From - Tue May 19 16:35:02 1998
Message-Id: <00001945@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:24:50 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:46 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13])
     by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA17596;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:59:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199804162259.PAA17596@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:59:17 -0700
To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!.
Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET,
        JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming), kimh@arin.net,
        BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, cook@NETAXS.COM, Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET,
        Ira Magaziner, Jay@Iperdome.com, karl@MCS.NET,
        naipr@arin.net
In-Reply-To: <3535C97E.ADECED9@ix.netcom.com>
References: <199804160551.WAA15985@condor.mhsc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

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?
_________________________________________________=20
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20
(RM993)=20
President and CEO.=20
e-mail:        <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20
Web-pages:    <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20
Web-site:        <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com=20
Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20
-----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20
Note: Statements made in this message do not=20
         necessarily reflect the  position of MHSC. All=20
         forcasts and projections are to be considered=20
         as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20
         may not be referenced herein.=20
-----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20



--=_2E7A77FE.62036F0E--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:03 1998
Message-Id: <00001947@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:24:57 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:55 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13])
     by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA17704;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:23:36 -0700
Message-Id: <199804170023.RAA17704@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:23:36 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!.
Cc: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>,
        "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "cook@NETAXS.COM" <cook@NETAXS.COM>,
        "Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET" <Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET>,
        "DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET"
<DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>,
        "Ira Magaziner" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "Jay@Iperdome.com" <Jay@Iperdome.com>, naipr@arin.net
In-Reply-To: <01BD6965.402323A0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

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?

>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?? 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.

>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? 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?


_________________________________________________=20
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20
(RM993)=20
President and CEO.=20
e-mail:        <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20
Web-pages:    <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20
Web-site:        <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com=20
Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20
-----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20
Note: Statements made in this message do not=20
         necessarily reflect the  position of MHSC. All=20
         forcasts and projections are to be considered=20
         as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20
         may not be referenced herein.=20
-----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20



--=_2F7B76FF.63026E0F--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:04 1998
Message-Id: <0000194B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:02 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve 
     page...) -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_306469E0.5C3D5130"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_306469E0.5C3D5130
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_306469E0.5C3D5130
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:00 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve 
     page...) -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13])
     by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA18430;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:38:34 -0700
Message-Id: <199804170638.XAA18430@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:38:34 -0700
To: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: Global Representation (was: Final response to steve
  page...)
Cc: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"  <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Don Mitchell'" <dmitchel@NSF.GOV>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'John Curran'" <jcurran@BBNPLANET.COM>,
        "'KathrynKL'" <KathrynKL@aol.com>, ARIN list <naipr@arin.net>,
        usdh@mailhub1.ncal.verio.com
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980417021120.02f351e0@mindspring.com>
References: <v04011207b15c64dca562@[166.55.67.211]>
 <v01520d00b15bae6de7ce@[207.21.143.150]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 02:11 4/17/98 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>At 10:58 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>Not only do I think ARIN is useFULL, but I think it=20
>is *required*.  It offers a natural way to provide=20
>international representation to the new non-profit
>corporation!

Not "natural" rather, convenient. A little too convenient.

>Discussion:
>
>While almost everyone agrees with the goal
>of an internationally representative Board
>of Directors supervising the activities of
>a new, non-profit corporation, few details
>have been discussed.

I agree, but I'm not sure it's a consensus, yet.

>Two of the most persistent problems with=20
>representation on the Internet is, 1) how=20
>do you define a stakeholder, and 2) how do=20
>you allocate representation.
>
>Defining a stakeholder is difficult in cyber-
>space.  How do you determine if a stakeholder=20
>is a real person or some smart software running=20
>on some server someplace?
>
>So, here are some thoughts to get the ball
>rolling. =20
>
>1)  Some ways to define a stakeholder:
>
>  -  One Person, One Vote
>  -  One Netizen, One Vote
>  -  One IP Address, One Vote
>  -  One Domain Name, One Vote
>  -  One Email Address, One Vote
>
>On the top of the list, you find stakeholder
>definitions that are very precise, and *very*=20
>difficult to enforce.
>
>On the bottom of the list, you have the opposite=20
>problem.  These definitions are very loose, yet
>easy to enforce. =20
>
>Unfortunatley, email addresses are virtually=20
>free.  Consequently, they can easily be used=20
>to sway voting and representation.

I can have 65500 email addresses in about an hour, from MHSC.COM and four
times that from MHSC.NET.

>IMHO, IP Addresses and Domain Names both offer
>a more balanced approach to this question.  They
>both have some cost basis, and they more accurately=20
>reflect the stakeholder communities. =20

I prefer Domain Names, but how to handle .SHEESH and company? Do the
alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs?

>In some ways, it is similar to one of the historical
>voting requirements in the U.S., specifically the=20
>owning of property. =20
>
>2)  Some ways to allocate representation:
>
>Using Domain Names and IP Addresses to qualify stakeholders
>is not only a relatively clean and easy way to establish
>representation, but it also offers a nice mix and balance
>of interests. =20

>Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented=20
>by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners.  These not only=20
>correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and=20
>major commercial interests, but they are already established.

>Similarily, gTLD registries could represent their SLD owners,=20
>and the ccTLD registries could represent their SLD owners. =20
>Again, this provides a nice balance of geographic and=20
>psychographic representation.

Nope, unacceptable. The SLD owners deserve direct representation as =
well.=20

>These are some rough thoughts, so no flames please!

Bi-cameral representation structures may work better. Any thoughts?

___________________________________________________=20
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)=20
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeye=
r
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________=20
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! =20


--=_306469E0.5C3D5130--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:04 1998
Message-Id: <00001951@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:11 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_306469E0.5D3C5031"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_306469E0.5D3C5031
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_306469E0.5D3C5031
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:09 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id PAA09671; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:30:06 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6A15.1108F8A0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:25:34 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6A15.1108F8A0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>,
        "arin-council@arin.net"
      <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov"
      <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Christopher Ambler'" <cambler@iodesign.com>,
        "'Doug Humphrey'" <doug@good.joss.com>,
        "Ira Magaziner" <Ira Magaziner>
Cc: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>, "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>,
        "kimh@INTERNIC.NET" <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>,
        "naipr@arin.net"
      <naipr@arin.net>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'" <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: ARIN/IANA Operational Standards
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:25:33 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


Kim,

The recent announcement by ARIN to remove various services
for maintenance did not meet with rave reviews from the various
network operators in North America (NANOG) and around the
world.

There seems to be an inconsistency in ARIN's operational
standards and the standards proposed in the U.S. Government's
so-called Green Paper. To this end, would it be possible for
ARIN to try to meet the goals that the U.S. Government is
proposing that other domain name registries will be required
to meet to qualify for inclusion in the legacy Root Name Servers
that the U.S. operates ?

Also, is there any plan to move .ARPA or IN-ADDR.ARPA off
of the legacy Root Name Servers ? This seems like a step that
ARIN could help to coordinate to make sure that ARIN is
independent of those legacy Root Name Servers. This might be
an area where ARIN could draw upon volunteers from its
members to help host those DNS zones. This would spread
the processing power around, reduce the need for ARIN to
pay for extra bandwidth and would allow for some extra
stability in case ARIN gets into financial trouble.

The current web site seems to be mostly focused on the fees
that ARIN charges and the justification of those fees. Now that
ARIN is starting operations, it might be useful to add more
information that can be used to give people an idea of where
ARIN stands from an operational standards point of view.
This may help to serve as an educational model that other
registries can use as they seek endorsement from the U.S.
Government for their registries as part of the Green Paper
plan.

Speaking of education, ARIN may want to beef up that area
of community outreach. Education is generally part of most
non-profit operations. In my opinion, ARIN could benefit from
the years of experience that many of the people in the
Registry Industry have gained by working with root servers,
DNS and registry software. I suspect that a strong group
of volunteers could help to enhance the ARIN web site in
this area.


-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_306469E0.5D3C5031--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:05 1998
Message-Id: <00001949@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:16 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_316568E1.5E3F5332"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_316568E1.5E3F5332
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_316568E1.5E3F5332
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:14 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id QAA09792; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:38:31 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6A1E.A01473E0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:34:00 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6A1E.A01473E0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Dave Van Allen'" <dave@fast.net>, "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Subject: RE: ARIN/IANA Change of Attitude
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:33:59 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday, April 17, 1998 12:57 PM, Dave Van Allen[SMTP:dave@fast.net] =
wrote:
@Now that's a framework of suggestions that I can support.
@
@S/N ratio just went up a notch round these parts!
@
@

There are many areas where people could help to contribute
via the non-profit structure set up as ARIN. This is especially
the case with ARIN and IANA functions as part of the same
body.

RIPE is miles ahead of ARIN in this regard. This stands to
reason because they have been around much longer. With
a lot of work ARIN can come up to speed as a true non-profit
company with a philosophy of cooperation.

The attitude that ARIN has something that ISPs need and
is not going to give away easily must be changed. ARIN now
exists to serve the ISPs and other companies, not the other
way around. This will change as ISPs and companies use
the ARIN structure as a place to hang their projects which
can exist in cyberspace, as opposed to only on ARIN's servers.

As an example, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone needs to be cleaned
up and restructured. A collective effort of ISPs could be launched
to make that happen. This would help to spread the work around
and reduce the cost to ARIN.

Another area that could be addressed is IP address reclamation
or recycling. ARIN could help by pointing to recycling centers
where people are working to list IP blocks that have been abandoned.
Using "neighbor net" techniques, these blocks can be identified
and pulled back in to be reissued. The work can be distributed
to keep the direct costs to ARIN low.

There are many such projects. If ARIN forms working groups
like RIPE, they can leverage off of the resources (human and
otherwise) on the Internet to get some of these projects going.
People claimed that this could not happen under NSI. Now it
is time to show why a non-profit can more easily allow many
companies to share in the work with the assurance that none
of them will profit, including ARIN.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_316568E1.5E3F5332--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:05 1998
Message-Id: <0000194D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:22 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global
     Representation) -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_316568E1.5F3E5233"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_316568E1.5F3E5233
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_316568E1.5F3E5233
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:19 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global
     Representation) -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from [207.21.137.206] (h207-21-143-160.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.160])
     by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA07377;
     Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com
Message-Id: <v01520d03b15d2a6612c2@[207.21.137.206]>
To: <naipr@arin.net>
From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation)
Cc: <Jay@Iperdome.com>, <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>, <amr@chaos.com>,
        <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>, <dmitchel@NSF.GOV>,
        <Ira Magaziner>, <jcurran@BBNPLANET.COM>,
        <KathrynKL@aol.com>, <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>, sob@harvard.edu,
        ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, doug@skycache.com, dont@netsol.com,
        kimh@arin.net, postel@isi.edu, <Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET>,
        <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>, "'Einar Stefferud'" <Stef@nma.com>,
        "'Dave Farber'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>, "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>,
        <arin-council@arin.net>, <karl@MCS.NET>, <michael@memra.com>,
        <raisch@internautics.com>, <richard@sexton.com>, <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
        hongd@slip.net, dpeterson@hamquist.com, "'Kim'" <equity@primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

April 17, 1998

TO: The Honorable Members of the United States Congress and the Executive
Office of the President of the United States

THRU: NTIA, Dept of Commerce, U.S. Government
DOCUMENT: An Open Letter Excerpt from a to-be-released Book, "The
Electronic Commerce Handbook" by Stephen J. Page.  (For further information=

refer to submissions to DNS@NTIA.DOC.GOV.)

RE: Understanding the Internet's Big Picture, Its Relationship to U.S.
History, and Its the Impact of Domain Names and IP Numbers on the Future =
of
the New 21st Century Economy

Preface: Due to the timeliness of the decision-making regarding the
Internet's evolution and transition into a medium supporting the New
Economy also known as 'Electronic Commerce or eCommerce', it seemed
appropriate to provide you, the Representatives of the People of the =
United
States, with some timely ideas and concepts which may help you in your
understanding of the Big Picture: the Internet, its possible future
relationship with the U.S. government, and its important role in Electronic=

Commerce.

Begin Text:

Jay Fenello wrote:

>My thoughts were along the lines of the U.S. system
>of balancing representation in Congress.

Steve Page:
        Jay, since we were both a part of the self-organized group =
involved
in the seeding process of the original competitive free market for TLDs
(eDNS), where I was supporting some never-before implemented concepts like
the single-digit top level domains (.A-.Z) among others, we have both
witnessed up close and personally how consolidation of power can lead to
both short term and long term organizational instability.
        Balancing power widely is what creates long term stability.  This
has been show to be the case in free market economies where the U.S.
economy is now a beacon to the Asian economies as well as the unifying
European Union.
        Balancing voting power widely is what will create long term
stability for the mirror-like image of our physically communicating
face-to-face world, the "interface-to-interface"-communicating cyber =
world.
        In the traditional geo-political sphere called earth, structures
called nations were free to carve up and control wilderness territory, and
implement systems which were either harmonious or unharmonious with the
environment, with other nations, or with individual inhabitants or
"citizens".
        The more harmonious structures were with the environment, the more
successfully they have become over time, because the environment rewards
systems which follow the laws of nature and the physical environment and
punishes those that do not. (Reward: U.S. govt and economy.  Punished:
centrally controlled economies and governments.)
        The U.S. govt is one such structure which exhibits the type of
natural balance which respects the reality that individual persons are =
born
free (and therefore worthy of the inherent protections of rights and
freedoms which the Constitution specifically guarantees.
        Since you mention the U.S. Congress as an example of metaphor =
which
exhibits balanced representation of individuals, it provides a hierarchical=

structure which acts as a filter so that the will of the individuals
protected under the Constitution is able to be expressed by a manageable
number of people (the Congress).
        Since it is recognized that the Congress
        Like the herds of caribou, rhinos, or elephants, and that is the
reason that it has remained so attractive to many people from around the
world who live in places where there the man-made systems do not respect
the human need for freedom.

>For this example, IP address owners would be represented by
>IP registries in the Internet "Senate", and Domain Name owners
>would be represented by TLD registries in the Internet "House".
>In other words, IP addresses will be more heavily weighted
>in its representation.

Steve Page:
        The Congress model is too simplistic of a model for what needs to
be developed, because we are talking about building a foundation for a New
Economy which is doubling in size every 100 days.  As I proposed during =
the
eDNS exercise, the three-legged stool of the U.S. system, balancing
administrative power of the Executive Branch with the representative power
of Congress and with the legal power of the Judiciary is a more appropriate=

form of balance.  (There is not need to really reinvent the wheel, just
adapt the wheel to the new medium.
        Why?  In the New Economy various TLDs will represent the same
domain, and may benefit from a cooperative administrative body which
facilitates market competition with entities which are dead set against
doing electronic commerce over the Net.  For instance, the registries of
.trucking, .delivery, .express although they may have different registries
operating them, but may want to coordinate their marketing efforts to
jointly convince the transportation industry to sponsor them as critical
elements of network service provider value-added services.  This is where
my past, present, and future focus on economic "administrative cooperation
and marketplace competition" blends nicely with the concept of
administration.
        Just as the Executive Branch of the U.S. government has Dept of
Transportation, so the above TLDs could have the Industry Association of
Transportation, which helps bring into being industry-specific
internetworking standards (domain-specific in DARPA-speak).  This can and
probably will happen in a variety of industries.  The Congress can give =
the
entire population of DNS and IP number holders a voice, as you point out,
but we need to look at what exactly is being built for not only the short
term, but for the longer term.  It is a NEW ECONOMY.
        This leads to the last leg of the stool, the Judicial Branch.
Here's where things get the stickiest, because we all live in a physical
world which has been carved up into fiefdoms called nation-states, between
a group's borders.  The nation-states were carved into practical chunks by
various groups, organized as hordes (or herds) in Europe, tribes in Africa
and America, and dynasties in Asia, most controlled by elders and
transformed over time into more sophisticated centrally controlled
structures.
        Today, look around and we see two things, the evolution, and a
revolution, and what does our observation tell us.  First, the most
successful evolution has been the U.S., economically and politically.
Second, the revolution called Internet is a technical evolution which is
undermining traditional economics, politics, and most importantly the
geographic dependency of law.
        What is the answer to building the third leg of the stool?
Building a new legal structure of cooperating, traditionally established
nation-state members, which is built on a foundation of respect for
individual rights and freedoms.  This structure will build a legal
foundation for "administrative cooperation" upon which all the members
cooperate to grow the New Economy, while maintaining marketplace
competition (which already exists between nations anyway).  Judicial
cooperation is unavoidable in a geographically-independent medium.

>>Do the
>>alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs?
>
>No, only those registries recognized by the new, non-profit
>corporation would have representation.

Steve Page:
        Just like only those judicially cooperating nation-state members
would have the ability to influence the policy-making for the New Economy.

>>>Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented
>>>by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners.  These not only
>>>correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and
>>>major commercial interests, but they are already established.

Steve Page:
        Domain names and IP addresses play exactly the same role as
interest rates which affect the supply and demand of currency in the New
Economy.
        ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC therefore presently function as the
trans-national operating arm of the Federal Reserve-like system without =
the
support under law of a benevolent trans-national government.
        They are operate as the functional cyber-equivalent of the Federal
Reserve Banks by providing the 'guiding hand' over the allocation IP =
number
and DNS name supply which affects the actual flow of commerce through the
medium.  As we see, their actions affect the price and therefore the =
demand
for both domain names and IP numbers at the individual "account holder"
level of their local bank (modem bank) which is the equivalent of a local
branch bank of the regional backbone provider (Member Bank of the Fed) of
names and addresses.
        The structure of the Federal Reserve System, as was pointed out in
my posts to NTIA responding to Mr. Magaziner's Green Paper, is the model
which we should strive to implement in the long term, because of the
importance of names and numbers, functioning as interest rates do, in
commmerce.
        Assuming ARIN/RIPE/APNIC do function as a trans-national Fed-like
"global system", if the U.S. government, responsible to the People of the
U.S. under the Constitution, is to insure that they do so without fear of
tyranny from the consolidation of massive power into the hands of the
leaders (evidenced by the comments of Ms. Kim Hubbard, President of ARIN =
in
response to one of Mr. Jim Fleming's questions), then the U.S. government
has a responsibility to recognize and understand the similar processes
which are evolving decades apart, but parallel nonetheless: the evolution
of the standardization of regional currencies into the "dollar" which
stimulated the global economy that we experience today, and the
standardization of name/number allocations which WILL stimulate the New
Economy over the next several decades.

(c) Copyright, 1998.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.

Excerpts from "The Electronic Commerce Handbook".

Charging the Battery then Driving Electronic-Commerce through Cyberspace:
Domain Names,Internet Numbers, & the Electro-magnetic Frequency (EMF)
Energy Economy.  by Stephen J. Page.

Supporting the extension of the Constitution protections of individual
rights and freedoms of the U.S. into cyberspace, and building foundations
for the New Economy.

Stephen J. Page
MBA OD BSc
George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979

Business Management Consultant, U.S. Data Highway Corporation
Tel: 925-454-8624       F: 925-484-0448

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

end.




--=_316568E1.5F3E5233--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:06 1998
Message-Id: <00001955@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:27 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.58395534"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_32666BE2.58395534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_32666BE2.58395534
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:24 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id RAA09864; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:21:34 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6A24.A321A520@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:17:02 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6A24.A321A520@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'ARIN list'"
      <naipr@arin.net>
Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>,
        "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'"
      <antitrust@usdoj.gov>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"
      <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Christopher Ambler'" <cambler@iodesign.com>,
        "'Carl Oppedahl'" <carl@OPPEDAHL.COM>,
        "'Dave Crocker'"
      <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc: "'Don Mitchell'" <dmitchel@nsf.gov>,
        "'dnrc-board@domain-name.org'"
      <dnrc-board@domain-name.org>,
        "'domain-policy@open-rsc.org'"
      <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>,
        "'Doug Humphrey'"
      <doug@good.joss.com>,
        "'David Farber'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>,
        "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>
Cc: "'ho@cs.arizona.edu'" <ho@cs.arizona.edu>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" <Jay@Iperdome.com>,
        "'John Curran'"
      <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>,
        "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>,
        "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@cavebear.com>
Cc: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>, "'KathrynKL'" <KathrynKL@aol.com>,
        "'Ken Fockler'" <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>,
        "'Kim Hubbard'"
      <kimh@internic.net>,
        "'John C Klensin'" <klensin@mci.net>,
        "'Michael Dillon'" <michael@memra.com>
Cc: "'Jon Postel'" <postel@ISI.EDU>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'"
      <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'Robert L. Shearing'" <robert@priori.net>,
        "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>, "'Stef@nma.com'" <Stef@nma.com>,
        "'steve'" <usdh@mailhub1.ncal.verio.com>
Subject: ARIN Mailing Lists
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:17:01 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


In my opinion, ARIN's operations and mailing lists
should be easy to learn about and read....

For example...there is no link to this part of the list

http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9804

The pattern here is similar to other organizations where
Michael Dillon was involved such as the IAHC and ISP/C.
Why do people keep supporting this type of behind the
scenes activity ? It does not help ARIN move forward.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_32666BE2.58395534--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:06 1998
Message-Id: <00001953@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:25:55 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global
     Representation) -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.59385435"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_32666BE2.59385435
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_32666BE2.59385435
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:53 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global
     Representation) -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from [207.21.137.206] (h207-21-143-160.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.160])
     by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA07377;
     Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com
Message-Id: <v01520d03b15d2a6612c2@[207.21.137.206]>
To: <naipr@arin.net>
From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)
Subject: Trans-National Structuring: the Big Picture (was Re: Global Representation)
Cc: <Jay@Iperdome.com>, <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>, <amr@chaos.com>,
        <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>, <dmitchel@NSF.GOV>,
        <Ira Magaziner>, <jcurran@BBNPLANET.COM>,
        <KathrynKL@aol.com>, <usdh@mail.ccnet.com>, sob@harvard.edu,
        ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, doug@skycache.com, dont@netsol.com,
        kimh@arin.net, postel@isi.edu, <Daniel.Karrenberg@RIPE.NET>,
        <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>, "'Einar Stefferud'" <Stef@nma.com>,
        "'Dave Farber'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>, "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>,
        <arin-council@arin.net>, <karl@MCS.NET>, <michael@memra.com>,
        <raisch@internautics.com>, <richard@sexton.com>, <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
        hongd@slip.net, dpeterson@hamquist.com, "'Kim'" <equity@primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

April 17, 1998

TO: The Honorable Members of the United States Congress and the Executive
Office of the President of the United States

THRU: NTIA, Dept of Commerce, U.S. Government
DOCUMENT: An Open Letter Excerpt from a to-be-released Book, "The
Electronic Commerce Handbook" by Stephen J. Page.  (For further information=

refer to submissions to DNS@NTIA.DOC.GOV.)

RE: Understanding the Internet's Big Picture, Its Relationship to U.S.
History, and Its the Impact of Domain Names and IP Numbers on the Future =
of
the New 21st Century Economy

Preface: Due to the timeliness of the decision-making regarding the
Internet's evolution and transition into a medium supporting the New
Economy also known as 'Electronic Commerce or eCommerce', it seemed
appropriate to provide you, the Representatives of the People of the =
United
States, with some timely ideas and concepts which may help you in your
understanding of the Big Picture: the Internet, its possible future
relationship with the U.S. government, and its important role in Electronic=

Commerce.

Begin Text:

Jay Fenello wrote:

>My thoughts were along the lines of the U.S. system
>of balancing representation in Congress.

Steve Page:
        Jay, since we were both a part of the self-organized group =
involved
in the seeding process of the original competitive free market for TLDs
(eDNS), where I was supporting some never-before implemented concepts like
the single-digit top level domains (.A-.Z) among others, we have both
witnessed up close and personally how consolidation of power can lead to
both short term and long term organizational instability.
        Balancing power widely is what creates long term stability.  This
has been show to be the case in free market economies where the U.S.
economy is now a beacon to the Asian economies as well as the unifying
European Union.
        Balancing voting power widely is what will create long term
stability for the mirror-like image of our physically communicating
face-to-face world, the "interface-to-interface"-communicating cyber =
world.
        In the traditional geo-political sphere called earth, structures
called nations were free to carve up and control wilderness territory, and
implement systems which were either harmonious or unharmonious with the
environment, with other nations, or with individual inhabitants or
"citizens".
        The more harmonious structures were with the environment, the more
successfully they have become over time, because the environment rewards
systems which follow the laws of nature and the physical environment and
punishes those that do not. (Reward: U.S. govt and economy.  Punished:
centrally controlled economies and governments.)
        The U.S. govt is one such structure which exhibits the type of
natural balance which respects the reality that individual persons are =
born
free (and therefore worthy of the inherent protections of rights and
freedoms which the Constitution specifically guarantees.
        Since you mention the U.S. Congress as an example of metaphor =
which
exhibits balanced representation of individuals, it provides a hierarchical=

structure which acts as a filter so that the will of the individuals
protected under the Constitution is able to be expressed by a manageable
number of people (the Congress).
        Since it is recognized that the Congress
        Like the herds of caribou, rhinos, or elephants, and that is the
reason that it has remained so attractive to many people from around the
world who live in places where there the man-made systems do not respect
the human need for freedom.

>For this example, IP address owners would be represented by
>IP registries in the Internet "Senate", and Domain Name owners
>would be represented by TLD registries in the Internet "House".
>In other words, IP addresses will be more heavily weighted
>in its representation.

Steve Page:
        The Congress model is too simplistic of a model for what needs to
be developed, because we are talking about building a foundation for a New
Economy which is doubling in size every 100 days.  As I proposed during =
the
eDNS exercise, the three-legged stool of the U.S. system, balancing
administrative power of the Executive Branch with the representative power
of Congress and with the legal power of the Judiciary is a more appropriate=

form of balance.  (There is not need to really reinvent the wheel, just
adapt the wheel to the new medium.
        Why?  In the New Economy various TLDs will represent the same
domain, and may benefit from a cooperative administrative body which
facilitates market competition with entities which are dead set against
doing electronic commerce over the Net.  For instance, the registries of
.trucking, .delivery, .express although they may have different registries
operating them, but may want to coordinate their marketing efforts to
jointly convince the transportation industry to sponsor them as critical
elements of network service provider value-added services.  This is where
my past, present, and future focus on economic "administrative cooperation
and marketplace competition" blends nicely with the concept of
administration.
        Just as the Executive Branch of the U.S. government has Dept of
Transportation, so the above TLDs could have the Industry Association of
Transportation, which helps bring into being industry-specific
internetworking standards (domain-specific in DARPA-speak).  This can and
probably will happen in a variety of industries.  The Congress can give =
the
entire population of DNS and IP number holders a voice, as you point out,
but we need to look at what exactly is being built for not only the short
term, but for the longer term.  It is a NEW ECONOMY.
        This leads to the last leg of the stool, the Judicial Branch.
Here's where things get the stickiest, because we all live in a physical
world which has been carved up into fiefdoms called nation-states, between
a group's borders.  The nation-states were carved into practical chunks by
various groups, organized as hordes (or herds) in Europe, tribes in Africa
and America, and dynasties in Asia, most controlled by elders and
transformed over time into more sophisticated centrally controlled
structures.
        Today, look around and we see two things, the evolution, and a
revolution, and what does our observation tell us.  First, the most
successful evolution has been the U.S., economically and politically.
Second, the revolution called Internet is a technical evolution which is
undermining traditional economics, politics, and most importantly the
geographic dependency of law.
        What is the answer to building the third leg of the stool?
Building a new legal structure of cooperating, traditionally established
nation-state members, which is built on a foundation of respect for
individual rights and freedoms.  This structure will build a legal
foundation for "administrative cooperation" upon which all the members
cooperate to grow the New Economy, while maintaining marketplace
competition (which already exists between nations anyway).  Judicial
cooperation is unavoidable in a geographically-independent medium.

>>Do the
>>alternate TLD registries get a vote? How about their SLDs?
>
>No, only those registries recognized by the new, non-profit
>corporation would have representation.

Steve Page:
        Just like only those judicially cooperating nation-state members
would have the ability to influence the policy-making for the New Economy.

>>>Under this scenario, IP address owners would be represented
>>>by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and the other /8 owners.  These not only
>>>correlate to the major geographical stakeholder communities and
>>>major commercial interests, but they are already established.

Steve Page:
        Domain names and IP addresses play exactly the same role as
interest rates which affect the supply and demand of currency in the New
Economy.
        ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC therefore presently function as the
trans-national operating arm of the Federal Reserve-like system without =
the
support under law of a benevolent trans-national government.
        They are operate as the functional cyber-equivalent of the Federal
Reserve Banks by providing the 'guiding hand' over the allocation IP =
number
and DNS name supply which affects the actual flow of commerce through the
medium.  As we see, their actions affect the price and therefore the =
demand
for both domain names and IP numbers at the individual "account holder"
level of their local bank (modem bank) which is the equivalent of a local
branch bank of the regional backbone provider (Member Bank of the Fed) of
names and addresses.
        The structure of the Federal Reserve System, as was pointed out in
my posts to NTIA responding to Mr. Magaziner's Green Paper, is the model
which we should strive to implement in the long term, because of the
importance of names and numbers, functioning as interest rates do, in
commmerce.
        Assuming ARIN/RIPE/APNIC do function as a trans-national Fed-like
"global system", if the U.S. government, responsible to the People of the
U.S. under the Constitution, is to insure that they do so without fear of
tyranny from the consolidation of massive power into the hands of the
leaders (evidenced by the comments of Ms. Kim Hubbard, President of ARIN =
in
response to one of Mr. Jim Fleming's questions), then the U.S. government
has a responsibility to recognize and understand the similar processes
which are evolving decades apart, but parallel nonetheless: the evolution
of the standardization of regional currencies into the "dollar" which
stimulated the global economy that we experience today, and the
standardization of name/number allocations which WILL stimulate the New
Economy over the next several decades.

(c) Copyright, 1998.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.

Excerpts from "The Electronic Commerce Handbook".

Charging the Battery then Driving Electronic-Commerce through Cyberspace:
Domain Names,Internet Numbers, & the Electro-magnetic Frequency (EMF)
Energy Economy.  by Stephen J. Page.

Supporting the extension of the Constitution protections of individual
rights and freedoms of the U.S. into cyberspace, and building foundations
for the New Economy.

Stephen J. Page
MBA OD BSc
George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979

Business Management Consultant, U.S. Data Highway Corporation
Tel: 925-454-8624       F: 925-484-0448

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

end.




--=_32666BE2.59385435--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:07 1998
Message-Id: <00001957@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:01 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_32666BE2.5A3B5736"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_32666BE2.5A3B5736
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_32666BE2.5A3B5736
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:59 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id WAA10249; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:33:02 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6A50.25E478E0@pc.unir.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:28:30 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6A50.25E478E0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'dont@netsol.com'" <dont@netsol.com>,
        "'Doug Humphrey'"
      <doug@good.joss.com>,
        "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>,
        "'Ken Fockler'" <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>,
        "'Kim Hubbard'"
      <kimh@internic.net>, "'Jon Postel'" <postel@ISI.EDU>
To: "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Subject: An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:28:23 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


     An Open Letter to the ARIN Trustees

The U.S. taxpayers have spent substantial sums of money
funding the InterNIC via the National Science Foundation. They
have also spent money helping to launch ARIN. U.S. officials
continue to be involved in helping to steer, not only ARIN, but
also the IANA via their contractor Jon Postel who is on the
Board of ARIN and helped to found ARIN. In my opinion, the
U.S. taxpayers have a right to ask where ARIN is headed and
what their return on investment will be. This is especially true
because of the substantial assets that have been handed to
ARIN at no charge.

At the present time there is a lot of work that needs to be done
to get ARIN transitioned from the for-profit atmosphere of NSI to
a proper non-profit structure that serves the public. Some of this
work can involve the integration of the IANA into ARIN which will
save everyone time and money and accelerate the implementation
of the Green Paper. Beyond this there are many projects that will
naturally fall under the ARIN charter and ARIN staff and volunteers
can work together to serve the public's needs.

Despite the money that has been spent and the work that needs
to be done we have a situation that is emerging which does not
serve the U.S. taxpayers well. This situation fits a pattern that
has been observed over and over during the past few years of
Internet Governance debates. The pattern is most easily observed
in the following archive from one of the ARIN mailing lists.
<http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9804> The pattern
consists of a destructive intervention by non-U.S. citizens who
somehow gain the confidence of these U.S. companies and
get themselves appointed to positions of authority. Because of
the nature of the Internet, these visitors operate as if they
are U.S. citizens and have no problem dictating what the American
Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) should do, without any
concern for being accountable for the result.

Much of this destructive and disruptive interference appears to
be aimed at wasting people's time and at preventing U.S. citizens
from organizing and using their unique stewardship position in
the Internet to lead the world to better technology and services.
This pattern of disruptive behavior has been observed in many of
the key Internet Governance activities over the past few years.
Much of it can be attributed to a small number of vocal people
who do not seem interested in making investments or developing
infrastructure but seem determined to derail any effort that has
U.S. Government support. What is particularily sad about the
situation is that many young Americans look up to these people
and attempt to treat them as U.S. citizens with the return result
being these endless filibusters that waste people's time and money.

As ARIN moves forward I caution the Trustees that they should
look carefullly at what is going on, or more importantly not going
on. These filibusters can consume enormous amounts of time
and money with no purpose or result. I suggest that the Trustees
make an attempt to set some priorities and some goals and then
stick to them no matter who arrives to derail the effort. There is a
lot of work to be done and strong leadership will be needed to
overcome the influences of these people that seek control by
creating chaos.


-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_32666BE2.5A3B5736--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:07 1998
Message-Id: <0000195F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:13 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...")
     -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_33676AE3.5B3A5637"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_33676AE3.5B3A5637
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_33676AE3.5B3A5637
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:10 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...")
     -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from [207.21.137.250] (h207-21-143-142.ncal.verio.com [207.21.143.142])
     by mailhub1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02795;
     Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: usdh@pop.ccnet.com
Message-Id: <v01520d01b15e4bbabffb@[207.21.137.250]>
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
From: usdh@mail.ccnet.com (steve)
Subject: Re: Just do it (or "Death of the Net? Film at 11...")
Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"  <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Don Mitchell'" <dmitchel@NSF.GOV>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        usdh@ccnet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

4/18/98

Craig Simon writes:

>Let's see if I have this straight.
>
>CORE's *stated* goal was to introduce competition into the DNS
>registration business in early 1998 without causing a split in the
>DNS. The IAHC process husbanded by ISOC was trying to constitute a new
>form of global authority to legitimate this. If you look at
>statements made by important members of ISOC, POC, the IAB, etc., you
>find all kinds of interesting romantic idealistic thinking about how
>the Internet is catalyzing a new form of global society, bolstered by
>comments that nation-states are not appropriate agents of Internet
>governance. The CORE goal was to grow the Internet faster while
>minimizing risk to the integrity of a unified DNS.

Steve:
        So far so good, + or - nanopoints.

Craig,
>If you look at at what those people say, there is clearly a lot of
>wide-eyed idealism there, but material interests are also at play. The
>corps that contribute most to ISOC and the Internet standards process
>have much to gain as more switches, bandwidth, and hosts are added to
>the net. Major concessions were made to trademark interests to get
>them to sign on.

Steve,
        Look closely at the professional make-up of the board and you will
be able to see the narrowness of their perspectives, engineering, network
operations, trademarks, regulated telecom bureacratic management.  It was
all about filling a powerful void with a minimum of representation.  They
were in uncharted waters or uncharted space hoping to find virgin =
territory
to set up a new system.

Craig,
>The USG blocked CORE, asserting that the Internet is still largely an
>American preserve, and that it is mostly up to the USG to determine
>how to constitute the future form of Internet governance.  The USG
>also states it wants to introduce competitive registrars and
>registries in ways that would maintain a stable, unified DNS. For the
>member of the USG, Internet stability the first priority and the most
>acceptable platitude. Thus, the USG takes a risk-minimizing, "go slow"
>approach to TLD expansion while it fishes around for ways to keep the
>IANA from wandering out of the USG orbit (toward the ITU or parts
>unknown).

Steve:
        I would say that the reasons for blocking CORE be better stated
that the responsibility for transitioning the Internet rests within the
legal framework of the USG, not that the Internet is an American preserve.

Craig:
>There is also a clear material interest at play here. The Internet is
>a golden goose, and the USG does not want anyone tampering with it too
>much. And it is very likely that the final form of the Report and
>Order issued by Magaziner's group will work to the advantage of
>trademark holders based in the U.S.

Steve:
        There appears to be a need to add some sort of trans-national
leadership in this uncharted territory.  The US, as the R&Der of the
various pre-Internet nets (DARPANET/NSFNET) is in the best position to
apply the leverage.  If one recognizes that the Internet represents a new
medium for "electronic commerce" which is the New Economy that the =
Commerce
Department talks about when they say that it is doubling every 100 days,
then the same framework which has provided a foundation for the
globalization of financial markets, the U.S. Constitution, provides the
stability which allows property ownership (driven by self-interest),
innovation (same), and entrepreneurship to flourish.  As we have seen, and
continue to see every day, freedoms and rights of individuals to behave in
their best interests, must be protected, formally, otherwise they will be
eroded by those who over time will aggregate power, seeking to control the
masses.

Craig,
>The extended DNS folks who started playing around with alternate roots
>in 1996 generally like the USG GP/NPRM process, since it gives CORE a
>stiff boot. Nevertheless, if you pinch these people (or read what they
>say in threads like this), it turns out they really don't care much
>for the principle of DNS unity. These folks thrive on risk. The term
>"casino capitalism" was invented for people like them. Material
>interests and the prospects of big payoffs come first. Where CORE
>folks romanticized the idea of helping to build an Internet-enabled
>global civil society, and where the USG wrestles with the often tragic
>responsibility of maintaining an existing national civil society,
>these alternate DNS folks romanticize the open global market and the
>innovation it produces. They seem willing (and eager) to
>disenfranchise technological "widders and orphans" according to the
>dictates of that capricious market, as a worthy sacrifice on the altar
>of the private shared good.

Steve:
        The unity of a functional DNS is a necessary requirement for a
functional New Economy.  It is exactly the same as the "unity" of mankind
being a necessary requirement for a functional world.  Until "unity" is
recognized in both mirrored spheres, there will be dysfunctionality.
        Whether the "alternate" supporters care about "unity" does not
matter.  What does matter is the reality that in a competitively economic

environment, people are required to take risks with their scarce energy.
(From the minute we are born, we are in the process of dying, so we had
better choose how we spend our scarce energy prudently.)  You say "these
folks thrive on risk".  Everyone will either thrive, or not thrive, on the
risk-based decisions that they make.
        You say "casino capitalism" was invented for "people like them".
The physical world is one gigantic "energy-casino".  Three year olds place
their bets that they want to be a Fireman, ten year olds place their bets
that they want to be a Pilot, and both spend their energy pursuing it.  It
truly is a "field of dreams" and the spirit fuels how we spend our
energy.Similarly, adults place their bets in college: accounting,
engineering, science.
        You write: "They seem willing (and eager) to disenfranchise
technological "widders and orphans" according to the dictates of that
capricious market, as a worthy sacrifice on the altar of the private =
shared
good."  From what communist doctrine textbook does that eminate?  That
statement has no basis and appears written long ago by Marx, Lenin, or
Stalin.

Craig:
>CORE supporters and USG officers both like open markets and
>competition, of course, but they share a higher predisposition toward
>setting a baseline of social needs, which then justifies action on
>behalf of the "public trust," and investment in "public goods." For
>example, consider a litmus test related to the role of telecom in
>people's lives, but outside the DNS controversy. I imagine that CORE
>supporters and members of the USG are more likely to share a support
>for the principle of universal service price controls than alternate
>DNS advocates.
>
>Do any of the players here feel mis-characterized by this?
>
>Craig

Steve:
        CORE supporters may like open markets, but the CORE structure does
not support an open market, but a market which is controlled, and =
therefore
not supported by a Constitution which protects the rights to own property,
live freely (therefore act in one's self-interest).
        USG officers answer to the People, and that is protected by the
Constitution.  Therefore, every change in economic policy linked to the
creative efforts of DOD, DARPA, DOC, NTIA, etc. must flow from there.  =
Have
you wondered why the Dept of Commerce' NTIA is involved.  This is all =
about
the guiding hand of the U.S. Constitution over the evolution of the New
Economy.  That is the forest.  DNS is a clump of trees.


(c) Copyright, 1998.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts =
from
the forthcoming book, "The Electronic Commerce Handbook".


Supporting the Constitution of the U.S. as the foundation under the
evolution of the New Economy called "Electronic Commerce".

Stephen J. Page
MBA OD BSc
George C. Marshall Award Winner, presented at VMI, 1979

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








--=_33676AE3.5B3A5637--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:08 1998
Message-Id: <00001959@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:25 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the Roots -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_34606DE4.54355938"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_34606DE4.54355938
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_34606DE4.54355938
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:22 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the Roots -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id OAA13050; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:10:05 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6AD3.0C5CE460@pc.unir.net>; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:05:31 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6AD3.0C5CE460@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@internic.net>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Subject: ARIN PTR Record Service in the Roots
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:05:30 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


Kim,

How much does it cost ARIN to manage these names ?

Also, how much do these people pay to have reverse
resolution service handled directly in the U.S. Government's
legacy Root Name Servers ?


254.152.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   AAHL.DAH.CSIRO.AU.
254.152.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   AAHL.DAH.CSIRO.AU.
2.133.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ACFP1.ACFP.AF.MIL.
3.133.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ACFP1.ACFP.AF.MIL.
7.234.69.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ACG.MAILORDER.COM.
42.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ACTS42.DISA.MIL.
2.23.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   AEESA.NAVY.MIL.
12.212.67.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   AFSOCSC.AFSOC.AF.MIL.
123.75.77.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   AFTAC.AF.MIL.
100.68.235.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   AIT.NRL.NAVY.MIL.
101.152.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   AIVAX.RL.AF.MIL.
254.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ALEX-GW1.ARMY.MIL.
5.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ALEXANDRIA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
1.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ALEXANDRIA-EMH6.ARMY.MIL.
3.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ALEXANDRIA-EMH7.ARMY.MIL.
6.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ALEXANDRIA-EMH8.ARMY.MIL.
31.136.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   ALINFM.GE.INFN.IT.
4.132.4.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ALTAIR.ALTAIRA.COM.
1.8.54.148.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ALTCE.ALT.COM.
2.160.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   AMATERASU.AWARE.COM.
201.67.129.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   AMC90.ARMY.MIL.
26.195.52.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   AMES-IP.DDN.MIL.
200.51.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ANM1.ACOM.MIL.
3.32.29.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ANUBIS.NOSC.MIL.
2.43.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   APG-EOCSUN1.ARMY.MIL.
1.43.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   APG-SUN1.ARMY.MIL.
205.115.43.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   APOLLO.UNIVERSAL.COM.
59.90.49.145.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   APOU01.AKZONOBEL.NL.
1.177.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   APPNET.CLARION.EDU.
3.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   ARPSTL-80X.ARMY.MIL.
2.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   ARPSTL-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
100.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
229.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-EMH3.ARMY.MIL.
5.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ARPSTL-EMH3.ARMY.MIL.
206.5.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ARPSTL-HOST-IM6.ARMY.MIL.
2.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY1.ARMY.MIL.
226.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY1.ARMY.MIL.
227.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY2.ARMY.MIL.
4.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY2.ARMY.MIL.
228.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY3.ARMY.MIL.
3.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ARPSTL-PROXY3.ARMY.MIL.
150.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-RSK.IM4.ARMY.MIL.
230.187.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ARPSTL-WWW.ARMY.MIL.
6.188.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ARPSTL-WWW.ARMY.MIL.
1.119.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ASRMKBS1.ASRMKBS1.NAVY.MIL.
1.240.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ASRMKBS2.ASRMKBS1.NAVY.MIL.
65.18.176.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   BADLANDS.RIS.SDBOR.EDU.
3.48.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BAILEYS-CEAC.ARMY.MIL.
9.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   BAILEYS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
240.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BAILEYS-EMH4.ARMY.MIL.
13.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BAILEYS-HQMTMC.ARMY.MIL.
81.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BAILEYS-IBSOPS.ARMY.MIL.
9.244.145.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   BAUGH.ORG.
2.113.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BAYONNE-TACOS.ARMY.MIL.
15.183.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BBSCBS-SPT.ARMY.MIL.
7.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BELLOWS.SSPH.NAVY.MIL.
2.150.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BENNING-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
120.102.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BIGFOOT.SSP23.NAVY.MIL.
3.224.55.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BIONET.BIO.NS.CA.
100.196.35.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUE1.NCTSW.NAVY.MIL.
3.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-AMS1.ARMY.MIL.
4.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
5.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
8.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-EMH3.ARMY.MIL.
1.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-GW1.ARMY.MIL.
67.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC1067.ARMY.MIL.
75.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC1075.ARMY.MIL.
155.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC155.ARMY.MIL.
156.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC156.ARMY.MIL.
157.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC157.ARMY.MIL.
80.71.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC180.ARMY.MIL.
36.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC36.ARMY.MIL.
37.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BLUEGRASS-PC37.ARMY.MIL.
7.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-SAAC.ARMY.MIL.
2.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS1.ARMY.MIL.
100.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS100.ARMY.MIL.
101.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS101.ARMY.MIL.
102.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS102.ARMY.MIL.
103.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS103.ARMY.MIL.
104.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS104.ARMY.MIL.
105.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS105.ARMY.MIL.
106.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS106.ARMY.MIL.
107.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS107.ARMY.MIL.
108.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS108.ARMY.MIL.
109.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS109.ARMY.MIL.
110.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS110.ARMY.MIL.
111.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS111.ARMY.MIL.
112.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS112.ARMY.MIL.
113.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS113.ARMY.MIL.
114.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS114.ARMY.MIL.
115.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS115.ARMY.MIL.
116.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS116.ARMY.MIL.
117.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS117.ARMY.MIL.
118.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS118.ARMY.MIL.
119.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS119.ARMY.MIL.
120.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS120.ARMY.MIL.
121.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS121.ARMY.MIL.
122.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS122.ARMY.MIL.
123.180.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BLUEGRASS-TS123.ARMY.MIL.
0.93.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   BLYSCSDS-GW.ARMY.MIL.
37.71.94.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   BOTES2.BO.CNR.IT.
1.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   BREMERTON-GW.MRMS.NAVY.MIL.
6.9.198.150.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   C1-DEPLOY.ARMY.MIL.
130.158.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   C7F.PACOM.MIL.
9.21.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   CARSON-3BRIGADE.ARMY.MIL.
6.22.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   CARSON-64FSB.ARMY.MIL.
2.146.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   CARSON-ACPERS.ARMY.MIL.
6.41.13.158.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   CARSON-EMH4.ARMY.MIL.
189.144.139.208.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   CATOOSA.INDY.NAVY.MIL.
33.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CCEL-1.DISA.MIL.
34.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CCEL-2.DISA.MIL.
35.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CCEL-3.DISA.MIL.
36.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CCEL-36.DISA.MIL.
1.0.11.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   CCSE.KFUPM.EDU.
2.1.147.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CCSVWB1.GOV.ZA.
132.72.86.207.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CGNS1.USCG.MIL.
29.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   CHATTER14.NAVY.MIL.
45.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CINCVIEW.DISA.MIL.
6.136.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   CLMNGE.GE.INFN.IT.
122.215.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   CMH-SMTP.ARMY.MIL.
19.218.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CMP.PEOCU.NAVY.MIL.
20.218.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CMPEDN.PEOCU.NAVY.MIL.
11.253.88.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   CODA.INTERACT.ORG.
2.200.21.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   COL1.TELECOM.COM.CO.
2.100.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CON-NS.CONCORD.NAVY.MIL.
1.100.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   CONCORD-GW.NAVY.MIL.
131.154.77.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   CPCASEY-ACIRS.KOREA.ARMY.MIL.
1.181.187.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   DADDY.PEPPER.COM.
1.73.69.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   DANTES.VOLED.DODED.MIL.
3.73.69.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   DANTES.VOLED.DODED.MIL.
11.240.193.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DAWN.NAVY.MIL.
24.217.65.165.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DDDC025.HA.OSD.MIL.
72.58.158.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DDRS.SSC.AF.MIL.
2.133.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DEATHSTAR.COSMOSBBS.COM.
6.180.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   DEC5500.SGIA.IMP.MX.
17.152.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   DEC59.RUK.CUNI.CZ.
52.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DEMOSS10.DISA.MIL.
1.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DINFOS.OSD.MIL.
15.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DIPC1-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
13.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DIPC2-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
16.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DIPC4-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
7.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DIPC5-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
9.121.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DIPC6-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
9.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DIPC6-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
11.121.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DIPC7-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
11.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DIPC7-SA-TX.DISA.MIL.
162.254.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DITCO.DISA.MIL.
163.254.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DITCONMGT.DITCO.DISA.MIL.
2.15.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DIX-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.83.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   DJCSE1.JS.MIL.
2.84.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   DJCSE2.JS.MIL.
5.183.189.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   DNRDNS.DNR.STATE.WI.US.
99.128.53.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   DNS-SJ.IP-VIBES.COM.
9.128.53.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DNS-SJ2.IP-VIBES.COM.
4.183.166.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   DNS.ENTERWAY.NET.
1.37.44.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DNS.FRAUNHOFER.ORG.
130.6.26.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DNS.MERCERNET.COM.
179.81.159.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   DNS.UCHS.ORG.
2.1.239.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DNS1.SUPERCOMP.ORG.
10.1.239.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DNS2.SUPERCOMP.ORG.
100.105.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   DNS3.AU.WANG.COM.
1.209.156.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DODDS-WASH.AF.MIL.
98.201.5.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DOTNEWS.NHTSA.DOT.GOV.
23.253.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   DRACO.ARIN.NET.
2.51.103.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DRUM-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.79.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   DSICSC3.LES.MIL.
100.136.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DSISVR1.LES.MIL.
100.76.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   DSISVR2.LES.MIL.
51.147.240.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   DTICAM.DTIC.DLA.MIL.
8.112.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   EA-IBS1.ARMY.MIL.
9.112.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   EA-IBS2.ARMY.MIL.
12.101.24.167.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   EAGLE.USAA.COM.
1.246.55.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   EDMICS-GW.NAVY.MIL.
2.212.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   EFDNORTH.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL.
35.88.4.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   EFDSOUTH.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL.
34.100.4.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   EFDSWEST.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL.
248.20.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   EMAIL.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL.
5.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   EMERALD.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL.
30.200.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   EMMA.ITEK.NORUT.NO.
102.123.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   EPSILON.AFSOC.AF.MIL.
2.188.157.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   EUR.ACCESS.COM.
1.166.98.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   FACSO.NAVFAC.NAVY.MIL.
3.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   FALLSCHURCH-ACIRS2.ARMY.MIL.
9.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   FALLSCHURCH-ACIRS9.ARMY.MIL.
1.236.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FCCN01.FCCN.PT.
1.253.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   FCDSSA1.NAVY.MIL.
2.253.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   FCDSSA2.NAVY.MIL.
2.43.87.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   FERC.FED.US.
2.204.29.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FIINIX.METRONET.COM.
251.214.80.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FIX-EAST.DDN.MIL.
123.228.37.209.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FLOYD.NETSAFA.NAVY.MIL.
10.253.88.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   FORTE.INTERACT.ORG.
1.251.48.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FREIBURG.ITT-SC.DE.
10.200.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FS.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.
2.147.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   FTBNHRSN-IGNET.ARMY.MIL.
2.132.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   FTJACKSN-AGEIP.ARMY.MIL.
6.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   FTMEADE-CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL.
1.47.138.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   FTSILL-AMEDD.ARMY.MIL.
2.88.249.129.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   FXWIDEGW.FUJIXEROX.CO.JP.
2.5.203.147.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   GATEKEEPER.ALTRIS.COM.
73.17.170.173.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   GFGS01.UNILEOBEN.AC.AT.
60.131.67.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   GOOBER.MBHS.EDU.
112.199.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   GORGON.TFT.TELE.NO.
8.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   GROUCHO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.=

9.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   GUMMO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.
1.250.154.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   GW1.DARMSTADT.ARMY.MIL.
50.1.85.131.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   GW2.DFSC.DLA.MIL.
2.148.0.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   HAL9000.TMM.CL.
4.227.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   HANNIBAL.CORVU.COM.AU.
1.8.137.134.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   HAP.ARNOLD.AF.MIL.
7.123.124.161.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   HARPO.NWSCON.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.
1.13.210.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   HECKELE.ACIPCO.COM.
58.229.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   HELKA.IIF.HU.
9.90.49.145.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   HERA.OSS.AKZONOBEL.NL.
0.15.37.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   HILL2-GW.AF.MIL.
2.17.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   HOLBRD-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL.
1.178.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   HOST.DI.FCT.UNL.PT.
10.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   HP9000.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL.
2.6.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   HPSVR2.HCTG.SAIC.COM.
3.113.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   HSC2.HONEYWELL.OZ.AU.
6.225.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   HUGBOX.SZTAKI.HU.
5.175.137.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   HWRHQ.HWR.COM.
2.42.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   INDGAP-AFMIS.ARMY.MIL.
2.222.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   INDGAP-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.188.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   INDIANTO-TCACCIS.ARMY.MIL.
65.1.46.174.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   INET-GATEWAY.CO.SANTA-CLARA.CA.U=
S.
3.58.225.152.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   IRSNIC.IS.IRS.GOV.
2.6.66.136.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   IRWIN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
133.29.31.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   ISIS.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL.
191.178.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   ISOLDE.DI.FCT.UNL.PT.
3.16.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   JACKSON-DATA.ARMY.MIL.
2.16.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   JACKSON-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
10.108.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   JAXV1.NADJX.NAVY.MIL.
6.59.4.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   JCDBS.ITSI.DISA.MIL.
2.123.9.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   JCSEC4TML.JS.MIL.
251.83.98.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   JDI.BRAGG.ARMY.MIL.
179.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   JEDI.CCI.DE.
65.245.181.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   JPOBD.OSD.MIL.
4.148.3.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   JRTS.JEDMIC.NAVY.MIL.
2.4.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   JTF6-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.164.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   KAUKAU.HNL.MRMS.NAVY.MIL.
150.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   KNOWHOW.CCI.DE.
1.159.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   KYX.NETGUY.COM.
1.178.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LAHS.LOSALAMOS.K12.NM.US.
2.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL.
1.171.133.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   LAMS.LOSALAMOS.K12.NM.US.
100.59.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LANCASTER-ACCHRM.ARMY.MIL.
150.163.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   LANHOST1.DITCO.DISA.MIL.
20.192.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   LAVA.NOORD.BART.NL.
10.109.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   LEAV-TACWAR.ARMY.MIL.
70.127.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   LESSVR1.LES.MIL.
150.127.57.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LESSVR2.LES.MIL.
2.161.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   LEX.PRF.CUNI.CZ.
2.17.117.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LEZVAX.OEAW.AC.AT.
113.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LIA-SERVER-1.ARMY.MIL.
114.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LIA-SERVER-2.ARMY.MIL.
107.82.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   LIA-SERVER-3.ARMY.MIL.
2.1.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   LOUIS.NOSL.SEA06.NAVY.MIL.
51.80.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   M1000.NPMOC.NAVY.MIL.
2.213.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MAIN.ARCENT.ARMY.MIL.
102.81.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MARS.ARMY.MIL.
9.1.179.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   MARS.ARMY.MIL.
20.177.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MARS.MYAPC.COM.
7.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCALESTR-CPAC.ARMY.MIL.
13.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
35.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-EMH3.ARMY.MIL.
4.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCALESTR-EMH4.ARMY.MIL.
2.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCALESTR-IDS1.ARMY.MIL.
164.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MCALESTR-IIS.ARMY.MIL.
1.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCALESTR-MPS1.ARMY.MIL.
17.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-PC017.ARMY.MIL.
20.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-PC020.ARMY.MIL.
12.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-PC12.ARMY.MIL.
188.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MCALESTR-PC188.ARMY.MIL.
190.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MCALESTR-PC190.ARMY.MIL.
195.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MCALESTR-PC195.ARMY.MIL.
196.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MCALESTR-PC196.ARMY.MIL.
26.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-PC26.ARMY.MIL.
54.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MCALESTR-PC54.ARMY.MIL.
6.130.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCALESTR-WWW.ARMY.MIL.
2.11.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   MCCLELLAN-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.133.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MCLEAN-UNISYS.ARMY.MIL.
6.37.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   MEADE-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL.
201.211.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MEADE-DCSBA.ARMY.MIL.
2.220.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MELPAR-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
2.181.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MELPAR-EMH3.ARMY.MIL.
2.20.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   MELPAR-EMH5.ARMY.MIL.

2.208.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MELPAR-EMH6.ARMY.MIL.
2.221.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MELPAR-EMH7.ARMY.MIL.
3.139.187.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   METAFW.METASW.COM.
10.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   METIS.USNO.NAVY.MIL.
2.0.253.149.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   MH1.JS.MIL.
1.150.107.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MIDPAC.HNL.MRMS.NAVY.MIL.
1.104.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   MIKE.OUTSIDE.COM.
1.195.52.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   MOFFETT-FLD-MB.DDN.MIL.
12.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MONSTER.DINFOS.OSD.MIL.
23.90.133.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   MORLICH.TURING.COM.
0.247.131.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MSCPAC-GW.NAVY.MIL.
1.3.27.140.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   MTMC-GWY2.ARMY.MIL.
2.142.146.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   MYCROFT.RS.NAVY.MIL.
3.184.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NASNI.NAVY.MIL.
2.119.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NCAD-EMH13.ARMY.MIL.
5.119.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NCAD-EMH17.ARMY.MIL.
10.11.252.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NED10.MED.NAVY.MIL.
100.115.43.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   NEPTUNE.UNIVERSAL.COM.
200.43.253.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NMS1.FLEET.NAVY.MIL.
1.1.229.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NOC.SC92.NET.
6.124.225.152.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NOGATE1.IS.IRS.GOV.
15.9.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS.AFIWC01.AF.MIL.
100.63.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   NS.ANS.NET.
1.154.177.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.BHSU.EDU.
1.113.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.CAPMKT.COM.
3.72.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS.CHOB.EDU.
3.186.19.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS.CITYVU.COM.
189.174.176.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   NS.DOAS.STATE.GA.US.
50.10.161.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS.FHSO.NAVY.MIL.
13.59.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.HEALTH.GOV.SK.CA.
3.200.96.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS.IONET.NET.
200.166.238.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   NS.NETVIRTUAL.COM.
2.194.184.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.NIMIR.COM.
1.229.180.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.NORTHERN.EDU.
10.206.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   NS.NPC.COM.
10.72.72.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS.PEACH.NET.
1.7.132.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS.PERU.EDU.
70.10.161.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS.PML500.NAVY.MIL.
1.224.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS.PROFIRE.CO.JP.
15.44.203.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS.SOS.STATE.TX.US.
2.121.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS.UXBRIDGE.AF.MIL.
1.185.79.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS.WAVLAN.PROCYON.COM.
2.24.136.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS1.AOC.GOV.
129.158.55.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   NS1.BLUE-HWY.NET.
3.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS1.CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL.
1.1.235.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS1.COMPUDYN.COM.
2.165.166.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS1.CWV.NET.
1.54.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS1.DINFOS.OSD.MIL.
4.161.3.196.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS1.DYNAMIQUE.COM.
43.12.102.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS1.HASIMONS.COM.
66.41.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS1.IGNET.ARMY.MIL.
3.152.56.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS1.JNTF.OSD.MIL.
1.100.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS1.NSWCL.NAVY.MIL.
10.1.159.163.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS1.SDK.SI.
3.121.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS1.UXBRIDGE.AF.MIL.
4.41.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS2.CLAIMS.ARMY.MIL.
55.1.235.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS2.COMPUDYN.COM.
21.218.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NS2.DSWA.MIL.
6.132.137.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS2.FLOCHART.COM.
21.192.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NS2.IVG.COM.
2.152.56.143.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NS2.JNTF.OSD.MIL.
3.100.158.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS2.NSWCL.NAVY.MIL.
50.185.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   NS2.REPAIR.NAVY.MIL.
11.1.201.144.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   NSNAME.EUTEC.EXXON.COM.
2.19.24.137.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   NSWSES-GW.NSWSES.NAVY.MIL.
1.199.58.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NTSC-NAVAIRHQ-GW.NAVY.MIL.
252.247.104.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   NTSVR02.WILLIAMS.AF.MIL.
0.130.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   NWSCHS-GW.NAVY.MIL.
200.104.24.167.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   OAK.USAA.COM.
2.118.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   OAKLAND-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
1.247.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   OALAN.NAMRL.NAVY.MIL.
1.198.87.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ODIN.EDICT.COM.
2.147.78.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   OIBT.DWHL.DE.
1.237.76.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   ONREUR.NAVY.MIL.
3.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   OPAL.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL.
140.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   OPEN81.SATX.DISA.MIL.
141.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   OPEN82.SATX.DISA.MIL.
70.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   OPEN83.SATX.DISA.MIL.
142.13.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   OPEN84.SATX.DISA.MIL.
11.12.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   OPMED1.MED.NAVY.MIL.
18.235.43.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   OZONE.HSI.COM.
38.222.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   P1380-N01.MEDNET.AF.MIL.
3.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PARADISE.SSPH.NAVY.MIL.
33.16.176.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   PASQUE.SD.NET.
1.175.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   PC1NET.CLARION.EDU.
1.176.183.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   PC2NET.CLARION.EDU.
2.131.32.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PDC.CPG1.NAVY.MIL.
129.171.1.200.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   PDV.COM.
3.0.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PEER03.VWM.COM.
52.34.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PENTAGON-DELGROSSOB.ARMY.MIL.
131.34.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   PENTAGON-RENO.ARMY.MIL.
14.185.17.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   PERA14.REPAIR.NAVY.MIL.
2.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   PERACV.NAVY.MIL.
6.78.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   PERAEAST.NAVY.MIL.
66.246.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   PERASMTP.NAVY.MIL.
2.5.219.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   PMH.TORONTO.ON.CA.
1.94.169.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PMRMA-WWW.ARMY.MIL.
50.142.146.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   POIROT.RS.NAVY.MIL.
65.28.147.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   POKEY.MAXM.COM.
1.153.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   PRAHA1.FF.CUNI.CZ.
45.9.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PROTEUS.AFIWC01.AF.MIL.
2.0.8.7.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                  PTR   PROTOLABA.DISA.MIL.
1.23.168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   PROXY-EXT.CORONA.NAVY.MIL.
2.26.117.138.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   QIINFO.OEAW.AC.AT.
2.0.11.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RAZI.KFUPM.EDU.
185.95.86.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   RC-ACIRS.ARMY.MIL.
2.51.238.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   RD-NET.EDSDRD.EDS.COM.
6.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD06.ARMY.MIL.
7.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD07.ARMY.MIL.
8.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD08.ARMY.MIL.
9.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD09.ARMY.MIL.
11.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD11.ARMY.MIL.
14.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD14.ARMY.MIL.
15.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD15.ARMY.MIL.
18.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   REDRIVER-RRAD18.ARMY.MIL.
5.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   REDRIVERAD-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
52.4.214.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RELAY2.NIMA.MIL.
1.16.131.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RITCHIE-GW1.ARMY.MIL.
100.35.29.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   ROMEO.CCEH.NOAA.GOV.
2.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RRAD02.ARMY.MIL.
3.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RRAD03.ARMY.MIL.
4.97.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   RRAD04.ARMY.MIL.
105.236.124.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   RSSERV.BA-MOSBACH.DE.
82.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA04.SATX.DISA.MIL.
80.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA05.SATX.DISA.MIL.
81.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA05.SATX.DISA.MIL.
96.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA06.SATX.DISA.MIL.
97.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA06.SATX.DISA.MIL.
88.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA17.SATX.DISA.MIL.
89.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA17.SATX.DISA.MIL.
92.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA20.SATX.DISA.MIL.
93.86.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SA20.SATX.DISA.MIL.
2.94.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   SAIPH.DISA.MIL.
6.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   SAPHIRE.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL.
2.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SAVANNA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
100.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SAVANNA-WWW.ARMY.MIL.
8.141.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SBATH.NAVY.MIL.
1.188.87.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SCO.VHALL.NL.
2.133.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SENECA-EMH.ARMY.MIL.
130.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SEOUL-1SIG.KOREA.ARMY.MIL.
133.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SEOUL-EMH1.KOREA.ARMY.MIL.
115.102.99.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SERVICES.SSP23.NAVY.MIL.
18.20.236.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SERVINTER.CSJC.QC.CA.
2.137.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SF-6ARMY.ARMY.MIL.
2.138.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SF-PROFS.ARMY.MIL.
1.1.148.162.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SIERRA.PNW.NET.
33.75.206.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SIM.IRK.AETC.AF.MIL.
2.44.103.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SIMA.SFO.MRMS.NAVY.MIL.
2.193.108.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SIWASH.BC.CA.
98.19.154.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SKYNET.LAKEHURST.NAVY.MIL.
2.250.197.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SLRI04.MSHRI.ON.CA.
34.80.237.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SM1-SUN1.CEGEP-CHICOUTIMI.QC.CA.=

92.129.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SMTPGW.NCTSW.NAVY.MIL.
8.119.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SMTPGW.SSPH.NAVY.MIL.
20.80.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SMTPLINK.NPMOC.NAVY.MIL.
88.141.153.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   SNAKE.ARIN.NET.
10.14.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SND10.MED.NAVY.MIL.
1.31.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SOCRATES.HEALTH.GOV.SK.CA.
1.219.148.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SOL.AGGREGATE.COM.
1.98.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SOLBOURNE.C2DEL.DISA.MIL.
1.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   SPAWAR-GW1.NAVY.MIL.
253.2.32.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SPB.SWFPAC.NAVY.MIL.
169.66.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SPEEDY.CCI.DE.
212.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SPICA.USNO.NAVY.MIL.
3.24.169.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SPMCMR.SPMC.GOV.SK.CA.
4.32.105.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SPSUP-1.NAVY.MIL.
211.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   STRAT2-1SIG.KOREA.ARMY.MIL.
105.86.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SUN1.IPCPUGET.NAVY.MIL.
20.108.97.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SUN551.NADJX.NAVY.MIL.
3.96.172.142.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SUNMGR1.STENTOR.CA.
33.16.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SUNNY.K2.NET.
1.245.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   SUSOPS.NAMRL.NAVY.MIL.
52.244.108.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SVDA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
171.30.251.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   SVVAN340.SIERRASYS.COM.
250.163.207.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   SW.SCOTT.DISA.MIL.
1.96.42.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   SWI.PSY.UVA.NL.
30.96.42.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SWISUN20.SWI.PSY.UVA.NL.
103.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS1.SATX.DISA.MIL.
143.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS10.SATX.DISA.MIL.
145.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS11.SATX.DISA.MIL.
144.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS12.SATX.DISA.MIL.
115.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS21.SATX.DISA.MIL.
113.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS22.SATX.DISA.MIL.
116.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS24.SATX.DISA.MIL.
107.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS25.SATX.DISA.MIL.
109.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS26.SATX.DISA.MIL.
109.123.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS26.SATX.DISA.MIL.
111.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS27.SATX.DISA.MIL.
104.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS3.SATX.DISA.MIL.
102.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS4.SATX.DISA.MIL.
101.120.49.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SYS6.SATX.DISA.MIL.
1.225.84.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   SZTAKI.HU.
5.129.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   TAC.FI.
9.146.56.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   TAC0.ARMY.MIL.
1.50.160.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   TAIBA.UFC.BR.
66.146.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   TASA1.ARMY.MIL.
130.146.101.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   TASA2.ARMY.MIL.
130.45.138.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   TASA2.ARMY.MIL.
30.170.120.146.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   TELE.FMHA.GOV.
34.253.149.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   TEST.ARIN.NET.
6.3.214.131.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   THREEWAY-GW.RL.AF.MIL.
251.160.235.204.IN-ADDR.ARPA.        PTR   TIGGER.ADMIN.ESU.EDU.
36.46.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   TIUR.NORSAR.NO.
2.149.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   TOOELE-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
9.7.26.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   TOPAZ.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL.
4.69.211.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   TRFKB-EMH1.NAVY.MIL.

2.72.75.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   TRITON.DMSO.MIL.
2.32.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   TRV1.TRVNET.NET.
4.32.72.206.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   TRV2.TRVNET.NET.
30.90.133.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   TUMMEL.TURING.COM.
239.41.5.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   TYCHO.USNO.NAVY.MIL.
15.160.68.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   TYCLE.AWARE.COM.
34.151.166.205.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   UCMSUNIX.UCMSO.COM.
11.51.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   USADAC-CHEMTNG.ARMY.MIL.
27.50.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   USANCA-SMTP.ARMY.MIL.
1.50.10.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   USANCA-SUN1.ARMY.MIL.
30.205.188.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   USARC-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
2.46.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   USASAC-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
2.35.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   USFK.KOREA.ARMY.MIL.
7.15.17.132.IN-ADDR.ARPA.              PTR   UXB-WIMS.AF.MIL.
161.30.251.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.         PTR   UXVAN068A.SIERRASYS.COM.
99.218.48.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   VAX.DARPA.MIL.
2.47.143.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   VAX.DMSSC-FCVA.MIL.
124.229.226.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   VGER.NEXNET.NAVY.MIL.
26.14.172.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   WARREN-GW1.ARMY.MIL.
4.129.54.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   WASHDC1-OSIGW.DISA.MIL.
37.71.100.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   WEB.CCELNET.DISA.MIL.
25.150.153.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   WWW-BENNING.ARMY.MIL.
6.55.122.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   WWW.DINFOS.OSD.MIL.
6.81.123.199.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   WWW.DINFOS.OSD.MIL.
10.74.144.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.          PTR   WWW.ISSY.CNET.FR.
59.2.214.164.IN-ADDR.ARPA.             PTR   WWW.NIMA.MIL.
10.15.151.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   XMAIL.HA.OSD.MIL.
10.0.2.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                 PTR   YUMA-ADACS.ARMY.MIL.
1.0.1.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                  PTR   YUMA-EMH1.ARMY.MIL.
8.0.2.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                  PTR   YUMA-EMH2.ARMY.MIL.
1.0.6.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                  PTR   YUMA-GW.ARMY.MIL.
5.2.121.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                PTR   YUMA-HST1.ARMY.MIL.
20.2.114.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   YUMA-HST2.ARMY.MIL.
10.1.71.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.                PTR   YUMA-HST3.ARMY.MIL.
45.2.114.6.IN-ADDR.ARPA.               PTR   YUMA-HST4.ARMY.MIL.
6.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   YUMA-NOTES1.ARMY.MIL.
4.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   YUMA-WWW1.ARMY.MIL.
5.122.135.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.            PTR   YUMA-WWW2.ARMY.MIL.
1.24.139.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.           PTR   ZEPPO.GEOSURV.GOV.NF.CA.




--=_34606DE4.54355938--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:08 1998
Message-Id: <0000195D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:31 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin -Forwarded
     -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_34606DE4.55345839"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_34606DE4.55345839
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_34606DE4.55345839
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:28 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id
IAA15678; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:12:53 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6B6A.51802560@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:08:21 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6B6A.51802560@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kent Crispin'" <kent@SONGBIRD.COM>
Cc: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>,
        "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'"
      <antitrust@usdoj.gov>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"
      <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Christopher Ambler'" <cambler@iodesign.com>,
        "'cgomes@internic.net'" <cgomes@internic.net>,
        "'Clough, Christopher'" <chrisc@NETSOL.COM>
Cc: "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'"
      <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>, "'James Love'" <love@cptech.org>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'"
      <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" <rmeyer@MHSC.COM>
Cc: "'Simon Higgs'" <simon@higgs.com>
Subject: Domain Name Market Manipulations Cause Lockin
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:08:20 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Saturday, April 18, 1998 4:04 PM, Kent Crispin[SMTP:kent@SONGBIRD.COM] =
wrote:
<snip>
@
@In fact, the only level that really requires lockin is the DNS level
@itself -- it's intrinsic to the design of DNS, but it's not intrinsic
@to anything built on top of DNS.
@
@--
@Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",

Kent,

I know that people do not like to think about multiple TLD clusters
or the "cloning" of the popular TLDs in various regions. If you DO =
consider
that reality, then you might add some market complexities to your
models that help to show you why "lockin" is not something CORE
or anyone else can control.

Only the collective forces of the marketplace can prevent lockin. I
claim that we have yet to see where those forces lead us because
groups like PAB/POC/CORE do not want to break from their soviet-style
system. Until true capitalism and free market dynamics are allowed
to work, your concerns about lockin are artificially derived and only
serve to spread fear in the market place that is going to come about
despite your objections.

If you encourage a system that makes TLDs scarce then lockin becomes
more likely. I find it ironic that the PAB/POC/CORE people start by =
limiting
the number of TLDs and then scream about lockin. Why not first start with
the real problem which is artificial market manipulation? Why not first
start by trying to get all of the people with little or no involvement in
the Registry Industry out of the way ? Why not allow the collective
forces of the marketplace show us what is reality ? Why postpone
the inevitable and help to make the potential problems worse by
contraining the marketplace in such a manner that it literally explodes
with chaos when it finally gets a chance to operate ?

The Registry Industry has yet to see cloning occur. I predict that
we will see it soon with the .COM TLD. The U.S. Government and
NSI are facilitating this via the transition period that we are now in.
As cloning occurs, I predict that companies will become more aware
of the true cost of owning a .COM name. Yes, the price will go up
but not due to any one particular registrar or registry. The price will
go up because of the perceived value, prestige, stability and acceptance
of the .COM TLD. To date, this has never been reflected in a .COM
name cost because of government and industry subsidies.

These price increases would happen in the PAB/POC/CORE models
or other more natural models. They do not happen because of lockin
but because of the collective willingness of .COM owners to seek
a name under that meaningless, generic, tag which has only become
popular because other tags have not been allowed, partly thanks to
PAB/POC/CORE. As the price increases occur, companies will begin
to seek alternative TLDs. If no alternatives are available, then lockin
becomes a problem.

Domain name market manipulations are the real problem. We currently
have a split in the Registry Industry. We have the PAB/POC/CORE
on one side, lead by the ITU and ISOC, and we have the free market
people on the other side. The ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE group wants
to manipulate the marketplace via their own contrived regulations. The
other groups want to allow the marketplace to seek equilibrium via a
hands-off approach. Clearly, the U.S. Government (your employer) will
be supporting the hands-off approach.

As the Registry Industry progresses (without the manipulations of the
ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE) in the next few months, I hope that you
are able to differentiate price increases and cloning from lockin. I
suggest that you give the maketplace several years to reach equilibrium.
At least as much time should be alloted as has been afforded to the
ITU/ISOC/PAB/POC/CORE crowd in constraining the marketplace.
Companies have yet to determine the full extent of the damage that
has been done by groups like yours. This will only be possible when
the marketplace is allowed to speak and not some self-appointed
groups of people that continue to promote artificial market manipluations.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_34606DE4.55345839--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:09 1998
Message-Id: <00001961@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:37 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_35616CE5.56375B3A"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_35616CE5.56375B3A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_35616CE5.56375B3A
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:35 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id
IAA15756; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:30 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6B6F.6F40C6E0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:44:58 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6B6F.6F40C6E0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" <rmeyer@MHSC.COM>
Cc: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>,
        "'arin-council@arin.net'"
      <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"
      <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Christopher Ambler'" <cambler@iodesign.com>,
        "'Clough, Christopher'" <chrisc@NETSOL.COM>,
        "'Dave Crocker'"
      <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc: "'Dan Steinberg'" <dstein@TRAVEL-NET.COM>,
        "'David W. Maher'"
      <dwmaher@ibm.net>, "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" <Jay@Iperdome.com>,
        "'Karl Auerbach'"
      <karl@CaveBear.com>
Cc: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>, "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'" <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'Robert Shaw'"
      <robert.shaw@itu.int>
Subject: ARIN/IANA and NSI
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:44:57 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sunday, April 19, 1998 1:01 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@MHSC.COM]=
 wrote:
<snip>
@
@One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN.
@

Roeland,

What you may mean here is...

ARIN/IANA has the potential to decide which .COM cluster
is selected to be included in the legacy Root Name Servers
operated by the U.S. Government. To that end, ARIN/IANA
can decide if the NSI .COM TLD cluster is the selected choice.
ARIN/IANA could select a different .COM TLD cluster, for
example one from CORE.

Since NSI (WorldNIC) has yet to deploy their own .COM TLD
cluster, this decision has not been made. Eventually it will
have to be made because .COM will have to move off of the
U.S. Government Root Name Servers to be truely commercial
and at arm's length.

It is not clear when this decision will be made. The ARIN/IANA
"company" or IANA Inc. as the Green Paper suggests, will be
the likely body making this decision. There has to be some
group that decides what is entered into the legacy Root Name
Server cluster supported by the U.S. Government and that
group will have to be closely regulated by the U.S. Government.
The ARIN/IANA group is the only likely candidate because
ARIN was created with the help of the U.S. Government and
ARIN controls many of the DOD IP allocations via their control
over the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names.



-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_35616CE5.56375B3A--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:09 1998
Message-Id: <00001963@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:43 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_35616CE5.57365A3B"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_35616CE5.57365A3B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_35616CE5.57365A3B
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:41 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id
JAA15875; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:29:49 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:25:18 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@CaveBear.com>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Subject: The Importance of ARIN
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:25:17 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this point.
NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still needs
to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper.

The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure
to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN Board.
All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at
arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly because
of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses.


On Sunday, April 19, 1998 2:57 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl@CaveBear.com] =
wrote:
@> One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN.
@
@Oh no, please no, not that.  The mere thought of ARIN sends waves of ^%@!
@through my fingers.  It's not that ARIN is a bad thing in concept, at
@least for regulating the aggregation of IP addresses.  But there there =
are
@some ancillary things and personalities about it that really irk me. But
@that's not important right now.
@
@> >So, it is not a "dead horse".  Rather, it is a very live problem that =
just
@> >happens to smell a lot like a horse that has been dead for a balmy =
week or
@> >two.
@>
@> Where is that code you were talking about.
@
@Huh?  I haven't mentioned any code.  Perhaps you have mixed me with the
@other "Karl" (Karl D.).
@
@(I do distribute free binaries of in my not-very humble opinion, worlds
@finest network troubleshooting tool that I wrote, but I suspect that's =
not
@what you are talking about.)
@
@                --karl--
@
@
@--=20
@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"
@
@
@

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_35616CE5.57365A3B--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:10 1998
Message-Id: <00001965@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:49 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_36626FE6.50315D3C"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_36626FE6.50315D3C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_36626FE6.50315D3C
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:47 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13])
     by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22527;
     Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:46 -0700
Message-Id: <199804191549.IAA22527@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 08:49:46 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN
Cc: "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>,
        "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6B75.117703C0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 09:25 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
>I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this =
point.
>NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still needs
>to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper.
>
>The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure
>to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN Board.
>All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at
>arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly =
because
>of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses.

What's wrong with DOD taking care of their own registry? Lord knows, they
certainly have the processing power, at usno.navy.mil or NORAD. IMHO, I've
never been entirely comfortable with .MIL in the Internet anyway. But, I'm
a professional paranoid.

>On Sunday, April 19, 1998 2:57 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl@CaveBear.com]
wrote:
>@> One potential candidate, to compete with NSI, is ARIN.
>@
>@Oh no, please no, not that.  The mere thought of ARIN sends waves of =
^%@!
>@through my fingers.  It's not that ARIN is a bad thing in concept, at
>@least for regulating the aggregation of IP addresses.  But there there =
are
>@some ancillary things and personalities about it that really irk me. But
>@that's not important right now.
>@
>@> >So, it is not a "dead horse".  Rather, it is a very live problem that
just
>@> >happens to smell a lot like a horse that has been dead for a balmy
week or
>@> >two.
>@>
>@> Where is that code you were talking about.
>@
>@Huh?  I haven't mentioned any code.  Perhaps you have mixed me with the
>@other "Karl" (Karl D.).
>@
>@(I do distribute free binaries of in my not-very humble opinion, worlds
>@finest network troubleshooting tool that I wrote, but I suspect that's =
not
>@what you are talking about.)
>@
>@                --karl--
>@
>@
>@--=20
>@DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.ne=
t>
>@To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>@For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>@
>@
>@
>
>-
>Jim Fleming
>Unir Corporation
>IBC, Tortola, BVI
>=20
___________________________________________________=20
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)=20
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeye=
r
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________=20
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! =20


--=_36626FE6.50315D3C--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:10 1998
Message-Id: <0000195B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:26:54 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_36626FE6.51305C3D"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_36626FE6.51305C3D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_36626FE6.51305C3D
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:52 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id LAA00500; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:32:36 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6B86.379F0500@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:28:03 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6B86.379F0500@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Roeland M.J. Meyer'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Subject: RE: The Importance of ARIN
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 11:28:02 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sunday, April 19, 1998 10:49 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com=
] wrote:
@At 09:25 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
@>
@>I feel that ARIN is very important, more important than NSI at this =
point.
@>NSI is transitioning to be "just another registry". ARIN/IANA still =
needs
@>to be solidified in the context of the U.S. Government's Green Paper.
@>
@>The U.S. Government has an opportunity to use the ARIN/IANA structure
@>to get things moving quickly. Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the ARIN =
Board.
@>All of the pieces are in place at ARIN and NSI is moving away to be at
@>arm's length from the U.S. Government. ARIN can not do that partly =
because
@>of the huge DOD involvement in IP addresses.
@
@What's wrong with DOD taking care of their own registry? Lord knows, they
@certainly have the processing power, at usno.navy.mil or NORAD. IMHO, =
I've
@never been entirely comfortable with .MIL in the Internet anyway. But, =
I'm
@a professional paranoid.
@

The issue is not just .MIL All of the IPv4 Internet users currently
use the same reverse resolution scheme which ties them to...

     IN-ADDR.ARPA

The best way to view that string of characters is as a TLD. You
might want to apply the term "psuedo TLD" (pTLD) to this.

Once you do that you will see that many of the same issues
surrounding the TLD debates apply to IN-ADDR.ARPA and
therefore ARIN/IANA because they control all of what is added
to the left of that string.

The DOD has massive allocations of IPv4 addresses. Those are
reflected in IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD delegations. One of the differences
in an IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD delegation as opposed to a .COM
delegation is the fact that IPv4 address asset rights are transferred
with the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation. This is why registrations
under IN-ADDR.ARPA are so valuable.

The U.S. Government can allow the TLDs like .COM/.NET/.ORG
find their way in the marketplace. This is not the case with the
IN-ADDR.ARPA pTLD. This is why the ARIN/IANA "company"
needs to be closely regulated by the U.S. Government as a
non-profit company that serves the Internet community.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI


--=_36626FE6.51305C3D--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998
Message-Id: <00001967@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:02 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.52335F3E"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_37636EE7.52335F3E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_37636EE7.52335F3E
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:00 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id OAA00715; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:15:52 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:11:19 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'ARIN list'"
      <naipr@arin.net>
Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>
Subject: From Roger Marquis
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:11:18 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


From: Roger Marquis <not-for-mail@roble.com>
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,ba.internet=

Subject: Re: First proposal - all who need space get it
Date: 19 Apr 1998 15:46:04 GMT
Organization: Roble Systems (http://www.roble.com)
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <6hd67s$6s2$1@news.ncal.verio.com>
References: <6h8tm7$i4g$2@news.ncal.verio.com> <6h91tb$dl9$1@ns1.vrx.net>=
=20
<6h95m6$dcq$1@shell3.ba.best.com> <6ha824$ihl$1@ns1.vrx.net>=20
<6hb2cn$aa0$1@news.ncal.verio.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw1.softcom-micro.com
Xref: ns3.vrx.net comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:1749

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip paul@No-UCE.anastrophe.com wrote:
>Your parti pris is only thinly disguised by the ad hominem. For want of a
>cogent argument...

If we could get this thread off of the ad hominem track for just a
minute and actually read the original posts you'll see there are some
critical problems being addressed, including:

 * Network Solutions split off ARIN without halving their fee,

 * ARIN has created a fee structure that bears no relationship to the
   cost of providing reverse DNS resolution and netblock registration,

 * The ARIN fees heavily discriminates against smaller ISPs, startups
   and businesses that do not require a /19,

 * ARIN has not adequately solicited input from the Internet community
   as was standard (RFC) procedure before Network Solutions took
   over the Internic,

 * The corporate structure of ARIN, like Network Solutions, gives
   the appearance of for-profit intent,

 * ARIN has not been consistent in the application of its own
   requirements for netblock allocation,

 * ARIN has not made any visible effort to reclaim the numerous
   /8 and /16 netblocks that are currently underutilized and in many
   cases completely unused,

 * ARIN has not addressed the problems with netblock hoarding and
   resale that are beginning to impact Internet based businesses and
   Internet commerce (with companies like Whole Earth Networks charging
   $1,000 per year for a class C, regardless of bandwidth),

 * ARIN controls a valuable public resource with no oversight or
   regulation.

If those are not enough reasons to justify Karl Denninger's proposal I
don't know what might be.

Roger Marquis


-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI



--=_37636EE7.52335F3E--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998
Message-Id: <00001969@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:09 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.53325E3F"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_37636EE7.53325E3F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_37636EE7.53325E3F
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:07 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0 -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id SAA01061; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:02:20 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
     id <01BD6BBC.A9A79DC0@pc.unir.net>; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:57:48 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6BBC.A9A79DC0@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'Jay@Iperdome.com'" <Jay@Iperdome.com>,
        "'Karl Denninger'"
      <karl@mcs.net>, "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>
Cc: "'Phil Howard'" <phil@CHARON.MILEPOST.COM>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'"
      <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'sr-management@texoma.net'"
      <sr-management@texoma.net>
Subject: ARIN - 4.0.0.0
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:57:46 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


John,

What is the utilization on this /8 ?

Is this the allocation that you mentioned will be returned to the pool ?


BBN Planet (NET-SATNET)
   150 Cambridge Park Dr.
   Cambridge, MA 02138

   Netname: SATNET
   Netnumber: 4.0.0.0

   Coordinator:
      Curran, John  (JC347-ARIN)  jcurran@BBNPLANET.COM
      (617) 873-4398

   Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

   NIC.NEAR.NET               192.52.71.4
   NOC.CERF.NET               192.153.156.22

   Record last updated on 25-Mar-96.
   Database last updated on 17-Apr-98 16:09:23 EDT.

The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
Information and nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information.




--=_37636EE7.53325E3F--
From - Tue May 19 16:35:11 1998
Message-Id: <0000196F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:27:15 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_37636EE7.4C2D4120"

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_37636EE7.4C2D4120
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



-K
--=_37636EE7.4C2D4120
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:13 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from hawk (hawk.mhsc.com [207.223.108.13])
     by condor.mhsc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA22982;
     Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:20:17 -0700
Message-Id: <199804192020.NAA22982@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:20:16 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6B9D.06671BA0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 14:11 4/19/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
>From: Roger Marquis <not-for-mail@roble.com>
>Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,ba.interne=
t
>Subject: Re: First proposal - all who need space get it
>Date: 19 Apr 1998 15:46:04 GMT
>Organization: Roble Systems (<http://www.roble.com/>http://www.roble.com)
>Lines: 42
>Message-ID: <6hd67s$6s2$1@news.ncal.verio.com>
>References: <6h8tm7$i4g$2@news.ncal.verio.com> <6h91tb$dl9$1@ns1.vrx.net>=
=20
><6h95m6$dcq$1@shell3.ba.best.com> <6ha824$ihl$1@ns1.vrx.net>=20
><6hb2cn$aa0$1@news.ncal.verio.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: gw1.softcom-micro.com
>Xref: ns3.vrx.net comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:1749
>
>In comp.protocols.tcp-ip paul@No-UCE.anastrophe.com wrote:
>>Your parti pris is only thinly disguised by the ad hominem. For want of =
a
>>cogent argument...
>
>If we could get this thread off of the ad hominem track for just a
>minute and actually read the original posts you'll see there are some
>critical problems being addressed, including:
>
> * Network Solutions split off ARIN without halving their fee,

This indicates that NSI did some cost-shedding, yet kept the money. Their
margins just grew by the amount of the shed cost.

> * ARIN has created a fee structure that bears no relationship to the
>   cost of providing reverse DNS resolution and netblock registration,

This is evident, even from external analysis. IP-block registration is a =
fixed
annual-cost activity. Current external estimates are at about $1.5MUS per
year,
in fully-burdened worst-case scenario.=20

> * The ARIN fees heavily discriminates against smaller ISPs, startups
>   and businesses that do not require a /19,

I can, however, see some of the technical problems. My concern is that the
best-possible solutions have not yet been tried, to remedy this situation.
There are issues of IP-fragmentation which have also not been adequately
proven. Yet, taken to be self-evident. What we have as best-practices may =
not
be best-possible-practices.

> * ARIN has not adequately solicited input from the Internet community
>   as was standard (RFC) procedure before Network Solutions took
>   over the Internic,

> * The corporate structure of ARIN, like Network Solutions, gives
>   the appearance of for-profit intent,

Are the corporate by-laws electronically available? Under which jurisdictio=
n
was ARIN incorporated? I would like to review them.

> * ARIN has not been consistent in the application of its own
>   requirements for netblock allocation,

DSLnetworks, right now, is fully compliant with RFC2050. They easily have =
a
fully populated /21, their application for a new /19 has been ignored,
according to Milton at DSLnetworks. This is ONE case in which this seems =
to be
true.

> * ARIN has not made any visible effort to reclaim the numerous
>   /8 and /16 netblocks that are currently underutilized and in many
>   cases completely unused,

This may require some political clout which ARIN may not yet posses.

> * ARIN has not addressed the problems with netblock hoarding and
>   resale that are beginning to impact Internet based businesses and
>   Internet commerce (with companies like Whole Earth Networks charging
>   $1,000 per year for a class C, regardless of bandwidth),

Some sort of enforcement mechnism needs to be discussed in an open =
fashion.

> * ARIN controls a valuable public resource with no oversight or
>   regulation.
>
>If those are not enough reasons to justify Karl Denninger's proposal I
>don't know what might be.

Although I'm begining to have some empathy for ARIN's position, I still =
don't
have much sympathy. Way too many short-cuts are being taken on something =
that
is MUCH too important.

In my proposal "KISS TLDs" I make a case and proposal for a corporate
structure
that answers some of these issues for TLDs. They can be applied to =
IP-block
registry as well.

Given that a Domain POC also has an IP-block, alternatively assign an =
IP-block
POC, then issue ONE share per POC. The registration fee is actually a =
share
purchase.=20

The following is extracted from MHSC.COM submission to the Green Paper.

>
> Conclusion/submittals
>
> There have been a number of submittals suggesting various forms of =
policing
> the new registrar system. Of these, the best idea I have heard was that =
of a
> not-for-profit corporation. However, I would add an extra ingredient =
that
> would make the entire system self-policing. The registrants should be =
the
> majority stockholders in this corporation. Those who are directly
effected by
> a system are often the best policing agents. I strongly suggest a =
private
> corporation, with the only voting shares being held by the registrants.
> a) A TLD registrar would be very nice here. Their function would be very
> simple, maintain the TLD name-space, operate the root-servers, and =
assign
> authority. That is all. It should be prohibited from doing anything =
more. So
> as not to become "in competition" with its own customer-base.=20
> b) Registration cost would be the annual budget, divided among the
> registrants.=20
> c) All TLD registrants would own ONE share, per TLD, in the corporation =
that
> actually runs the TLD registry. This way the registrants, in fact, own =
the
> Registrar, and therefore the Registry, in common.=20
> d) Annual meetings would be held to vote on things, like the annual =
budget.
> Proxies could be solicited/assigned/pleaded as in any other corporation.=
=20
> e) Any profits would be paid back out to the shareholders as any =
corporation
> would pay out dividends.=20
> f) All executive offices should be elective, as well as board seats.=20
> g) The Registry shall have no right to deny service to any potential
> registrant, other than for name-space conflict. However, all TLD =
registrants
> will be required to show a working public SLD registration system, =
within 6
> months, of TLD registration, or lose the TLD. All registration fees are =
due
> on application.=20


_________________________________________________=20
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.=20
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC=20
(RM993)=20
President and CEO.=20
e-mail:        <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com=20
Web-pages:    <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer=20
Web-site:        <http://www.mhsc.com>http://www.mhsc.com=20
Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA=20
-----------------------------------------(legal notice)--------=20
Note: Statements made in this message do not=20
         necessarily reflect the  position of MHSC. All=20
         forcasts and projections are to be considered=20
         as forward-looking and presume conditions which=20
         may not be referenced herein.=20
-----------------------------------------(/legal notice)-------=20



--=_37636EE7.4C2D4120--