Sorry to bring this up, it may be out of the confines of the NANOG realm, but since the bulk of name lookups come from major network providers such as Sprint, MCI, UUnet and the rest, this seems like the logical place to post this. Over the past 10 months, there has been escalating talk about the new self appointed registries out there. Major news papers, magazines and other periodicals have been publishing that "the change is coming". Ultimately, the actual change rests at the hands of every user who runs a nameserver, for they are the ones who actually have the root server cache. A recent article in the Star Tribune, I believe stated that MCI is siding with the Internet Ad Hoc society and is going to support these new registries. Now, MCI is a major player in the US and if they actually DO start adding new root servers to their cache, there might be a major change in the Internet. I'm curious as to how many other network providers are even thinking about changing their root server caches just because some self appointed society tells them to. I'm confused as to how this sort of thing got SO out of control. I have yet to see an article anywhere countering these people. As a lot of you know, the Internet is all politics. What people see in real life really effects them when they go online. I have talked to a large number of people and they all believe that these new TLDs and registries will be appearing in the next 3 to 4 months. The people on this list have a tremendous amount of power to change the Internet, but unless you use this force in real life to educate the public, well... things like this will continue to happen. If the Internet Ad Hoc society actually does convince everyone to switch over, then there is a major problem. Does this mean any group of people who wants to make rules and can get enough publicity can make it happen without any sort of actual reasoning behind it? Can I declare an Internet tax and if I get enough magazines to print it, actually do it? This is a scary thought. Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
At 11:02 AM -0500 4/10/97, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
If the Internet Ad Hoc society actually does convince everyone to switch over, then there is a major problem. Does this mean any group of people who wants to make rules and can get enough publicity can make it happen
I'm not sure what "switch over" you refer to. The IAHC work that you refer to was done at the request and with the approval of IANA, the responsible agent for the existing DNS root. Implementation of the IAHC plan does not require changing the communities use of roots (i.e., no re-targeting) and the only change to the existing roots is the addition of some top-level domain points. Addition of TLDs has been done many times over the years. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 11:31:22AM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 11:02 AM -0500 4/10/97, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
If the Internet Ad Hoc society actually does convince everyone to switch over, then there is a major problem. Does this mean any group of people who wants to make rules and can get enough publicity can make it happen
I'm not sure what "switch over" you refer to. The IAHC work that you refer to was done at the request and with the approval of IANA, the responsible agent for the existing DNS root. Implementation of the IAHC plan does not require changing the communities use of roots (i.e., no re-targeting) and the only change to the existing roots is the addition of some top-level domain points. Addition of TLDs has been done many times over the years.
d/
---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org
Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
But the IANA does not own majority of those servers. In fact NSI owns many of them, and they do not appear to be consenting to this "work". In fact, the recent Reuters story indicates that they have every intention of releasing their *OWN* plan to resolve this issue. Since several of the root servers are THEIRS, and they appear to have their own plan, what does that say for the validity of the IAHC work Mr. Crocker? There is further the issue of the four which are federally funded in whole or part, and the fact that a plan which shuts out competing business models may well need congressional authorization (since it is a monopoly grant of power to a foreign organization and government) in order to be legal. Of course, none of this seems to bother the IAHC. Then again, the IAHC has failed to substantiate that any of the IANA servers will actually *implement* any of their recommendations. The root server operators have also been curiously silent on this same point. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger writes:
But the IANA does not own majority of those servers.
In fact NSI owns many of them,
One, operated as part of their cooperative agreement.
and they do not appear to be consenting to this "work".
I do not believe that their consent or lack thereof is an issue. NSI is a company doing a job under contract. I do not know if they do or do not believe otherwise, but that is not really material.
Then again, the IAHC has failed to substantiate that any of the IANA servers will actually *implement* any of their recommendations.
I was unaware that such documentation was needed. Perry Speaking for myself and not in an official capacity.
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 02:55:18PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Karl Denninger writes:
But the IANA does not own majority of those servers.
In fact NSI owns many of them,
One, operated as part of their cooperative agreement.
Really? Then why has Paul Vixie posted publically that f.root-servers.net was paid for in whole or part by NSI? How many others are paid for in whole or part by NSI? Perry, you're just dead wrong here.
and they do not appear to be consenting to this "work".
I do not believe that their consent or lack thereof is an issue. NSI is a company doing a job under contract. I do not know if they do or do not believe otherwise, but that is not really material.
Hehehe...
Then again, the IAHC has failed to substantiate that any of the IANA servers will actually *implement* any of their recommendations.
I was unaware that such documentation was needed.
Perry Speaking for myself and not in an official capacity.
Of course it is. You can recommend anything you want, but if you have nobody who will insert the pointers, its a worthless exercise in handwaving. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger writes:
will actually *implement* any of their recommendations.
I was unaware that such documentation was needed.
Of course it is. You can recommend anything you want, but if you have nobody who will insert the pointers, its a worthless exercise in handwaving.
Well, I know its in your interest as the eDNS Czar to create as much fear, uncertainty and doubt as possible, but this is getting really ridiculous. This is also really not the right forum for any of this. NANOG people have far better things to be talking about than wasting time on what is essentially a settled issue. Perry Speaking for myself, and not in an official capacity
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
But the IANA does not own majority of those servers.
In fact NSI owns many of them,
One, operated as part of their cooperative agreement.
Really? Then why has Paul Vixie posted publically that f.root-servers.net was paid for in whole or part by NSI?
My son has a book by Hergé, "The Blue Lotus" that was paid for in whole by my brother. My son now owns this book even though he did not pay for it because it was given to him as a birthday gift. Even though he owns the book, he will still tell people that my brother got it for him because that's the polite thing to do.
Of course it is. You can recommend anything you want, but if you have nobody who will insert the pointers, its a worthless exercise in handwaving.
And how is it that you became such an expert on worthless handwaving exercises? NOTE: replys to newdom@ar.com, subscribe to newdom-request@ar.com Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
Sorry to bring this up, it may be out of the confines of the NANOG realm, but since the bulk of name lookups come from major network providers such as Sprint, MCI, UUnet and the rest, this seems like the logical place to post this.
Over the past 10 months, there has been escalating talk about the new self appointed registries out there. Major news papers, magazines and other periodicals have been publishing that "the change is coming". Ultimately, the actual change rests at the hands of every user who runs a nameserver, for they are the ones who actually have the root server cache. A recent article in the Star Tribune, I believe stated that MCI is siding with the Internet Ad Hoc society and is going to support these new registries. Now, MCIis a major player in the US and if they actually DO start adding new root servers to their cache, there might be a major change in the Internet.
I'm curious as to how many other network providers are even thinking about changing their root server caches just because some self appointed society tells them to. I'm confused as to how this sort of thing got SO out of control. I have yet to see an article anywhere countering these people.
As a lot of you know, the Internet is all politics. What people see in real life really effects them when they go online. I have talked to a large number of people and they all believe that these new TLDs and registries will be appearing in the next 3 to 4 months.
The people on this list have a tremendous amount of power to change the Internet, but unless you use this force in real life to educate the public, well... things like this will continue to happen.
If the Internet Ad Hoc society actually does convince everyone to switch over, then there is a major problem. Does this mean any group of people who wants to make rules and can get enough publicity can make it happen without any sort of actual reasoning behind it? Can I declare an Internet tax and if I get enough magazines to print it, actually do it?
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months. You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April in Geneva at the ITU. No one is adding root servers and gTLDs as they wish. Please do not go by what you read in 3 paragraph newspaper articles since much of what is stated is inaccurate. Go to the site and go thru all the materials.
This is a scary thought.
Please read all background material.
Jordan
-- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 07:40:53PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months. You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April in Geneva at the ITU. No one is adding root servers and gTLDs as they wish. Please do not go by what you read in 3 paragraph newspaper articles since much of what is stated is inaccurate. Go to the site and go thru all the materials.
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
Where is the list of signatories Hank? Is it public? If not, why not? -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger writes:
Where is the list of signatories Hank?
Is it public?
If not, why not?
ROTFL! The list is public. Currently, it consists of the ISOC and IANA, which is sufficient for the MoU to come into force. The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal meeting being held for the purpose, to be hosted by the International Telecommunication Union at the end of the month. As has been mentioned, WIPO, ITU, INTA, MCI, UUNet, ISP/C, Digital, and other organizations have already announced that they intend to sign the MoU. Many other organizations have informally informed us that they intend to sign, but it would have been impractical to list more on a press release because every organization on a press release must sign off and approve the document. Perry
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:00:54PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Karl Denninger writes:
Where is the list of signatories Hank?
Is it public?
If not, why not?
ROTFL!
The list is public. Currently, it consists of the ISOC and IANA, which is sufficient for the MoU to come into force.
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ meeting being held for the purpose, to be hosted by the International Telecommunication Union at the end of the month. As has been mentioned, WIPO, ITU, INTA, MCI, UUNet, ISP/C, Digital, and other organizations have already announced that they intend to sign the MoU. Many other organizations have informally informed us that they intend to sign, but it would have been impractical to list more on a press release because every organization on a press release must sign off and approve the document.
Perry
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents. Intent and action are two different things Perry. So the truth is that there are *TWO* signatures, one of which is bogus as IANA isn't an organization (and thus can't sign anything as "IANA"; Mr. Postel can sign the document as *JON POSTEL*, but not as the "IANA" as it is a task, not an organization). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger writes:
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Karl, our press release said no such thing. It clearly stated that IANA and ISOC had signed the documents and the rest of the organizations would be signing at our formal ceremony in Geneva at the end of the month. It is not my fault that you systematically misinterpret virtually every statement that has been made. Perry
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 04:56:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Karl Denninger writes:
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Karl, our press release said no such thing. It clearly stated that IANA and ISOC had signed the documents and the rest of the organizations would be signing at our formal ceremony in Geneva at the end of the month. It is not my fault that you systematically misinterpret virtually every statement that has been made.
Perry
I wasn't talking about the press release. I was talking about Hank's pontification. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
At 2:23 PM -0500 4/10/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
So the truth is that there are *TWO* signatures, one of which is bogus as IANA isn't an organization (and thus can't sign anything as "IANA"; Mr.
well, no. the number of signatures is smaller, so far, than the number of statements of intent. surprise. you might choose to dismiss the latter, but I for one do not. True, they might change their mind, but most companies are quite careful about these statements of intent and reversing such a decision tends to be embarassing to them, so they avoid it. I don't remember the full list of who has signed, or who has stated intent. Among the set, in any event, are Deutsche Telecomm, WIDE, APNIC. Several ISOC chapters, too. INTA (trademark attorneys) also. The total that we've listed so far is probably half of the actual number. The public listing of these will no doubt come up to date over the next week. As Hank says, it's tough to keep the list current... d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows: Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements. In fact he included the following sig just to make it perfectly clear: Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members] He's also human and can make mistakes. Maybe since English is not the only language he uses in his daily work, he missed some of the subtlety inherent in the word "signatory".
So the truth is that there are *TWO* signatures, one of which is bogus as IANA isn't an organization (and thus can't sign anything as "IANA"; Mr. Postel can sign the document as *JON POSTEL*, but not as the "IANA" as it is a task, not an organization).
Jon Postel can sign any document he darn well pleases under whatever rubric he darn well pleases to use. In particular, it is well known that Jon Postel is the official voice of IANA and is the one who makes official statements for IANA. This MoU looks a lot like an official statement to me. NOTE: reply-to set to newdom@ar.com. To join send a "subscribe" message to newdom-request@ar.com Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:31:59PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows:
Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind.
Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements.
But he lied. The EFF has said they *HAVE NOT* signed. In fact, according to the other people involved, *NONE* of those so-called signatories are in fact signatories at this point in time.
He's also human and can make mistakes. Maybe since English is not the only language he uses in his daily work, he missed some of the subtlety inherent in the word "signatory".
There is no subtlety in the word "signatory".
So the truth is that there are *TWO* signatures, one of which is bogus as IANA isn't an organization (and thus can't sign anything as "IANA"; Mr. Postel can sign the document as *JON POSTEL*, but not as the "IANA" as it is a task, not an organization).
Jon Postel can sign any document he darn well pleases under whatever rubric he darn well pleases to use. In particular, it is well known that Jon Postel is the official voice of IANA and is the one who makes official statements for IANA. This MoU looks a lot like an official statement to me.
The IANA *DOES NOT EXIST* as an organization. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
At 6:21 PM -0500 4/10/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:31:59PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows:
Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind.
Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements.
But he lied. The EFF has said they *HAVE NOT* signed. In fact, according to the other people involved, *NONE* of those so-called signatories are in fact signatories at this point in time.
Karl, Please do not use the EFF as a basis of your argument. You and I both read the previous message where Hank indicated John Gilmore [EFF board member] was the one that indicated that EFF is ready to sign. thanks!
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 05:16:45PM -0700, Wayne D. Correia wrote:
At 6:21 PM -0500 4/10/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:31:59PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows:
Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind.
Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements.
But he lied. The EFF has said they *HAVE NOT* signed. In fact, according to the other people involved, *NONE* of those so-called signatories are in fact signatories at this point in time.
Karl,
Please do not use the EFF as a basis of your argument. You and I both read the previous message where Hank indicated John Gilmore [EFF board member] was the one that indicated that EFF is ready to sign.
thanks!
READY to sign and SIGNED are two different things. Further, Mr. Gilmore can say what he wants. Until he is *EMPOWERED* to sign on behalf of the EFF, he can't. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
At 6:21 PM -0500 4/10/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
But he lied.
Thank you Karl. Such moderated and well-substantiated language encourages one and all to take your comments seriously.
The IANA *DOES NOT EXIST* as an organization.
Thank you Karl. Your persistence in such careful assertions encourages one and all to take your comments seriously. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows:
Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind.
Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements.
But he lied. The EFF has said they *HAVE NOT* signed.
There you go again. One guy from the EFF says something and you claim that this is equivalent to an official statement of the EFF.
In fact, according to the other people involved, *NONE* of those so-called signatories are in fact signatories at this point in time.
So what. That's not a good enough reason to call him a liar. I'm sure there are dozens of statements that you have made on various mailing lists that are provably incorrect. Does that make you a liar? Sheesh...
He's also human and can make mistakes. Maybe since English is not the only language he uses in his daily work, he missed some of the subtlety inherent in the word "signatory".
There is no subtlety in the word "signatory".
Maybe not for you. But for someone who spends everyday working in another language like Hank does, I generally cut them some slack on language subtleties irregardless of their native language. I am a native speaker of English and didn't learn another language until I was ten but I have still caught myself making mistakes in English that I can track down to quirks of the other languages that I speak.
rubric he darn well pleases to use. In particular, it is well known that Jon Postel is the official voice of IANA and is the one who makes official statements for IANA. This MoU looks a lot like an official statement to me.
The IANA *DOES NOT EXIST* as an organization.
So what. If I want to go and open a Bank account in the name of the International Institute for Internet Investors then I don't need anything other than my own signature on a piece of paper. Since the name does not have Corp., Inc., Ltd., Society, or Association in it, it is clear that it has no legal existence but I can still open a bank account, write checks, buy letterhead, register a domain, etc. If I manage to create a reputation for the activities of the IIII (IV for short :-) then people will accept my signature beside the name of the IIII for based on that reputation. That's what Jon's signature means on the MoU when it is beside the name of IANA. Nothing more, nothing less. People are free to disagree and refrain from signing the memorandum. And they are free to publicly state their agreement by adding their signature to the document. It's not a contract or a treaty, but a public statement by those who sign it. It does not prevent anyone who does NOT sign it from doing whatever they wish, up to and including the creation of an alternative root domain for the DNS. Your creation of the eDNS is evidence enough that this is so. While there are many of us that will lobby hard to get people to support IAHC and to NOT support eDNS, I haven't heard anyone call for you to be shut down or to stop eDNS from operating or from moving forward with their plans. It's a free world. You do your thing, the IAHC will do theirs, and the users of the Internet, singly and en masse, will choose the winner or winners. Note that this is *NOT* a zero-sum game even if the DNS technology seems to imply zero-sum on the surface. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:31:59PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
The rest of the organizations that have announced an intent to sign at a formal ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The IAHC has said they *SIGNED* the documents.
Intent and action are two different things Perry.
Grow up Karl! Hank Nussbacher said as follows:
Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, FranceTelecom, EFF, are others that come to mind.
Hank is only one member of the IAHC and does not issue official statements.
But he lied. The EFF has said they *HAVE NOT* signed. In fact, according to the other people involved, *NONE* of those so-called signatories are in fact signatories at this point in time.
I made a mistake - I left off the word "intended" before the word signatories. Working 14 hour days has its effect. Nanog will hear no more from me on this.
He's also human and can make mistakes. Maybe since English is not the only language he uses in his daily work, he missed some of the subtlety inherent in the word "signatory".
There is no subtlety in the word "signatory".
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 07:40:53PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months. You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April in Geneva at the ITU. No one is adding root servers and gTLDs as they wish. Please do not go by what you read in 3 paragraph newspaper articles since much of what is stated is inaccurate. Go to the site and go thru allthe materials.
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
Where is the list of signatories Hank?
Is it public?
Of course it is: http://www.itu.int/net-itu/dnsmeet/ The list is not up to date since we can't keep up with all the positive responses. We did manage to get Globecomm in and will continue to update the page of signatories as time permits.
If not, why not?
-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOWServing 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
At 7:40 PM +0300 4/10/97, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months. You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April in Geneva at the ITU. No one is adding root servers and gTLDs as they wish. Please do not go by what you read in 3 paragraph newspaper articles since much of what is stated is inaccurate. Go to the site and go thru all the materials.
I am still trying to figure out how or why the EFF was listed as a signer. It's true that a couple of us did have a long conversation with Jon Postel about the issues and the IAHC's efforts, but we were searching for the facts. We have yet to make a public statement as to whether or not we're going to sign, as, with most quickly pushed through policy, it does have it's flaws. You'll know if and when the EFF is going to get behind this when *we* issue a press release. _______________________________________________________________________ Wayne D. Correia Electronic Frontier Foundation tel: +1.415.436.9333 <wayne@eff.org> 1550 Bryant Street fax: +1.415.436.9993 San Francisco, CA 94103 USA <http://www.eff.org>
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Wayne D. Correia wrote:
At 7:40 PM +0300 4/10/97, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months. You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April inGeneva at the ITU. No one is adding root servers and gTLDs as they wish. Please do not go by what you read in 3 paragraph newspaper articles since much of what is stated is inaccurate. Go to the site and go thru all the materials.
I am still trying to figure out how or why the EFF was listed as a signer. It's true that a couple of us did have a long conversation with Jon Postel about the issues and the IAHC's efforts, but we were searching for the facts. We have yet to make a public statement as to whether or not we're going to sign, as, with most quickly pushed through policy, it does have it's flaws. You'll know if and when the EFF is going to get behind this when *we* issue a press release.
John Gilmore was the one that indicated that EFF is ready to sign.
_______________________________________________________________________ Wayne D. Correia Electronic Frontier Foundation tel: +1.415.436.9333 <wayne@eff.org> 1550 Bryant Street fax: +1.415.436.9993 San Francisco, CA 94103 USA <http://www.eff.org>
Hank Nussbacher
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 03:33:59PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
"Wayne D. Correia" writes:
I am still trying to figure out how or why the EFF was listed as a signer.
I believe that was an accident.
Perry
I don't. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
On Apr 10, Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
I don't.
Where's your list of signatories, Karl? ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "How about having procmail running in the background | | while you lie in bed eating sushi with four beautiful naked women?" | | -- Michael Israeli | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
On Thu, Apr 10, 1997 at 06:25:30PM -0400, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Apr 10, Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
I don't.
Where's your list of signatories, Karl?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | "How about having procmail running in the background | | while you lie in bed eating sushi with four beautiful naked women?" | | -- Michael Israeli | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
To the eDNS charter? You'll find them under the RA list on the web page. Each *has* actually executed the document, and we have the signatures on file here. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution http://www.edns.net/ | hostmaster@edns.net
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
No one has mentioned anything about adding new root nameservers. Of the over 25 signatories (so far), MCI is just one. UUnet, Digital, France Telecom, EFF, are others that come to mind. The IAHC was selected by IAB, IANA, ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU and NSF. The entire discussion was held in public covering 8000 emails over a period of 3 months.
And that was just the tail end of almost two years of public discussions with many more thousands of emails, several one-day conferences, some papers published in various journals, etc...
You can see all details at www.iahc.org including the MoU that will be signed at the end of April in Geneva at the ITU.
And note that any network operator or Internet Service Provider can sign this MoU and by signing it, will gain a position on the Policy Advisory Board that ultimately will influence the future course of the DNS. It is not neccessary to travel to Geneva to sign the document. Simply print out the document from the website, change the line at the bottom that says "done in Geneva" to reflect the name of your city, print it out, sign it, and snail mail the signed copy to the Internet Society, 12020 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 210, Reston, VA 20191, USA.
This is a scary thought.
Please read all background material.
That's even scarier! :-) But maybe you weren't including the two years of mailing list archives in your suggestion? It actually doesn't take too long to read the Final Report of the IAHC from Feb 4th and the MoU itself from Feb 28th. NOTE: I have set the reply-to for this message to newdom@ar.com If you want to subscribe to that list to talk about new top level domains send your "subscribe" message to newdom-request@ar.com Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
The "Internet Ad Hoc society" holds the reins as passed to them by prior holders of those reins. "eDNS" and "AlterNIC" are wanna-be's.
I believe you have your facts incorrect here.... Jordan Mendelson writes:
Over the past 10 months, there has been escalating talk about the new self appointed registries out there. Major news papers, magazines and other periodicals have been publishing that "the change is coming". Ultimately, the actual change rests at the hands of every user who runs a nameserver, for they are the ones who actually have the root server cache. A recent article in the Star Tribune, I believe stated that MCI is siding with the Internet Ad Hoc society
You are referring to the IAHC, not the "Internet Ad Hoc Society", which doesn't exist. The IAHC was a committee composed of representatives from the International Telecommunication Union, WIPO, the Internet Society, the IAB, the IANA, INTA and the Federal Networking Council. We were chartered to advise the IANA on an update to the mechanisms for management and operations of the generic TLD space.
and is going to support these new registries. Now, MCI is a major player in the US and if they actually DO start adding new root servers to their cache, there might be a major change in the Internet.
MCI's support for the IAHC proposal implies just the opposite -- that they are supporting pointing at the current IANA authority based root name servers.
I'm curious as to how many other network providers are even thinking about changing their root server caches just because some self appointed society tells them to.
As I've noted, you have the situation reversed -- MCI, UUNet and the rest are supporting pointing at the current name servers. The IAHC was also not self appointed -- we were appointed by the major internet governance organizations and several interested international bodies. You seem to have the IAHC confused with the "eDNS", which is indeed a self appointed group. So far as I know, however, they have virtually no real support. Perry Speaking purely for myself and not in an official capacity
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I believe you have your facts incorrect here....
Jordan Mendelson writes:
Over the past 10 months, there has been escalating talk about the new self appointed registries out there. Major news papers, magazines and other periodicals have been publishing that "the change is coming". Ultimately,
You are referring to the IAHC, not the "Internet Ad Hoc Society", which doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, its really the Internet Ad Hoc Committee, not Society. [psst, go to their web site and look under the really big logo that says IAHC]. Stop nit picking at my statements.
The IAHC was a committee composed of representatives from the International Telecommunication Union, WIPO, the Internet Society, the IAB, the IANA, INTA and the Federal Networking Council. We were chartered to advise the IANA on an update to the mechanisms for management and operations of the generic TLD space.
Ok, so the IAHC job is to advise the IANA. Strangely enough, the IANA's own domain guidelines states, "It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.". This was written in March of 1994, which wasn't too long ago. It almost seems as if the IAHC is doing the IANA's job. I mean, the IANA's job is the oversee changes in the Internet's protocols. So far, the only things I've seen the IANA do is setup guidelines for domains and setup private ip address space. So now what? The IAHC is going to split the IANA's job in half? Why bother with IANA at all, lets move everything to IAHC! Or better yet, lets get rid of bot the IANA and IAHC and give all the responsibility to the ISOC. Lets see: The ISOC and FNC chartered the IANA to act as a clearinghouse to assign and coordinate the use of numerous Internet protocol parameters. The IANA charted the IAHC to recommend new parameters to domain name space. Now, the IAHC is going to large companies such as DEC which really have NOTHING to do with the Internet's underlying structure trying to get support for something they aren't supposed to be doing, but in fact are only supposed to recommend the IANA do. Sounds to me like these groups all need to re-evaluate who has control over what.
I'm curious as to how many other network providers are even thinking about changing their root server caches just because some self appointed society tells them to.
As I've noted, you have the situation reversed -- MCI, UUNet and the rest are supporting pointing at the current name servers. The IAHC was also not self appointed -- we were appointed by the major internet governance organizations and several interested international bodies.
I'm sorry about how I came across. Yes, IAHC's plan actually changes the current nameservers instead of implementing new ones, which is the smart thing to do. Of course, since a lot of the nameservers out there are funded in part or whole by NSI, I don't think they will be changed without a fight. Like it or not, NSI is a company who I don't believe wants to share the job of being a registrar with anyone. -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
Like it or not, NSI is a company who I don't believe wants to share the job of being a registrar with anyone.
Let's see.. According to their site, over 1 MILLION domaines registered.... times, oh, $50/year... $50M/yr with no competition, customers with no alternatives and no need for customer support or accountability. I can see why the NSI doesn't want to share. I can also why they must be made to share. Isn't April 1997 the end of their contract anyway? -Deepak.
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
I can see why the NSI doesn't want to share.
I can also why they must be made to share.
Isn't April 1997 the end of their contract anyway?
The official end is April 1998. However, the NSF had arranged to end the contract early on March 31st of this year until the politicians stepped in and the NSF Office of the Inspector General released a report suggesting that the NSF should run the Internic in order to make money for the government. But it was the Whitehouse, in the form of Ira Magaziner's committee that actually put a stop to the ending of that contract. Some collateral damage that occurred was that the contract deal included rolling out the IP allocation functions to ARIN with seed money from NSI but that also got stopped. And now there are people in the Pentagon and the National Security Agency that believe ARIN is an important national security issue and needs to be stopped. It appears that since IP technology played an important role in the Gulf War they want to ensure that the U.S. military has all the IP addresses they need in future. Somebody should tell them it's not smart to run a military command and control system over the public data networks. If they would only build their own private satellite network, maybe call it MILNET, then they could use their own set of private IP addresses without worrying about what the public is doing. It will be very interesting to see what happens at the April 14th-15th meeting of the NSF's Federal Networking Council Advisory Council meeting in Washington where both domain names and ARIN are on the agenda. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (13)
-
Dave Crocker -
Dave Crocker -
Deepak Jain -
Hank Nussbacher -
J.D. Falk -
Jordan Mendelson -
Karl Denninger -
Karl Denninger
-
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
Perry E. Metzger -
Todd Graham Lewis -
Wayne D. Correia