From - Tue May 19 16:34:31 1998
Message-Id: <000018DB@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:13:38 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_0F5B56DF.C8A9C5A3"

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.

--=_0F5B56DF.C8A9C5A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_0F5B56DF.C8A9C5A3
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:04:36 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_0F5B56DF.CFAEC2A4"

--=_0F5B56DF.CFAEC2A4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_0F5B56DF.CFAEC2A4
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from meson (1Cust36.tnt14.atl2.da.uu.net [153.36.92.36])
     by smtp2.mailsrvcs.net  with SMTP id LAA24462;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:29:29 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199804161629.LAA24462@smtp2.mailsrvcs.net>
Reply-To: <abenhase@gte.net>
From: "Andrew M. Benhase" <abenhase@gte.net>
To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@DOORSTEP.UNETY.NET>,
        "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>
Cc: <arin-council@arin.net>, <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Gordon Cook'" <cook@netaxs.com>,
        "'Dave Crocker'" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>,
        "'Doug Humphrey'" <doug@good.joss.com>,
        "'Dan Steinberg'" <dstein@TRAVEL-NET.COM>,
        "'Don Heath'" <heath@isoc.org>, "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>,
        <Ira Magaziner>, "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@cavebear.com>,
        "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>,
        "'Ken Fockler'" <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>,
        "'Richard J. Sexton'" <richard@sexton.com>,
        "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>,
        "'Steve Wolff'" <swolff@cisco.com>, "'vinton g. cerf'" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:21:44 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.0
In-Reply-To: <01BD6921.CD59E5E0@pc.unir.net>
Importance: Normal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

You know Jim,

Your commentaries are amusing at some very low
primate levels, and would ultimately be better
served (and commented upon) on the alt.fan.comedy
newsgroup. Give it a rest would you, and leave
this list to more relevant issues... I am quite
certain that everyone here agrees with me.

Anyone else who feels this way let me know , and I
will make a motion to have him removed from the
listserver.

Regards,

Andrew M. Benhase
Executive Technology Consultant
Office: 407-725-6186
Fax:    407-726-8925
Email:  abenhase@gte.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fleming
[mailto:JimFleming@DOORSTEP.UNETY.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 11:24 AM
> To: 'Kim Hubbard'
> Cc: 'arin-council@arin.net';
'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'; 'Gordon Cook'; 'Dave
> Crocker'; 'Doug Humphrey'; 'Dan Steinberg'; 'Don
Heath';
> 'ietf@ns.ietf.org';
'Ira Magaziner'; 'Karl Auerbach';
> 'Karl Denninger'; 'Ken Fockler'; 'Richard J.
Sexton'; 'Scott Bradner';
> 'Steve Wolff'; 'vinton g. cerf'
> Subject: ARIN Force One
>
>
>
> Kim,
>
> Is it true that ARIN is constructing a 747
> called "ARIN Force One" ?
>
> I hear it will be able to carry the ARIN Board,
the
> advisors and the "press" (like Gordon Cook).
>
> I also heard that it will be equipped to be
capable
> of mid-air refueling and will have servers and
satellite
> communications links to the Space Shuttle and
MIR.
>
> What is that going to cost ?
> Do you think that you could get by with a used
707 ?
>
> Will "ARIN Force One" be ready for the next
NANOG meeting
> or the IETF meeting in Chicago ? You could sell
tickets and
> give tours and raise money to help fund the IANA
Inc.
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>

--=_0F5B56DF.CFAEC2A4--

--=_0F5B56DF.C8A9C5A3--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:31 1998
Message-Id: <000018DD@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:13:53 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_0F5B56DF.CEAFC3A5"

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.

--=_0F5B56DF.CEAFC3A5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_0F5B56DF.CEAFC3A5
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:04:50 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_0F5B56DF.CDACC0A6"

--=_0F5B56DF.CDACC0A6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_0F5B56DF.CDACC0A6
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from meson (1Cust180.tnt14.atl2.da.uu.net [153.36.92.180])
     by smtp2.mailsrvcs.net  with SMTP id MAA24003;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:05:39 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199804161705.MAA24003@smtp2.mailsrvcs.net>
Reply-To: <abenhase@gte.net>
From: "Andrew M. Benhase" <abenhase@gte.net>
To: "Jim Fleming" <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>, <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>,
        <kimh@INTERNIC.NET>, <richard@sexton.com>
Cc: <arin-council@arin.net>, <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>, <cook@netaxs.com>,
        <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>, <doug@good.joss.com>,
        <dstein@TRAVEL-NET.COM>, <heath@isoc.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>,
        <Ira Magaziner>, <karl@cavebear.com>, <karl@mcs.net>,
        <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>, <sob@harvard.edu>, <swolff@cisco.com>,
        <vcerf@MCI.NET>
Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:57:39 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.0
In-Reply-To: <199804161700.MAA06079@doorstep.unety.net>
Importance: Normal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Enough said...this is exactly what I mean;
obviously others do not feel the same way that I
do....

Possibly the first iteration was amusing, but Jim
just can not seem to stop himself there. He has to
continue until he gets people annoyed.

-Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fleming
[mailto:jrf@doorstep.unety.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:00 PM
> To: abenhase@gte.net;
JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net; kimh@INTERNIC.NET;
> richard@sexton.com
> Cc: arin-council@arin.net; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov;
cook@netaxs.com;
> dcrocker@brandenburg.com; doug@good.joss.com;
dstein@TRAVEL-NET.COM;
> heath@isoc.org; ietf@ietf.org;
Ira Magaziner;
> karl@cavebear.com; karl@mcs.net;
ken.fockler@sympatico.ca;
> sob@harvard.edu; swolff@cisco.com; vcerf@MCI.NET
> Subject: RE: ARIN Force One
>
>
> If the Board of Directors of ARIN is going
> to be expanded then that should be put into
> the planning for ARIN Force One.
>
> I have suggested to Don Heath that the ISOC
> should probably have a seat on the ARIN Board.
> The ISP/C and CIX may also be good groups to
> recommend people. The CORE registrars could
> be included and maybe some of the other groups
> mentioned in the U.S. Government's Green Paper.
>
> It might also be good to have some members
> from Mexico, South America, Africa and the
> Caribbean. Those are areas that evidently can
> be reached via ARIN Force One, although I do
> not think there is any place to land it in
> the Caribbean. I will check.
>
> Giving ARIN control over all of the IP addresses
> via the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names is like
handing
> a small group all of the rights to oil-wells
> around the world. It seems prudent to expand
> the Board that oversees that group to make
> sure people's interests are served.
>
> Jim Fleming
>

--=_0F5B56DF.CDACC0A6--

--=_0F5B56DF.CEAFC3A5--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:32 1998
Message-Id: <000018DF@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:54 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: American Somoa -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_104449C0.CCADC1A7"

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.

--=_104449C0.CCADC1A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_104449C0.CCADC1A7
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:06:51 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: American Somoa -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_104449C0.C3A2CEA8"

--=_104449C0.C3A2CEA8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_104449C0.C3A2CEA8
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from mbv2-pl-ri38.kos.net([206.186.41.128]) (4678 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
     via sendmail with P:smtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp
     (sender: <richard@sexton.com>) 
     id <m0yVQmU-0006B3C@ns1.vrx.net>
     for <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>; Fri, 1 May 1998 21:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
     (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Message-Id: <m0yVQmU-0006B3C@ns1.vrx.net>
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 21:07:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: rsexton@vrx.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org,Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>
Subject: Re: American Somoa
Cc: <amr@chaos.com>,<BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,<dnrc-board@domain-name.org>,
 <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>,<domain-policy@open-rsc.org>,
 ivan@netnames.co.uk,<Ira Magaziner>,<bastian@usvi.net>,
 <dsparks@usvi.net>,<pdeblanc@noc.usvi.net>,<rhanscom@usvi.net>,
 <spitzl@usvi.net>,<karl@mcs.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_104449C0.C2A3CFA9"

--=_104449C0.C2A3CFA9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 07:28 PM 5/1/98 -0400, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
>There are many domains, both generic and national, that are run as
>commercial operations.  In the case of national domains, each government
>has empowered a group to set policy and to provide technical services.

Really ?

Did American Samona figure out that .AS meant "Inc." or "Corp"
in Scandanavian countires and ask NetNames to open a business
office in Scandanavia=20

>NetNames International (www.netnames.com), the leading global domain name =
company, has just
> announced the establishment of a Scandinavian branch. The office, based =
in Copenhagen, services
> Sweden, Norway and Denmark. In addition, NetNames International launched =
a new top-level
> domain ".AS" for use in Scandinavian markets where stock companies are =
classified as "AS," the
> equivalent to "Inc." in America...=20
> Business Wire 29 Apr 98

Did Turkmenistan figure out that they had the "Trademark" TLD
and ask NetNames to run it as such?

Or did these idea come from Netnames?

The idea that "governments empower groups to set policy and
provide technical services" is not what I have observed.

What has happened is, the first group in a country to
ask for a county coide TLD that looks halfway resonable
gets it just by asking Jon Postel to delegate it to
their nameserers.=20

I'd like to see a list of country code TLD's that have
*anything* to do with the governments of the countries
they "represent"; I suspect it's a very short list.

I know of at least one country code TLD that the country
it "represents" doesn't even know it's been delegated
and is not delegated to anybody that has anything to do
with the country in question.

The country code TLD's have not been wildly poplular;
the total of registrations in all of them is less than
the .COM zone; they are the last vestage of the ill-fated
OSI-ISO nonsense pushed in 1986 at the creation of the
DNS by the CCITT/ITU.

They are merely two letter domains, and, in this day and
age they are used for two three thigns:

1) Some people choose to have a geocentric net address.

2) Some two letter TLDs make "cool" domain names (.TO, .TM)

3) Companies are urged to "protect" their name in that=20
space such as the current pentium.co.vi and netscape.co.vi

From NetNames website:

NetNames handles everything from single .com and
.co.uk domain registrations to overseas registrations in
over 200 countries. Prices differ for overseas
registrations, contact us for further information. Our
Global High Risk Package registers your name in 67
countries where names are most at risk.=20

One mans "pretecing your name" is anothers
"reverse cybersquatting".

What makes this particularly offensive, is it sullies the
effort to create new TLD's. There are actually (no kidding)
poeple that want so see new TLDs to make it easier to find
things on the net ("If I look up parakeet.faq, I'll bet I'll
information about parakeets") that have no desire to run
around and spread fear uncertainty and doubt to companies
telling them they have to "protect their name", yet the
same poeple who are part of the MoU effort and do
urge companies to "protect their name" have asserted
that people who want new TLD's are doing it only so they
can extort companies.=20

What NetNames does may be legal, but I think it's sleezy.

--=_104449C0.C2A3CFA9
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Part.001"

Richard J. Sexton       |    Cheap ISDN + T1 feeds.
richard@vrx.net         |    Creative domain names.
VRx Network Services,   |    CGI/Database programmer.
Toronto, Canada         |    Web design with an attitude.
+1 (613) 473-1719       |    http://richard-resume.vrx.net  

--=_104449C0.C2A3CFA9--

--=_104449C0.C3A2CEA8--

--=_104449C0.CCADC1A7--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:32 1998
Message-Id: <000018E1@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:18 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_104449C0.C1A0CCAA"

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.

--=_104449C0.C1A0CCAA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_104449C0.C1A0CCAA
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:12 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_104449C0.C0A1CDAB"

--=_104449C0.C0A1CDAB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_104449C0.C0A1CDAB
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 IAA16672;
     Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:00:46 -0700
Message-Id: <199804161500.IAA16672@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:00:46 -0700
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: ARIN Board Expanded ?
Cc: 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: <199804161358.NAA22207@arin.net>
References: <01BD68D8.37FD1740@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Since ARIN is now a corp, ARIN should have access to the same sources of
funds that MHSC has. There are $BUS waiting for the proper business plan.

At 09:58 4/16/98 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
>>=20
>> By the way, I expressed concern about the financial stability of ARIN
>> and your consultant Gordon Cook, seemed to take exception to that.
>
>Gordon Cook is my consultant just like you are in fact these days lots
>people have decided to consult me on ARIN issues :-)
>>=20
>> As I have mentioned, RIPE is getting into the TLD business to broaden
>> their base. Their domain name was recently put on hold because they
>> did not pay NSI. I think that it is critical that people consider the
business
>> issues (and not just the technical issues) when they plan these =
registries.
>> If the U.S. Government provides an edorsement then people are going
>> to flock to the company (like ARIN). Financial stability should be a =
high
>> priority.
>
>ARIN is financially stable for the services that ARIN provides now, but
>no we do not have a bunch of money to fund or bootstrap services like
>the ones you're suggesting.
>
>-kim
>
>>=20
>> Has anyone considered what would happen if ARIN fails financially ?
>> Are there contingency plans ?
>>=20
>> -
>> Jim Fleming
>> Unir Corporation
>> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>>=20
>=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

--=_104449C0.C0A1CDAB--

--=_104449C0.C1A0CCAA--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:33 1998
Message-Id: <000018E3@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:19 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_114548C1.C7A6CAAC"

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.

--=_114548C1.C7A6CAAC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_114548C1.C7A6CAAC
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:14 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_114548C1.C6A7CBAD"

--=_114548C1.C6A7CBAD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_114548C1.C6A7CBAD
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

--=_114548C1.C6A7CBAD--

--=_114548C1.C7A6CAAC--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:33 1998
Message-Id: <000018E5@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:27 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_114548C1.C5A4C8AE"

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.

--=_114548C1.C5A4C8AE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_114548C1.C5A4C8AE
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:15 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: ARIN and gTLDs?!?!. -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_114548C1.C4A5C9AF"

--=_114548C1.C4A5C9AF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_114548C1.C4A5C9AF
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

--=_114548C1.C4A5C9AF--

--=_114548C1.C5A4C8AE--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:34 1998
Message-Id: <000018EB@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:34 -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="=_12464BC2.BBDAB6D0"

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.

--=_12464BC2.BBDAB6D0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_12464BC2.BBDAB6D0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:15 -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: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_12464BC2.BADBB7D1"

--=_12464BC2.BADBB7D1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_12464BC2.BADBB7D1
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

--=_12464BC2.BADBB7D1--

--=_12464BC2.BBDAB6D0--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:34 1998
Message-Id: <000018E7@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:38 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: The Importance of ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_12464BC2.B9D8B4D2"

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.

--=_12464BC2.B9D8B4D2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_12464BC2.B9D8B4D2
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:16 -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: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_12464BC2.B8D9B5D3"

--=_12464BC2.B8D9B5D3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_12464BC2.B8D9B5D3
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

--=_12464BC2.B8D9B5D3--

--=_12464BC2.B9D8B4D2--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:35 1998
Message-Id: <000018E9@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:40 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_13474AC3.BFDEB2D4"

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.

--=_13474AC3.BFDEB2D4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_13474AC3.BFDEB2D4
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:17 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: From Roger Marquis -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_13474AC3.BEDFB3D5"

--=_13474AC3.BEDFB3D5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_13474AC3.BEDFB3D5
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

--=_13474AC3.BEDFB3D5--

--=_13474AC3.BFDEB2D4--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:35 1998
Message-Id: <000018F3@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:47 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_13474AC3.BDDCB0D6"

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.

--=_13474AC3.BDDCB0D6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_13474AC3.BDDCB0D6
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:18 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_13474AC3.BCDDB1D7"

--=_13474AC3.BCDDB1D7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_13474AC3.BCDDB1D7
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 KAA01711;
     Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:17:35 -0700
Message-Id: <199804221717.KAA01711@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:17:34 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 07:22 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:56 AM, Harald Tveit
Alvestrand[SMTP:Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no] wrote:
>@Did you notice that ZR and CD happen to be the same country?
>@CD recently got added (Zaire changed name to Congo Democratic Republic).
>@
>@If Tanzania has a similar coup and changes to DT (Democratic Tanzania),
>@will you shift all your stewardship zones by one?
>@
>
>In the approach I propose, there are "slots" and the TLD names
>are placed on the slots. TLDs can come and go depending on
>the forces in the marketplace. Once a TLD is attached to a slot
>it does not change. All TLD labels on slots have to be unique
>and a Darwinian system is proposed where new TLDs challenge
>the weakest TLDs (no users) for replacement.

In "KISS TLDs", I had proposed, for commercial TLDs, that if a TLD =
registry
couldn't show a operational TLD registrar in six months they would lose =
the
TLD. In other words "use it or lose it". Also proposed is,
fee-paid-up-front. Together, these squelch a lot of piracy and
speculation/extortion. The operating theory is that all TLDs are public
TLDs or they wouldn't need to be registered.

I personally don't care for the jungle you are proposing here. It will
result in MANY legal dog-fights which are unnecessary and the one with the
weakest attorney will usually lose. The mechanism in "KISS TLDs" is fair,
eliminates idle speculation, and causes minimal legal havoc.

>In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the
>Fortune 500. The goal is to locate the "strongest" TLDs in the
>world and assign them to a slot. The G:S number on the slot
>determines which part of the IPv8 address space is automatically
>delegated to the stewards for that TLD. Here is a current list.
>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>-
>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

--=_13474AC3.BCDDB1D7--

--=_13474AC3.BDDCB0D6--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:36 1998
Message-Id: <000018EF@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:50 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_14404DC4.B3D2BED8"

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.

--=_14404DC4.B3D2BED8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_14404DC4.B3D2BED8
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:19 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_14404DC4.B2D3BFD9"

--=_14404DC4.B2D3BFD9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_14404DC4.B2D3BFD9
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 KAA01755;
     Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:32:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199804221732.KAA01755@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:32:09 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6DBF.795A8B00@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 07:22 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:

>In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the

Here is a major problem I have with this, limited "slots", Why??!

I have never ehard, or read, any valid reason for limiting TLDs, that
wasn't pure speculative BS, or driven by some "hidden" commercial agenda.
___________________________________________________=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

--=_14404DC4.B2D3BFD9--

--=_14404DC4.B3D2BED8--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:37 1998
Message-Id: <000018ED@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:55 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_15414CC5.B1D0BCDA"

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.

--=_15414CC5.B1D0BCDA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_15414CC5.B1D0BCDA
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:21 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_15414CC5.B0D1BDDB"

--=_15414CC5.B0D1BDDB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_15414CC5.B0D1BDDB
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 MAA01991;
     Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:21:11 -0700
Message-Id: <199804221921.MAA01991@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:21:10 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: RE: Structuring the Root
Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,
        "'ietf@ns.ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>,
        "'Ira Magaziner'" <Ira Magaziner>,
        "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>,
        "Open RSC List" <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>,
        "Domain Policy List"<DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6DF1.19A60AE0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 13:18 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 22, 1998 12:32 PM, Roeland M.J.
Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@mhsc.com] wrote:
>@At 07:22 4/22/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>@
>@>In the IPv8 Plan there are 2,048 slots. This is like tracking the
>@
>@Here is a major problem I have with this, limited "slots", Why??!
>@
>@I have never ehard, or read, any valid reason for limiting TLDs, that
>@wasn't pure speculative BS, or driven by some "hidden" commercial =
agenda.
>@___________________________________________________=20
>
>There does not have to be any hard limit, but people
>have to start someplace. At the present time, there
>are almost 256 widely known TLDs in the world. To
>increase that to a couple of thousand seems like a
>large increase. Also, 2,000+ is twice as many categories
>as Peter Roget decided to use in the 1800s. His
>thesaurus has worked well for many years.

This is a reason? Just becasue "Grand Pa did it that way" ? ... NOT.

I can, of course, replay last months agruments from DOMAIN-POLICY, but =
I'll
summarize instead.

1) Country-Codes (CC) are brain-damaged. Any business getting on the
Internet is, by definition, looking towards INTERNATIONAL markets. Local
markets are already being served. The whole thrust of Internet business is
to expand markets beyond what is available locally. There are also ample
reasons already stated why CC do NOT work. If someone wishes to see
corroboration, in detail, I can supply this from my archives.

2) Catagories are brain-damaged. In the modern flux of business markets, =
it
is quite possible for a corp to want to do business in multiple catagories.=

During the course of time, a corp may abandon one catagory in favor of
another.

Both of the above are shown to be inadequate over time.Notice that most of
the growth is under .COM and .NET, withj some over-flow into .ORG. It is
this over-flow which should give a REAL STRONG clue that there is =
something
wrong with catagory designations.

>If you want the engineering reason for why IPv8 has
>2,048 it is because there are 11 extra addressing bits
>and 2 to the 11th power is 2,048. If you want to know
>why there are only 11 extra addressing bits, I can
>go into detail, but the bottom line is that this is all
>that could be squeezed into the existing IPv4 header.
>If you want more, use IPv6.

Why are TLDs tied to IP numbers? That is the job of DNS and the root-server=

for the TLD. Direct mapping of TLD slots into DNS name-space would be a
HUGE mistake. It will also kill the TLD registry business. Right now, =
there
are no logical limits to the number of TLD registries. Each root-server is
authoritative for a NAME-SPACE, not an IP address. The process of
registration links an IP-BLOCK to a NAME-SPACE, but the mapping itself is
virtual. To begin hard-coding it into the IP allocation scheme is a huge
step backwards. I think it an unacceptable one.

An IP-BLOCK registry assigns IP-BLOCK and a TLD registry assigns NAMES. =
DNS
ties the two axis together dynamically. Logically, it's possible to have
two incongruent IP-BLOCKS be referred to by the same DNS name-server and
that name-server would be authoritative, for that domain name.

>As for "hidden" commercial agendas...you can look
>for those forever. As you look keep asking yourself who
>gets paid for all of the work that goes into these debates
>and who does not. I find it interesting that many of the
>people involved object to people being paid when they
>are assigned by their employer to work on this full-time.
>In my case, that is not the case. How about you ?

That wasn't the point. Most of those that I've seen argue for restricted
TLD-space were trying to achieve a supply-side shortage which would
increase market price for those TLDs allowed to exist. I see this as
market-manipulation of the most evil kind. This applies especially to =
those
same folk that allowed pre-registration, for their private buddies, at one
price, and an order-of-magnitude price increase for everyone else. If we
are to do open markets then let's do OPEN markets.

___________________________________________________=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

--=_15414CC5.B0D1BDDB--

--=_15414CC5.B1D0BCDA--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:37 1998
Message-Id: <000018F5@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:16:57 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_15414CC5.B7D6BADC"

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.

--=_15414CC5.B7D6BADC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_15414CC5.B7D6BADC
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:22 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_15414CC5.B6D7BBDD"

--=_15414CC5.B6D7BBDD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_15414CC5.B6D7BBDD
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 CAA03254;
     Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:13:33 -0700
Message-Id: <199804230913.CAA03254@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:13:32 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, arin-council@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov,
        Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, ietf@ietf.org,
        Ira Magaziner, naipr@arin.net,
        domain-policy@open-rsc.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
In-Reply-To: <199804231017.KAA16318@axa.co.uk>
References: <199804221921.MAA01991@condor.mhsc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 10:17 4/23/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:

>Businesses shouldn't be allowed to use inappropriate TLDs, hence the =
desire
>to link them more closely to their country, state, province of
>incorporation.

... and HERE is where I have a major problem, and most other executives as
well. Do you think that I'd stand still for some outside agency, who
doesn't have a clue about my industry, tell my company what catagory to
market my wares in? Do you think that ANY executive would stand still for
that? Because forcing catagory classification issues is doing exactly =
that.

To drive the point home further, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. (MHSC)
is in the technology R&D business. We have software product of our own
(Bedit through J&Bstar) AND we're a VAR for Caldera and AppGen. MHSC also
operates MHSC.NET, a ISP/Service Bureau. We are incorporated under =
Delaware
law, but only have a registered agent there (BTW, Netscape fits that same
profile). We have R&D facilities (J&Bstar) and Principle Offices, in
Colorado, with marketing and data centers in California (Livermore and
Morgan Hill). We are licensed as a foreign corp in both CO and CA.

If we wanted to start re-selling MayTag washing-machines tomorrow there is
no one to say we can not do so.=20

Now, what pigeon-hole did you say you wanted to try and stick us into? No
one, outside MHSC has bought the right to tell us anything. The only ones
that have that right, by law, are share-holders, period.

_________________________________________________=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

--=_15414CC5.B6D7BBDD--

--=_15414CC5.B7D6BADC--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:38 1998
Message-Id: <000018F1@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:02 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_16424FC6.B5D4B8DE"

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.

--=_16424FC6.B5D4B8DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_16424FC6.B5D4B8DE
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:23 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_16424FC6.B4D5B9DF"

--=_16424FC6.B4D5B9DF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_16424FC6.B4D5B9DF
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 CAA03332;
     Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:56:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199804230956.CAA03332@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:56:12 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, arin-council@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov,
        Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, ietf@ietf.org,
        Ira Magaziner, naipr@arin.net,
        domain-policy@open-rsc.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
In-Reply-To: <199804231136.LAA16724@axa.co.uk>
References: <199804230913.CAA03254@condor.mhsc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 11:36 4/23/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>=20
>> At 10:17 4/23/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>>=20
>> >Businesses shouldn't be allowed to use inappropriate TLDs, hence the
desire
>> >to link them more closely to their country, state, province of
>> >incorporation.
>>=20
>> ... and HERE is where I have a major problem, and most other executives =
as
>> well. Do you think that I'd stand still for some outside agency, who
>> doesn't have a clue about my industry, tell my company what catagory to
>> market my wares in? Do you think that ANY executive would stand still =
for
>> that? Because forcing catagory classification issues is doing exactly =
that.
>=20
>Who mentioned categories?? I simply said 'PLACE' of incorporation.
>
><snip>
>=20
>> Now, what pigeon-hole did you say you wanted to try and stick us into? =
No
>> one, outside MHSC has bought the right to tell us anything. The only =
ones
>> that have that right, by law, are share-holders, period.
>
>The pigeon-hole I wanted to stick you into was the state of incorporation
>of the company (or companies).

One company, different divisions.

>Sounds fair enough?

Nope. because that would be DE.US and *that's* a dead domain,
marketing-wise. Besides we have NO/ZERO/ZILCH/NADA offices there. =
Therefore
we can't go down to the city level, unless you mean for us to use the city
of our registered agent. Also, most of the US corporate world is
incorporated there. The other popular jurisdiction is Nevada. If you want
to see a MASSIVE trademark fight then go ahead.=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

--=_16424FC6.B4D5B9DF--

--=_16424FC6.B5D4B8DE--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:39 1998
Message-Id: <000018F7@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:07 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_17434EC7.ABCAA6C0"

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.

--=_17434EC7.ABCAA6C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_17434EC7.ABCAA6C0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:25 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_17434EC7.AACBA7C1"

--=_17434EC7.AACBA7C1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_17434EC7.AACBA7C1
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 LAA06587;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:41:24 -0700
Message-Id: <199804241841.LAA06587@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:41:22 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming), owain@axa.co.uk,
        peterd@Bunyip.Com, arin-council@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov,
        cambler@iodesign.com, domain-policy@open-rsc.org,
        Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, ietf@ietf.org,
        Ira Magaziner, JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net,
        karl@mcs.net, naipr@arin.net
In-Reply-To: <199804241413.OAA23724@axa.co.uk>
References: <01BD6F44.CC40CCE0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 14:13 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>=20
>> On Friday, April 24, 1998 5:29 AM, Owain Vaughan[SMTP:owain@axa.co.uk]
wrote:
>> <snip>
>> @
>> @You wouldn't want General Motors (for example) registering under
>> @
>> @GENERAL-MOTORS.EDU
>>=20
>> I would prefer to see the users registering what THEY want.
>
>Even if they are non-sensical?

One persons nonsense is anothers wisdom. People do NOT fit well into
pre-fab boxen. We are all different. Likewise, businesses are all
different. We have to quit presuming that we know it all and allow
discovery to take place. I don't recall you claiming an MBA, or
near-equivalent. How do you presume to know so much about how business
works that you are willing to hog-tie it to *your* liking?

>My proposal doesn't stop people from doing this, but it creates a
>structure whereby you can guarantee that a organistation-and-state-name-ba=
sed
>domain name is unique to the appropriate company.
>
>> Then, we can track their actions and make sure we keep
>> giving them more, not less. As an aside, in the U.S. there
>> is a school run by General Motors where apparently auto
>> mechanics are trained. I believe the sign on the building
>> says, General Motors Institute.. If THEY think that the
>> name above best fits their need and they obtain it first then
>> why not help to make sure it works for them ?
>=20
>OK, bad example, if this is true then fair enough.

This is a specific case example of why the whole EDU/ORG/COM/NET thing is
not a good limitation. Yes, they should be available. But they shouldn't =
be
the ONLY thing available. The problem is "what else" should be available?
No one knows! We must acknowlege that we do not know everything and allow
enough flexibility to let it be self-defining.

>> @and the University of Southern California registering under
>> @
>> @USC.COM
>>=20
>> Again, why try to become the world's policemen ? Who knows
>> why USC might want this name ? Why not let them choose ?
>
>I'm not stopping them, they can choose any gTLD based names they want,
>but my proposal would give them a unique name based on their organisation
>name and state.

Here we get back to a hint of geo-physical limited thinking.

>> People have a different view of what .COM means. I was once
>> told by someone that the .COM extension comes from the following,
>> (get ready for this...it is sad but true...)
>>   "When Microsoft *invented* the Internet, binary files ended in =
.COM
>>   and .EXE and they decided to use .COM but have been thinking
>>   about also now extending the TLDs to also include .EXE"
>> Yep !!...when Microsoft invented the Internet...I guess I missed that
Patent :-)
>=20
>Oh dear god.. I hope they were joking :)

If you want to see revisionism in action, then read ANY of Gate's books
where he talks about the early days. I was there too, I remember details
quite differently than he does, from the DRI perspective. If it weren't =
for
IBM, we'd be working with GEM instead of Windows.

>> Since you have brought up USC, some people have noted in the
>> past that ISI.EDU should probably be ISI.USC.EDU. Why isn't this the =
case ?
>
>It depends if ISI is semi-autonomous from USC.. but anyway it is =
historic,
>and as a gTLD based name its perfectly OK under my proposals.
>
>> Well, in my opinion, it follows a pattern which is that ISI does as
>> they please while writing rules for everyone else to follow.
>
>Er, come on, ISI.EDU is perfectly acceptable under RFC1123, there's no
>hidden agenda to rule the world here.

He talking Goose and Gander here, not hidden agendii.

>> For example,
>> www.iana.org takes you to an ISI.EDU web page. You have to look under
>> Services to find the IANA reference. Why is this ? In my opinion, it is
>> just one more example of the misguided management of the IANA.
>
>Slightly over-reacting aren't we? This is my whole point. People use
>the DNS as a directory service. You EXPECTED to find IANA information
>on www.iana.org, but you had to look around to get it. With a proper
>directory service this wouldn't be necessary.
>
>> Hopefully, that will change with the IANA Inc. from the U.S. Government.=

>=20
>I'm not sure why that would make the slightest bit of difference.
>
>> Of course, some people may then assume that the name IANA.COM
>> will be used. This would make sense and several business people have

>> drawn similar conclusions. Unfortunately, when Bill Manning called
>> a meeting at USC (ISI) to discuss new TLD Registries and accepted
>> $1,000 from Chris Ambler with his .WEB application people claimed
>> this was not "The" IANA. Was Chris mislead ? When IANA Inc. gets
>> started, will his $1,000 fee and application be processed ?***
>
>The idea of allowing individuals to have control over GLOBAL gTLDs
>is bizarre to say the least. Who gives them the rights? There is no
>Global Government. This policy will just lead to more confusion
>and dispute.

The "rights" are there for the taking. No one owns them and everyone owns
them, individually and collectively (did I get ZEN enough for you?<grin>).
Why are you so quick to dis-enfranchise the individual? Why do you want to
make everyone conform to your limitations? Just because you don't feel you
deserve anything doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way. Then
again, someone might feel that you deserve nothing, but that doesn't mean
that you have to agree.

>> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA3-DOM)
>>    4676 Admiralty Way
>>    MDR, CA 90292
>>    US
>>=20
>>    Domain Name: IANA.COM
>>=20
>>    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
>>       Manning, Bill  (WM110)  bmanning@ISI.EDU
>>       310-322-8102
>>=20
>>    Record last updated on 18-Dec-96.
>>    Record created on 29-Jul-96.
>>    Database last updated on 23-Apr-98 03:58:19 EDT.
>>=20
>>    Domain servers in listed order:
>>=20
>>    NS.ISI.EDU                   128.9.128.127
>>    ORB.ISI.EDU                  128.9.160.66
>>                                                  =20
>> @This is not about individual Governments or individual companies, this =
is
>> @a global issue. By following my proposals there is no need for lawyers
>> @(or Governments) to get involved in such unpleasentries.
>>=20
>> "Unpleasentries" ? You call these unpleasentries ? The unpleasant
>> aspect of this whole thing is watching people with apparently no =
interest
>> in the Registry Industry attempt to dictate what the world needs and
>> how everyone should run their businesses.
>
>I'm not telling people how to RUN their business, just suggesting a way
>of preventing domain name disputes!!!

By telling everyone how to run their business so disputes do not happen?
Failure of acceptance, of the first part, will yield excessive occurance =
of
the second part.

>> Fortunately, the U.S. Government
>> has recognized this pattern and has stepped in to make sure their
>> contractors (like the IANA) facilitate commerce and do not impede it.
>
>Eh? How does preventing domain-name related legal action impede
>commerce? If anything it increases it. The current system of first-come
>first-served, then fight about it later with law suits definitely
>impedes commerce.

No, NSI policy is impeding commerce. The case you make isn't allowed to
occur because of NSI policy. Were that not the case, a lot of this
non-sense would have been cleared up a long time ago.

>> This will help to create more jobs, which support families, who then
>> live to enjoy life and the net. This is a good thing in my opinion, not =
a
>> bad thing.
>=20
>Er, OK. Welcome to Utopia, c/o the USG.

Maybe not Utopia, but a fair business growth environment.

___________________________________________________=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

--=_17434EC7.AACBA7C1--

--=_17434EC7.ABCAA6C0--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:39 1998
Message-Id: <00001906@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:07 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: RE: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_17434EC7.A9C8A4C2"

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.

--=_17434EC7.A9C8A4C2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_17434EC7.A9C8A4C2
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:24 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: RE: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_17434EC7.A8C9A5C3"

--=_17434EC7.A8C9A5C3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_17434EC7.A8C9A5C3
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 HAA06029;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:46:25 -0700
Message-Id: <199804241446.HAA06029@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:46:23 -0700
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: RE: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: "domain-policy@open-rsc.org" <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>,
        "'Owain Vaughan'" <owain@axa.co.uk>,
        "arin-council@arin.net" <arin-council@arin.net>,
        "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        "domain-policy@open-rsc.org" <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>,
        "Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no" <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,
        "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>,
        "Ira Magaziner" <Ira Magaziner>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6F60.4DB39440@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 09:06 4/24/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Friday, April 24, 1998 9:03 AM, Christopher
Ambler[SMTP:cambler@iodesign.com] wrote:
>@My first problem with this, Jim, is how do you propose that a
>@reasonably-created
>@root server cluster persuade the millions of boxes out there with BIND =
set
>@to the
>@existing roots to add them?
>@
>@It's an uphill battle of epic proportions.
>@
>
>Not at all...Bill Gates could change that in 6 months
>with the DNS configuration shipped with NT 5.0.
>
>This is just one example...

Hell, Gates could set up a root-server cluster and hard-code them  as the
default DNS servers into the next service-patch. $200MUS is pocket-change
to him. However, should be do so, he would incurr the wrath of MANY.
Seriously, though, what could we all do about it if such occurs? Windows
has 97% of the desktop market.

___________________________________________________=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

--=_17434EC7.A8C9A5C3--

--=_17434EC7.A9C8A4C2--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:40 1998
Message-Id: <000018FE@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:13 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_184C41C8.AFCEA2C4"

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.

--=_184C41C8.AFCEA2C4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_184C41C8.AFCEA2C4
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:28 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_184C41C8.AECFA3C5"

--=_184C41C8.AECFA3C5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_184C41C8.AECFA3C5
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 MAA06685;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:23:15 -0700
Message-Id: <199804241923.MAA06685@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:23:13 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming), owain@axa.co.uk,
        arin-council@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, cambler@iodesign.com,
        domain-policy@open-rsc.org, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no,
        ietf@ietf.org, Ira Magaziner,
        JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, karl@mcs.net, naipr@arin.net,
        peterd@Bunyip.Com, rsctalk@ah.net
In-Reply-To: <199804241601.QAA24266@axa.co.uk>
References: <01BD6F5E.B11208C0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 16:01 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:

>> Back to reality...in my opinion, there will likely be 6, 8 or maybe 10
>> dominant Root Name Server Clusters on planet Earth. Any serious
>> TLD Registry will have no problem going to those 6 to 10 companies
>> and negotiating to be included.
>
>In my opinion, there will be one (maybe large) set of Root Servers
>but no 'Clusters'. What is the point in going to 10 different authorities?=
?

For one thing, distributing the management load.

>I just don't understand what benfits this is supposed to have. It'll
>just make life more difficult and reduce connectivity. It's funny how
>these places might have IP level connectivity, but because of some
>beauracratic nonsense, a given DNS name will or will not resolve to the
>appropriate address depending on where you are trying to connect from.

This occurs now. Try getting to http://www.sheesh , if you are using a GRS
name-server then it'll resolve. If you are using ONLY the IANA root-servers=

then it will not. Point your second DNS server entry to noc.mhsc.com and
it'll resolve nicely. You see, you didn't have to do anything really weird
now, did you? That is because MHSC.NET has done all the really difficult
stuff for you. Internally, we also go to .FTN, but you can't get there =
from
where you are, it's strictly internal to MHSC.

We believe that this resolver issue is what will get ISPs to start
implementing something like GRS. If the customers want the connectivity
then the ISPs will supply it.

>> The current problem is that the U.S. Government is one of the 6 to 10
>> AND they are the dominant RSC. That coupled with their previous
>> policy of allowing a university professor to decide which "channels"
>> are carried has created this mess. That is about to end...then you
>> will see how stable and organized the world becomes...
>
>April 1st was 23 days ago. Your idea of stable and organised has 10 =
different
>authorities which may or may not have the name->address mapping, may have
>different TLDs from each other, and to obtain a name one has to pay a
>commercial fee to all these authorities just to have a chance of reaching
>a global audience.
>
>You may have one physical internet, but you'd end up with 10 or so
>virtual internets.

I beg to differ, We have MANY networks already and we also have MANY
internets, some of which are NOT virtual. In MANY cases intra-nets are
inter-connections of many networks. They intra-net is then connected to
another internet that acts as a gateway network to the Internet. How is
this different from what you object to?

>Owain
>=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

--=_184C41C8.AECFA3C5--

--=_184C41C8.AFCEA2C4--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:41 1998
Message-Id: <00001903@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:14 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_194D40C9.ADCCA0C6"

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.

--=_194D40C9.ADCCA0C6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_194D40C9.ADCCA0C6
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:32 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_194D40C9.ACCDA1C7"

--=_194D40C9.ACCDA1C7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_194D40C9.ACCDA1C7
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 NAA06788;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:12:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199804242012.NAA06788@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:12:43 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net (Jim Fleming), owain@axa.co.uk,
        arin-council@arin.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, cambler@iodesign.com,
        domain-policy@open-rsc.org, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no,
        ietf@ietf.org, Ira Magaziner,
        JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, karl@mcs.net, naipr@arin.net,
        peterd@Bunyip.Com, rsctalk@ah.net
In-Reply-To: <199804241616.QAA24377@axa.co.uk>
References: <01BD6F60.F7D7CAE0@pc.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 16:16 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>
>> Hold on...who said they have to pay a fee in ALL of the RSCs ?
>=20
>If they don't then they won't reach the entire network.
>Who wants to have a name that is only resolvable by a small number of
>people???
>
>> Are the TLD Registries paying a fee to be listed in Australia ?
>> Are the TLD Registries paying a fee to be listed in eDNS ?
>
>There is only one root!!!

NOT!

The root is ALREADY split. It is just not universally understood. GRS is
the only system to access them all.
___________________________________________________=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

--=_194D40C9.ACCDA1C7--

--=_194D40C9.ADCCA0C6--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:41 1998
Message-Id: <00001908@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:18 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_194D40C9.A3C2AEC8"

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.

--=_194D40C9.A3C2AEC8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_194D40C9.A3C2AEC8
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:35 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_194D40C9.A2C3AFC9"

--=_194D40C9.A2C3AFC9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_194D40C9.A2C3AFC9
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 NAA06826;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:50:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199804242050.NAA06826@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:50:07 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa.co.uk>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root
Cc: pparaggi@BayNetworks.COM (Pat Paraggio), owain@axa.co.uk,
        peterd@Bunyip.Com, domain-policy@open-rsc.org,
        JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, arin-council@arin.net,
        BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, ietf@ietf.org,
        Ira Magaziner, naipr@arin.net,
        DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
In-Reply-To: <199804241657.QAA24657@axa.co.uk>
References: <3540A64D.41C67EA6@baynetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 16:57 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:

>> Just my $.01
>>=20
>> Pat Paraggio
>
>Owain=20
>
>PS. Sorry to people on the IETF list. This is my last response on the
>    Jim Fleming inspired TLD flame war.

huh?!?!?!?

You call this a flame-war? This sounds like normal discussion to me. If =
all
it takes, for you to consider a message as being a flame, is for someone =
to
disagree with you then maybe you're better off not responding to anything,
at all. Certainly, you should never-ever publish anything.

___________________________________________________=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

--=_194D40C9.A2C3AFC9--

--=_194D40C9.A3C2AEC8--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:42 1998
Message-Id: <0000190A@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:20 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1A4E43CA.A1C0ACCA"

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.

--=_1A4E43CA.A1C0ACCA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1A4E43CA.A1C0ACCA
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:36 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1A4E43CA.A0C1ADCB"

--=_1A4E43CA.A0C1ADCB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1A4E43CA.A0C1ADCB
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 OAA06850;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:09:56 -0700
Message-Id: <199804242109.OAA06850@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:09:55 -0700
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>, "'Owain Vaughan'" <owain@axa.co.uk>,
        <arin-council@arin.net>, <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>, <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>,
        <ietf@ietf.org>, <Ira Magaziner>,
        <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>, <karl@mcs.net>, <naipr@arin.net>,
        <peterd@Bunyip.Com>, <rsctalk@ah.net>
In-Reply-To: <012201bd6f91$0638aac0$d7fd3b9d@ozric.dns.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 07:55 4/24/98 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>As I said...both companies A and B should hire experts
>>who can tell them where ALL of the dominant Root Name
>>Server Clusters are located and what agreements to get
>>signed. If they do not, then they deserve what they get.
>
>
>How can they?! Both are under non-disclosure agreements,
>as you originally said. There is no way to know about each
>other.
>
>Unless, of course, there is a central clearing authority.

I think that we all see the need for this central clearing authority. At
minimum, it needs to be a referee. What we'll probably get is a mediator
that evolves into a regulator.
___________________________________________________=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

--=_1A4E43CA.A0C1ADCB--

--=_1A4E43CA.A1C0ACCA--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:42 1998
Message-Id: <00001905@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:23 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Multiple RSCs just don't work without coordination
     -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1A4E43CA.A7C6AACC"

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.

--=_1A4E43CA.A7C6AACC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1A4E43CA.A7C6AACC
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:37 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Multiple RSCs just don't work without coordination
     -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1A4E43CA.A6C7ABCD"

--=_1A4E43CA.A6C7ABCD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1A4E43CA.A6C7ABCD
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 OAA06881;
     Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:18:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199804242118.OAA06881@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:18:48 -0700
To: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple RSCs just don't work without coordination
Cc: <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>, "'Owain Vaughan'" <owain@axa.co.uk>,
        <arin-council@arin.net>, <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
        <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>, <ietf@ietf.org>,
        <Ira Magaziner>, <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>,
        <karl@mcs.net>, <naipr@arin.net>, <peterd@Bunyip.Com>,
        <rsctalk@ah.net>
In-Reply-To: <019301bd6f9c$5df1f040$d7fd3b9d@ozric.dns.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 09:16 4/24/98 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>WE NEED COORDINATION, period.
>
>Whether the USG process works or not will most likely be
>answered in about 3 weeks I suspect. It will either set down
>the coordination rules or it won't. If it doesn't, this whole thing
>is going to be a messy mass of confusion, lawsuits, and
>fights.

Agreed. That is what we should be discussing, how to co-ordinate what =
we're
already doing. Not, argue about what's already been done.
___________________________________________________=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

--=_1A4E43CA.A6C7ABCD--

--=_1A4E43CA.A7C6AACC--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:43 1998
Message-Id: <000018FC@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:26 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1B4F42CB.A5C4A8CE"

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.

--=_1B4F42CB.A5C4A8CE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1B4F42CB.A5C4A8CE
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:38 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1B4F42CB.A4C5A9CF"

--=_1B4F42CB.A4C5A9CF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1B4F42CB.A4C5A9CF
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 CAA11044;
     Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:54:21 -0700
Message-Id: <199804270954.CAA11044@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 02:54:20 -0700
To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: domain-policy@open-rsc.org, owain@axa.co.uk, arin-council@arin.net,
        BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, ietf@ietf.org,
        Ira Magaziner, JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net,
        karl@mcs.net, naipr@arin.net, peterd@Bunyip.Com, rsctalk@ah.net
In-Reply-To: <199804271119.LAA07595@axa.co.uk>
References: <199804242109.OAA06850@condor.mhsc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 11:19 4/27/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Unless, of course, there is a central clearing authority.
>>=20
>> I think that we all see the need for this central clearing authority. =
At
>> minimum, it needs to be a referee. What we'll probably get is a =
mediator
>> that evolves into a regulator.
>
>Erm, if this mediator agrees which names should be allowed and which =
should
>not, then it renders all these competing 'clusters' irrelevant, as we
>end up with a system not unlike that which we have now: a single point of
>contact (IANA) that decides which TLDs are created.
>
>You have achieved nothing.

Ah, yes we have. This SPOC would allow the creation of additional TLDs.
That is what all this brouha is about in the first place.=20

BTW, we REALLY should take this to open-rsc. Or at least keep it off the
ARIN list, unless you wnat to take a position advocating tying TLDs to
IP-blocks.
___________________________________________________=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

--=_1B4F42CB.A4C5A9CF--

--=_1B4F42CB.A5C4A8CE--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:43 1998
Message-Id: <000018F9@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:28 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1B4F42CB.9BFA96F0"

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.

--=_1B4F42CB.9BFA96F0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1B4F42CB.9BFA96F0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:07:38 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ? -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1B4F42CB.9AFB97F1"

--=_1B4F42CB.9AFB97F1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1B4F42CB.9AFB97F1
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 KAA17668;
     Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:00:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199804271700.KAA17668@condor.mhsc.com>
X-Sender: rmeyer@pop.mhsc.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:00:49 -0700
To: Owain Vaughan <owain@axa>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Subject: Re: IANA or IRA ?
Cc: richard@sexton.com (Richard J. Sexton), domain-policy@open-rsc.org,
        owain@AXA.CO.UK, JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, arin-council@arin.net,
        BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, cambler@iodesign.com, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no,
        ietf@ietf.org, Ira Magaziner, karl@mcs.net,
        naipr@arin.net, peterd@Bunyip.Com, rsctalk@ah.net
In-Reply-To: <199804271543.PAA10520@axa>
References: <m0yTngR-00067DC@ns1.vrx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

At 15:43 4/27/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>>=20
>> At 11:05 AM 4/27/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
>> >> Point your second DNS server entry to noc.mhsc.com and
>> >> it'll resolve nicely.
>> >
>> >Why should I?? For all I know noc.mhsc.com could contain bogus entries =
for
>> >exiting domains. They could claim they were authoratative for .COM and
>> >then make up all the enties for SUN.COM, SGI.COM etc.. and point the
>> >mail and webserver addresses anywhere they wanted. No thanks.
>>=20
>> Isn't that like saying "I don't like asparagus so I'm not going to try =
it".
>=20
>Not at all: my eating asparagus wouldn't potentially make my eating =
anything
>else any more difficult. So this analogy doesn't hold.

It will if you have an allergy. The analogy does hold.

>By pointing my resolver at some unknown, untrusted server, I would
potentially
>make resolving other domains that I could safely resolve in the past
>unreliable. I don't want to 'try it' because I know exatly what will =
happen.

No, you don't know what will happen! You FEAR what MIGHT happen. That is
entirely different. Or are you stating the slander that I run a pirate =
ISP?
The Internet is NOT built on such a level of fear and mis-trust. How about
this for a nightmare,=20

>> I'm tryig to figure out who has a vested interest in making the network
>> notwork.
>=20
>People who see some commercial value in names and are willing to fracture
>the namespace like this have a vested intrest in making the network not
>work.

This is absurd, and you are irrationallly afraid, and you attempt to
inflict your fear on others. This thread is ended, as far as I'm concernd.

You write as if you were a denizen of Plato's Cave.
_________________________________________________=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

--=_1B4F42CB.9AFB97F1--

--=_1B4F42CB.9BFA96F0--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:45 1998
Message-Id: <000018FA@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:35 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1C4845CC.99F894F2"

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.

--=_1C4845CC.99F894F2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1C4845CC.99F894F2
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:08:32 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1C4845CC.98F995F3"

--=_1C4845CC.98F995F3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1C4845CC.98F995F3
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:45 +0100
From: Berislav Todorovic <BERI@etf.bg.ac.yu>
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root
To: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net
Cc: tld-wg@ripe.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, ietf@ns.ietf.org,
 Ira Magaziner, arin-council@arin.net
Message-id: <3EE54C5368001F1F@etf.bg.ac.yu>
X-Envelope-to: BBURR@ntia.doc.gov
X-VMS-To: IN%"JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"tld-wg@ripe.net", IN%"BBURR@ntia.doc.gov", IN%"ietf@ns.ietf.org",
 IN%"Ira Magaziner", IN%"arin-council@arin.net"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:15:49 -0500
>> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
>> Subject: FW: Structuring the Root
>> To: "'tld-wg@ripe.net'" <tld-wg@ripe.net>
>> To:    'arin-council@arin.net'; 'ARIN list'
>> Cc:    'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'; 'ietf@ns.ietf.org'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner@oa.eop.=
gov'
>> Subject:    Structuring the Root
>>=20
>> Structuring the Root for the IPv4 Internet can be as simple as
>> assigning each of the TLD authorities a section of the IPv4 address
>> space to "manage" (not route). The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file could
>> be cleaned up once delegations are made in a more distributed
>> manner. It is important to note that this methodology does not "use"
>> all of the IPv4 addresses, it just distributes them fairly for =
management
>> purposes.

Many thanks for the copy of this pretty interesting proposal! However, I'd
like to place some comments on it.

First off, the proposal tries to connect two administrative antipodes on
the Internet today: IP address space management (which is a pure technical
questin) and domain name delegations (which also have an inevitable legal
component). Let's try to stress out some facts, which describe the current
situation about reverse domain delegations:

* IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations are (naturally) closely related to the IP
  address allocations/assignments, since reverse domains somewhat reflect
  usage of the address space, allocated to an ISP or assigned to a user.
  In other words, reverse domains are closely related to IP addresses
  used in the network - NOT to the domain names in any way!

* IP address allocation/assignment process is totally independent of
  domain name delegations. IP address management hierarchy (IANA ->
  Regional IRs -> ISPs/LIRs -> End users) is a logical consequence of the
  hierarchy of the global routing system. At an extreme point - a ccTLD
  could be used for Web hosting and similar purposes only, where IP
  address space is not needed (take many small countries in Oceania, which
  sold their domains to other countries - see NU TLD, for example).

* Currently, regional registries provide IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations for all
  IP blocks they allocate to the ISPs/LIRs. The ISPs are, apparently,
  responsible for proper visibility of the reverse domains for the IP
  address space assigned to their end users.

The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies.
First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca
you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian
Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is
perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive
indefinitely".

The second one (more important) is the question of responsibility: an ISP,
assigning an IP network to end user is responsible for its rouitng and
reverse domain mapping. Why? Because the user pays for that service! Now,
the regional IR, allocating an IP block to the ISP is responsible for its
IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation. Why? Because the ISP pays to the regional IR for
the service they receive (IP address allocations and reverse domain name
delegations).=20

Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate their
reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have
anything to do with them. The following situation might arise: an ISP
receives three independent allocations from the IRs. Now, part of their
users would have to delegate their addresses with, say, TLD of Fiji (FJ),
the other will have to ask the TLD of Cyprus (CY), the third group will
have to go to the Russian (RU) TLD. And - all ISPs are located, say, in
the USA! Funny, isn't it?

The other side of the medal: suppose that your company, some university
or - even Whitehouse or United Nations, received address space which has
to be delegated by the TLD registrar of Western Samoa, since the digits
in the IP addresses point to that registrar. Suppose Western Samoa TLD
DNS servers fail. Who are you going to blame? Western Samoa TLD NIC?
Their government?

The current bottom-up structure of IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation might not be
the best solution achievable today! But that's all we have today ...
which does not mean it cannot change tomorrow! ;-)

Best regards,
Beri

.-------.
| --+-- |  Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E.     | E-mail: BERI@etf.bg.ac.yu
|  /|\     Hostmaster of the YU TLD          |=20
|-(-+-)-|  School of Electrical Engineering  | Phone:  (+381-11) 3221-419
|  \|/     Bulevar Revolucije 73             |                   3370-106
| --+-- |  11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax:    (+381-11) 3248-681
`-------' -----------------------------------------------------------------=
---

--=_1C4845CC.98F995F3--

--=_1C4845CC.99F894F2--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:45 1998
Message-Id: <00001901@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:17:37 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1D4944CD.9FFE92F4"

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.

--=_1D4944CD.9FFE92F4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1D4944CD.9FFE92F4
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:08:33 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1D4944CD.9EFF93F5"

--=_1D4944CD.9EFF93F5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1D4944CD.9EFF93F5
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:51 +0100
From: Berislav Todorovic <BERI@etf.bg.ac.yu>
Subject: Re: FW: Structuring the Root
To: Jay@Iperdome.com
Cc: JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net, tld-admin@ripe.net, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov,
 ietf@ietf.org, Ira Magaziner, arin-council@arin.net
Message-id: <E2D19371800041B4@etf.bg.ac.yu>
X-Envelope-to: BBURR@ntia.doc.gov
X-VMS-To: IN%"Jay@Iperdome.com"
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net", IN%"tld-admin@ripe.net",
 IN%"BBURR@ntia.doc.gov", IN%"ietf@ietf.org", IN%"Ira Magaziner",
 IN%"arin-council@arin.net"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

First, I'd like to suggest to move this discussion from the RIPE TLD-WG =
list,
since IP address space allocations/assignments are out of the scope of TLD
registrar business. Please, appologies if anyone from the TLD-WG list has
a different oppinion.

RIPE NCC and ARIN hold separate lists which deal with IP address space
allocation and assignment policies and procedures, as well as with reverse
domain infrastructure (IN-ADDR.ARPA) maintenance. Please, have a look at
http://www.ripe.net/, http://www.arin.net/ and STOP sending CC's of this
discussion to <tld-wg@ripe.net>. Many thanks for your understading (and
reducing traffic volume on the list to the TLD-related matter)! ;-)

Now, here's my reply to the last posting from <Jay@Iperdome.com>:

>> At 11:45 PM 4/20/98 +0100, Berislav Todorovic wrote:
>> >* IP address allocation/assignment process is totally independent of
>> >  domain name delegations. IP address management hierarchy (IANA ->
>> >  Regional IRs -> ISPs/LIRs -> End users) is a logical consequence of =
the
>> >  hierarchy of the global routing system.=20
>>=20
>> Only a small fraction of the IP address space is allocated in=20
>> this manner.  Based on the limited information that I've seen,=20
>> only about 30 /8s have been delegated to the regional IRs.

Correct! But, as you perfectly remarked:

>> A large portion of the IP address space has been allocated=20
>> directly to some large, independent organizations, and a large=20
>> portion remains available to the IANA for future allocations.

Also true! Explanation: the allocation/assignment process I described
in my previous posting is the way how it is being done nowadays. That
process is based on CIDR and the guidelines denoted in RFC 2050. Long
before that, however, allocation/assignment procedures were totally
different. To be more precise - the rules themselves have constantly
been changing over time! But - the rules were always, in some way,
a consequence of the current principles of the Internet architecture.

While Cerf and Kahn had thought about the Internet, as a collection
of mutually connected huge national-level networks, of which each one
would be assigned a single 8-bit IP network prefix (/8 in today
terms), the evolution of the Internet architecture inevitably changed
that firstly adopted rule. The address space had been initially
partitioned into classes and - as a last resort to save the Net from
address space exhaustion (and to reduce routing information traffic),
CIDR and hierarchical distribution was was introduced in early 90's.

Thus, some huge networks (like MIT) had been allocated an increadibly
large address space (MIT holds 18/8), according to the policy that
had been in use in that time. Some users in the late 80's, claiming
that they have more than 250 hosts obtained a /16 etc. But, since the
"original criteria for those assignments are still met" (as stated in
the RFC 2050 and other similar documents), which means they still
meet the criteria that had been valid in the moment when their IP
addresses had been assigned, they have the right to hold that address
space.

But, the fact I've said in my previous posting still states: IP
address allocations/assigments - no matter how they have been done
and no matter what rules have been applied in the process of their
distribution - still are totally independent from domain name
delegations.

Best regards,
Beri

.-------.
| --+-- |  Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E.     | E-mail: BERI@etf.bg.ac.yu
|  /|\     Hostmaster of the YU TLD          |=20
|-(-+-)-|  School of Electrical Engineering  | Phone:  (+381-11) 3221-419
|  \|/     Bulevar Revolucije 73             |                   3370-106
| --+-- |  11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax:    (+381-11) 3248-681
`-------' -----------------------------------------------------------------=
---

--=_1D4944CD.9EFF93F5--

--=_1D4944CD.9FFE92F4--
From - Tue May 19 16:34:45 1998
Message-Id: <0000190D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:18:17 -0400
From: "Karen Rose" 
To: Herschel Gelman
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root  -Forwarded -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1D4944CD.9DFC90F6"

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.

--=_1D4944CD.9DFC90F6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

-K
--=_1D4944CD.9DFC90F6
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:09:15 -0400
From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov>
To: Karen Rose
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root  -Forwarded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_1D4944CD.9CFD91F7"

--=_1D4944CD.9CFD91F7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

--=_1D4944CD.9CFD91F7
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from nma.com by paris.ics.uci.edu id ae29982; 24 Apr 98 16:00 PDT
Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu by norn.nma.com id aa03516; 24 Apr 98 15:49 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:49:23 -0700
Message-ID: <3512.893458163.1@nma.com>
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Sender: stef@nma.com
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root 
BCC:  
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822

To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
cc: arin-council@arin.net, ietf@ietf.org, naipr@arin.net,
    DOMAIN-POLICY@lists.internic.net
Subject: Re: Structuring the Root 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:50:07 PDT."
             <199804242050.NAA06826@condor.mhsc.com> 
Reply-to: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:49:23 -0700
Message-ID: <3512.893458163@nma.com>
Sender: stef@nma.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Participants in this thread are reminded that submissions to
<domain-policy@open-rsc.org> must adhere to our civil discourse rules,
which call for avoidance of harsh or uncivil personal remarks, among
other things.  We are only interested in resolving the issues, not the
personalities.

Our ORSC rules may not apply to other lists, but they do apply to all
contributions to <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>.

We might be in danger here of pushing the edges of the envelope, so I
just want to forewarn our non-ORSC participants who include message
copies to <domain-policy@open-rsc.org>.

The full text of the ORSC civil discourse rules is available on the
ORSC web site <www.open-rsc.org> for easy reference.

Flamers can easily avoid ORSC infractions by not including
<domain-policy@open-rsc.org> in the To or CC lists of flame laden
messages.  However, if our ORSC rules help to avoid flamage in other
venues, that is fine with ORSC;-)...

Best...\Stef

PS: Actually all this cross posting seems to be over doing things, but
    if it is helping to pull the community together into a working
    group that can solve the probems at hand, that would be a good
    thing.  To the extent that cross posting only spreads flames, it
    is a generally bad idea...\s

From your message Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:50:07 -0700:
}
}At 16:57 4/24/98 +0000, Owain Vaughan wrote:
}
}>> Just my $.01
}>>=20
}>> Pat Paraggio
}>
}>Owain=20
}>
}>PS. Sorry to people on the IETF list. This is my last response on the
}>    Jim Fleming inspired TLD flame war.
}
}huh?!?!?!?
}
}You call this a flame-war? This sounds like normal discussion to me. If =
all
}it takes, for you to consider a message as being a flame, is for someone =
to
}disagree with you then maybe you're better off not responding to =
anything,
}at all. Certainly, you should never-ever publish anything.
}___________________________________________________=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/~rmey=
er
}Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
}___________________________________________=20
}SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon! =20

--=_1D4944CD.9CFD91F7--

--=_1D4944CD.9DFC90F6--