Dear Nanog list members and Congress people Before you get too excercised about Bill Simpson's allegations in the message below let me provide some context that is missing from Mr. Simpson's message. On Monday in the IETF mail list considerable anger was displayed over the statement in the Green Paper that the IANA Policy Council would "coordinate the development of other technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet." It was pointed out that the proper function should be to "coordinate the **assignment** of other technical protocol parameters . . ." On Monday afternoon I interviewed Ira Magaziner and brought up this issue. On Monday evening I posted to the IETF list Ira's statement to me that development was mistaken and assignment should have been used. On Feb 25 Scott Bradner posted the a separate denial from IRA to IETF list: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:48:53 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> To: ietf@ns.ietf.org Subject: from Ira Magaziner Re: IETF relationship to new IANA I asked Ira Magaziner about the wording in the Green Paper in the area of the relationship between the IETF and the new IANA. This is his reply which he said I could forward. Scott ---- Mr-Received: by mta EOPMRX; Relayed; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:12:16 -0500 Alternate-Recipient: prohibited Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:10:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: this is what I am very worried about To: sob@harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ua-Content-Id: MBLINKAA X400-Mts-Identifier: [;61218132208991/1513276@EOPMRX] Hop-Count: 1 Message Creation Date was at 23-FEB-1998 18:10:00 Thanks for your note. The wording of the green paper is a mistake. We certainly do not intend for the IETF to in any way become subserviant to this new organization. We will correct it in the next draft. Ira ========== In his Feb 23rd interview with me Ira said: Magaziner: Let me make clear then what is going on. I think that the word "development" was not a correct word to represent the function we were trying to indicate and that has been pointed out to us by a number of people. So that is a good criticism. There are mistakes in this report as there would be in any report and when they are pointed out, we acknowledge them and say we will fix them. Whether the word assignment or not is the right one I don't know, but development is clearly the wrong word. I think the process of assigning port numbers is what we are trying to convey. Secondly I think it is accurate to say that we would respond to the sense of the broader community about whether that function which has been performed by Postel historically should be performed by this new organization or whether it should be performed by the IETF itself. I think whatever the community wanted to do on that would be OKAY with us. That is the way I put it. I did not say have power or not have power. What we did in our report was to propose it as a continued IANA function, or if the IETF wished to that it could assume the authority. But let me again make it very clear we don't intend this word development. That was a mistake." ======= Cook: In his interview Ira also made it very clear that the IANA policy Council is to have control of the root servers and not the US government. Consequently it seems to be that Mr. Simpson is feeding the current atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion by moving a problem that quite clearly has been answered on the IETF list to the NANOG list and into Congress where many are unaware of what has transpired on the IETF list. Note also that I have just pulled down both the jan 30th text and the federal register texts of the green paper. I searched both texts for the string policies and standards for those activities and found nothing in either one. I might suggest that Mr. Simpson give us the complete citations of what he is ranting against for, on the basis of my knowledge of the green paper and conversations with Magaziner he is falsely accusing the US government and seeking to stir up dissension that will do none of us any good. It would be far more useful if he would apply his talents to the establishment of an IANA policy council that protected the ability of the net to run its own affairs. There will be an IANA policy council.... Jon postel himself is working on it. The IANA functions must be institutionalized. Jon is not immortal. Why not accept this reality and work toward that institutionalization instead of undermining efforts designed to accomplish it via fear, uncertainty, and doubt? ==============================================================

Gentlefolk, the US proposed rule taking over the Internet root servers has many issues that may be of concern to network operators. Here are two congressional offices that have expressed interest in electronic comments. They want to gauge current levels of interest by the community.

If you live or have business offices in these areas, or somewhere near, please take a moment to send a short email to one of these representatives in the next few days. The congress members are in recess (that means at home) this week, and go back next Tuesday.

Zoe Lofgren zoegram@lofgren.house.gov Please include a complete U.S. Postel address.

Local Office: 635 North 1st Street, Suite B San Jose, CA 95112 tel: 408-271-8700 Washington: 318 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515 tel: 202-225-3072

Constance A. Morella Rep.Morella@mail.house.gov. Be sure to include U.S. Postal address.

Rockville (301) 424 - 3501 Office 51 Monroe Street, Suite 507 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Washington (202) 225 - 5341 Office 2228 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Some issues of particular concern are:

- the proposed rule allows the US government to control "... policies and standards for those activities, including ... interoperability, privacy, security, ...."

Do we really think it would be a good idea for the US government to control the standards for interoperability?

Do we really think it would be a good idea for the US government to control the standards for privacy and security?

Especially as operators, do we really think it would be a good idea for the US government to control the passwords and keys for the root servers?

Please think hard about the consequences. Will they let your domain into the system (sign your NS records) unless you agree to escrow your server keys with them?

- Since the announcement last year, we have been looking forward to the day (March 31) when NSI no longer has monopoly control over registration. The proposed rule extends the monopoly another 6 months (minimum), and control of the major domains indefinitely (at least 2 years).

Do we really think that is a great idea? After a year has passed, and no plans for transition have been made by NSI?

- The root servers are currently run by volunteers. The proposed rule would take over operation, and give it to a new corporation, set up by the US government.

Are we having any real problems with our current servers?

Do we really think it is a great idea for the US government to be actively involved at all?

*************************************************************************** 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 ***************************************************************************