i am just curious... do you have any authority/commission from arin (or anyone else)?
this is certainly not flame bait, but it is an honest question. you're very self-righteous, and although you may have valid points (i withold judgement) i really want to know what gives you the right/authority to say the things you say about others.
Honest question, honest answer. You seem to be looking for a command and control hierarchy where none exists. This is more like a free market economy of ideas and projects. In other words, anyone can start up something and offer it to the networking community. Projects succeed or fail based on whether they find market acceptance within the economy of ideas. Please note that this free market economy of ideas is not the same thing as the free market economy of commerce; it just shares some of the same patterns. William is not alone here. Paul Vixie started MAPS in the same way, i.e. he had no authority to do it but just offered it to the economy of ideas. And Paul's entrepreneurial inclination have led him to do other projects in the commercial economy, some of which started life in the economy of ideas. Rob Thomas's Cymru project is another example and the various route server and IRR projects are also examples. Nobody gave the IRR people the authority to manage BGP4 routes; they just thought it was a good idea and offered it in the economy of ideas. Many Internet exchange points started life in the same way and I believe there are still a lot of smaller ones that exist in the economy of ideas, i.e. non-commercial. I may not agree with everything that William does or how he goes about it, but I do think that his approach is worthwhile. It gives us a chance to see a prototype of something that could be either incorporated into ARIN or commercialized in the future. By the way, ARIN, and the IANA before it, both started life in the economy of ideas. The only reason that ARIN is in the position that it now holds is that the networking community liked what they saw and supported it. There really was no "authority" that created ARIN. There was a lot of initiative from members of the networking community who lobbied the various power brokers of the time to demonstrate that ISPs supported an address resgistry that was entirely independent from domain name registries. Once it became clear that the only dissenters came from outside the industry and were confusing addressing and domain name issues, those groups who felt that they had authority in the matter, blessed the plans to create ARIN, and we went ahead with it. Even here, there was no command and control that gave ARIN its commission. On the contrary, there was a lot of bottom-up pressure that finally coalesced and ARIN was obviously the right thing to do. --Michael Dillon (one of the original members of the ARIN Advisory Council)
This group didn't need anyones permission to form and share idea's and methods that benefits the entire industry, and it was in the time of great need when these things came to pass.... I see the word's law and legislation and I see people without a clue making law that only benefits those that pay them and harm the rest. The solution is within the community of network people, not congress or any other legislator, there are 40,000 gun laws yet people get shot every day and die. There is good fortune sometimes for those that develop these systems and tools that is a byproduct of effort, sometimes these turn into flourishing enterprises because there really is no-one that can provide support on an ongoing basis. I support good original innovation that is beneficial in the near term and the long term to the industry. -Henry Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
i am just curious... do you have any authority/commission from arin (or anyone else)?
this is certainly not flame bait, but it is an honest question. you're very self-righteous, and although you may have valid points (i withold judgement) i really want to know what gives you the right/authority to say the things you say about others.
Honest question, honest answer. You seem to be looking for a command and control hierarchy where none exists. This is more like a free market economy of ideas and projects. In other words, anyone can start up something and offer it to the networking community. Projects succeed or fail based on whether they find market acceptance within the economy of ideas. Please note that this free market economy of ideas is not the same thing as the free market economy of commerce; it just shares some of the same patterns. William is not alone here. Paul Vixie started MAPS in the same way, i.e. he had no authority to do it but just offered it to the economy of ideas. And Paul's entrepreneurial inclination have led him to do other projects in the commercial economy, some of which started life in the economy of ideas. Rob Thomas's Cymru project is another example and the various route server and IRR projects are also examples. Nobody gave the IRR people the authority to manage BGP4 routes; they just thought it was a good idea and offered it in the economy of ideas. Many Internet exchange points started life in the same way and I believe there are still a lot of smaller ones that exist in the economy of ideas, i.e. non-commercial. I may not agree with everything that William does or how he goes about it, but I do think that his approach is worthwhile. It gives us a chance to see a prototype of something that could be either incorporated into ARIN or commercialized in the future. By the way, ARIN, and the IANA before it, both started life in the economy of ideas. The only reason that ARIN is in the position that it now holds is that the networking community liked what they saw and supported it. There really was no "authority" that created ARIN. There was a lot of initiative from members of the networking community who lobbied the various power brokers of the time to demonstrate that ISPs supported an address resgistry that was entirely independent from domain name registries. Once it became clear that the only dissenters came from outside the industry and were confusing addressing and domain name issues, those groups who felt that they had authority in the matter, blessed the plans to create ARIN, and we went ahead with it. Even here, there was no command and control that gave ARIN its commission. On the contrary, there was a lot of bottom-up pressure that finally coalesced and ARIN was obviously the right thing to do. --Michael Dillon (one of the original members of the ARIN Advisory Council)
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:28:05 PST, bill said:
Sorry Mr Bush. We derive our authority from the old IANA, who assigned out the exiting roots.
No, that's who *appointed* you. However, you derive your actual authority from all the named.ca hints files that point to you.
On 15 Dec 2003, at 21:31, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:28:05 PST, bill said:
Sorry Mr Bush. We derive our authority from the old IANA, who assigned out the exiting roots.
No, that's who *appointed* you. However, you derive your actual authority from all the named.ca hints files that point to you.
Actually from the NS set in the root zone served by the first server in the hints file to respond to a query, and thereafter, as cached records expire, from the nameserver in that NS set that happens to be queried for an update, and responds. In general, coherent and stable authority results from both the fact that the same NS set for root is carried by all the root servers, and also the fact that hints files don't include the addresses of servers which respond differently. Coherency in the root's NS set as served by all root nameservers is derived from the replication procedure which distributes a single zone specified by IANA. Coherency in the hints file is derived from the fact that most (all?) DNS server vendors ship with data derived from IANA, combined with the fact that the hints file doesn't change much (and hence rapid field-updates are largely unnecessary). So, Bill's IANA answer sounds pretty good to me. Joe
See Form and Substance in Cyberspace, 6 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 93 (2002), available online http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf (especially pp. 119-122 ("The role of the root server operators")) and more generally Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution, 50 Duke L.J. 17 (2000), available online http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Doug Luce wrote:
An interesting question I've dealt with a few times:
From whom do the root nameservers derive their authority?
Doug
-- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--
An interesting question I've dealt with a few times:
From whom do the root nameservers derive their authority?
we (i'm speaking for f-root here) have no "authority". nobody has to listen to us, we are the most powerless bunch of folks you'll ever meet. now if you'd asked where we derive our *relevance*, i'd say the same as mr. bush and mr. kletnieks -- from all the root.cache files that point at us. and as long as we don't do anything stupid i guess (and hope) that this state of affairs will continue. (relevance trumps authority.) that having been said, f-root got its start as NS.ISC.ORG and the man who said it was ok for us to be a root name server was jon postel. i'm not sure he had any "authority" either, but folks "pointed at" him and so what he said was relevant in spite of any authority he mightn've had. -- Paul Vixie
On 16.12 07:14, Paul Vixie wrote:
we (i'm speaking for f-root here) have no "authority". nobody has to listen to us, we are the most powerless bunch of folks you'll ever meet.
now if you'd asked where we derive our *relevance*, i'd say the same as mr. bush and mr. kletnieks -- from all the root.cache files that point at us. and as long as we don't do anything stupid i guess (and hope) that this state of affairs will continue. (relevance trumps authority.)
that having been said, f-root got its start as NS.ISC.ORG and the man who said it was ok for us to be a root name server was jon postel. i'm not sure he had any "authority" either, but folks "pointed at" him and so what he said was relevant in spite of any authority he mightn've had.
Amen! This also holds for k-root and is so well put that I will not paraphrase it just for the sake of putting it differently. It is worth reading again! Daniel
Paul Vixie wrote:
An interesting question I've dealt with a few times:
From whom do the root nameservers derive their authority?
we (i'm speaking for f-root here) have no "authority". nobody has to listen to us, we are the most powerless bunch of folks you'll ever meet.
now if you'd asked where we derive our *relevance*, i'd say the same as mr. bush and mr. kletnieks -- from all the root.cache files that point at us. and as long as we don't do anything stupid i guess (and hope) that this state of affairs will continue. (relevance trumps authority.)
that having been said, f-root got its start as NS.ISC.ORG and the man who said it was ok for us to be a root name server was jon postel. i'm not sure he had any "authority" either, but folks "pointed at" him and so what he said was relevant in spite of any authority he mightn've had.
I think that testimony belongs in a collection of Jon Postel characterizations. I long for the days when people did things simply and only because they were the right thing to do. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Vixie.
Trying to remember back that far is quite a task <circa 1977 arpanet>, the greatest authority of the time was Jon Postal since he had the uncanny ability to remember all of the things that made it work, so when he spoke it was like Moses coming down from the mountain presenting the 10 commandments and everyone agreed it was good, at that time corporate greed and scheming scamming little weasels were not part of the community, and everything was based on trust because you really were a professional and you could trust the guy on the other end of the connection to be the same as you. By precedent over the years of use,the root home-servers established their own authority and everyone agreed it was the most stable approach, and is still the most stable approach since it does not require and use of resource to point routers and switches and router servers in any other direction which would impact business globally and cause a plethora of other problems that I would want to imagine -henry "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote: Paul Vixie wrote:
An interesting question I've dealt with a few times:
From whom do the root name servers derive their authority?
we (i'm speaking for f-root here) have no "authority". nobody has to listen to us, we are the most powerless bunch of folks you'll ever meet.
now if you'd asked where we derive our *relevance*, i'd say the same as mr. bush and mr. kletnieks -- from all the root.cache files that point at us. and as long as we don't do anything stupid i guess (and hope) that this state of affairs will continue. (relevance trumps authority.)
that having been said, f-root got its start as NS.ISC.ORG and the man who said it was ok for us to be a root name server was jon postel. i'm not sure he had any "authority" either, but folks "pointed at" him and so what he said was relevant in spite of any authority he mightn've had.
I think that testimony belongs in a collection of Jon Postel characterizations. I long for the days when people did things simply and only because they were the right thing to do. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Vixie.
participants (11)
-
bill -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Doug Luce -
Henry Linneweh -
Joe Abley -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Paul Vixie -
Randy Bush -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu