow. The word around Washington is IAHC is in trouble. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

1 0

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 29 May '97

29 May '97

On Thursday, May 29, 1997 2:02 PM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:edns@vrx.net] wrote: @ At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: @ @ >* Having NSI take an antagonistic role is hardly noteworthy, given that @ >they are desperately trying to preserve their windfall revenue stream. @ @ So rather to than try to fix that or thaw out the $20 million dollar @ "Internet Intellectual Infastructure Fund", you want to hand over @ registration to a small number of large companies who may or may @ not have anything previously to do with DNS ? @ @ It looks to me like you're saying "windfall is bad. Unless it's @ ours, then it's ok". @ @ Good lord, you had the man who can write chesks against that @ account on your committee, and it looks to me like it would fund @ domain regsitrations for two centuries. We'll still have to PAY @ for domain names, and by all acounts, MORE. @ @ This, in a word, stinks, Dave. @ @ Shame. @ Keep in mind that people at the National Science Foundation are sometimes "planted" there from other places. They keep their academic salaries and get paid by the NSF.[1] The U.S. taxpayers pay into a common fund and then the NSF people spend their time giving this money to the people that they feel are the "right" people. In the Internet community, that is always the same group of people. Some people feel that this incestious situation is good for the Internet. In my opinion, it helps to keep the Internet from advancing. It is a socialistic, one-party system that does not tolerate any outside views. [1] @@@ http://www.eng.nsf.gov/news/job4-97.htm "April 8, 1997 NSF's Directorate for Engineering announced today that it is conducting a nationwide search... Most Division Directors serve NSF for two to four years... Appointment may be on a temporary or permanent basis in the Federal Service or by temporary assignment under provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Assignment (IPA) Act. The Federal salary for Division Directors ranges from $103,897 to $123,100. IPA assignees from academe retain their university salary and benefits, with cost sharing negotiated between the Foundation and the home institution." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

1 0

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >* Having NSI take an antagonistic role is hardly noteworthy, given that >they are desperately trying to preserve their windfall revenue stream. So rather to than try to fix that or thaw out the $20 million dollar "Internet Intellectual Infastructure Fund", you want to hand over registration to a small number of large companies who may or may not have anything previously to do with DNS ? It looks to me like you're saying "windfall is bad. Unless it's ours, then it's ok". Good lord, you had the man who can write chesks against that account on your committee, and it looks to me like it would fund domain regsitrations for two centuries. We'll still have to PAY for domain names, and by all acounts, MORE. This, in a word, stinks, Dave. Shame. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

1 0

Re: [off-topic] old NSFNET regionals?
by Sean Donelan 29 May '97

29 May '97

The NSFNET Mid-level networks, and contacts who have likely moved on to other duties, jobs, lives, listed in the 1990 Internet Manager's Phonebook. Network Contact in 1990, where are they now? BARRNET Paul Baer CERFNET Susan Estrada CICNET Joel Maloff, Dana Sitzler CREN/CSNET Karen Roubicek JVNCNET Sergio Heker LOS NETTOS Walt Prune, Ann Westine MERIT Eric Aupperle, Hans-Werner Braun MIDNET Mary Beadslee, Dale Finkelson MRNET Tim Salo, Jaff Wabik NCSANET Charlie Catlett, Joel Replogle NEARNET John Rugo NORTHWESTNET Don Jordt, Dick Markwood NYSERNET Richard Mandelbaum, Bill Schrader OARNET Alison Brown, Michael Fidler, Jeff Grumpf PREPNET Thomas Bajzek PSCNET Beverly Clayton, Eugene Hastings, Mike Levine SDSCNET Paul Love, Gerard Newman SESQUINET Guy Almes, Farrell Gerbode SURANET Jack Hahn, Glenn Ricart THENET William Bard, Tracy LaQuey USAN Joe Choy, Don Morris VERNET Phil Bowden, Ben Cline WESTNET Pat Burns, Carol Ward, David Wood -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation

4 3

Re: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Richard J. Sexton 29 May '97

29 May '97

At 08:51 AM 5/29/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 8:08 AM -0700 5/29/97, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>At IETF San Jose, my nuderstanding is they thought Eugene should move >>forward with .alt in recognition of the work he had done, and take it from >>there. > > I don't know what "they" you are referring to, but there has been >no IETF statement or direction concerning this matter. There certainly has >been no direction to Eugene to do a .alt or any other activity. You'd have to ask Eugene. He was there, I wasn't. He called me form ther with this tidbit. > As noted, the term "pirate" is rather precisely correct since it >refers to those who try to take over that which is not theirs. Really ? Who does it "belong" to then ? How is it expanded upon? You seem to vascilate between "It's a public resource" (in whcih case can the public not add to it") and "IANA owns it" (in which case there are problems). >The DNS has >been a well-running service on the Internet "seas" for many years. It has >an established administrative authority and structure. That authority has >requested change and the IAHC was the agent of that request. The work by >the "other folks" is quite simply an attempt to replace the established >authority and structure with another one. There was once a time when the entire Internet accepted IANA's authotiry. However, since the day NSI began charigng for domain names and IANA did nothing, the confidence in IANA has been eroded. "Taxation without representation" comes to mind. > Given the importance of DNS operational stability, the recent >demise of the latest pirate effort can only make one wonder at the idea of >allowing them to be in the critical path of such a critical resource. > >>Along came IAHC and the shit hit the fan. > > It hit the fan months earlier. The IAHC was created to try to turn >some of it into fertilizer and grow a workable path. And failed, being rejected by: US GOV't NSI Major ISP's Author of the DNS itself which is enough to render it useless. Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise workable solution? Nobody has one yet, and 4 or 5 islands of DNS-dom is insane. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR

6 7

RE: Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM
by Jim Fleming 29 May '97

29 May '97

On Wednesday, May 28, 1997 1:15 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] wrote: @ Jimmy, @ @ >Some folks from Japan once suggested that Japan have @ >their own Root Name Server Confederation. @ @ No, they have a root nameserver. @ They do ? which root name server would that be ? Is APNIC now hosting a root name server ? P.S. Keep in mind that a Root Name Server Confederation is a collection of Root Name Servers. The new ISI/NSI confederation that is being built just moved one of its nameservers to the control of RIPE and it is located in London, England. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp

11 16

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Vadim Antonov 29 May '97

29 May '97

smd(a)clock.org (Sean M. Doran) wrote: >It's sad that apparently the Internet has evolved to the >point where politicians move faster than standards-makers. I beg to disagree. The Internet has evolved to the point where politicans make standards. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed. Windows at 11. --vadim

2 1