Will the Clinton Administration Permit the Hijacking Of the internet? - A Plea to Ira Magaziner

[Jay@Iperdome.com]

FYI:

>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:10:53 -0500
>From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
>
>
>Will the Clinton Administration Permit the Hijacking Of the internet? - A
>Plea to Ira Magaziner.
>
>All hell is getting ready to break lose.  I am summarizing what I know at
>this moment in the hope that Ira Magaziner will tomorrow afternoon at a
>scheduled meeting of the Interagency DNS task force REFUSE TO SIGN OFF ON
>the Kahin- Burr -Nelson/Maxwell plan with which he will be presented.*
>(see footnote below) 
>
>My sources are telling me the following as of this afternoon and evening:
>
>Don Heath, as Executive Dir of ISOC, has convinced the InterAgency Working
>Group (read Kahin and Burr and Nelson) that there is a crisis in the
>Internet over DNS, and that they (IPOC/CORE) are the only group that can
>fix it and that therefore the Working Group had better use the power of
>the US Government to tell NSI to put the new seven top level domains into
>the main rootserver at NSI very likely on Friday, November 14.  
>
>Why?  Because there are now circa 90 registrars who have ponied up money
>and need to have some certainty that the domain names they want to start
>issuing will be worth something.  Legally the only place the order to NSI
>can from is from the National Science Foundation.  The NSF in the meantime
>has been effectively shunted aside from the deliberations, being asked
>technical questions now and then. If the order is given, it will be very
>instructive to see 1. Whether the NSF signs it, and 2. **Who** in the NSF
>actually signs.
>
>This should be ascertainable because such an outcome would have an
>immediate impact in the PGP Media lawsuit and NSI would likely turn such
>an order over to the lawyers there very promptly.  Interestingly enough,
>such a move would likely give Jon Postel back the authority which NSF took
>away from him this summer.  That event would, we are told, make Jon a
>direct legal target of the PGP action.
>
>Action now to capitulate to the IAHC/ISOC/IPOC/CORE 'Bunch' would be most
>unfortunate.  It would signal the US government out as saying in front of
>the international community: "give special treatment to this group of
>people who have no working infrastructure and deny those like  Iperdome,
>who do, a place in the rootserver."
>
>Mr. Magaziner must ask himself what could possibly be gained by taking
>precipitous action at this point in time to place new gTLDs in root when
>these new gTLDs aren't ready for use and won't be for quite some time.  
>
>A complicating factor we have learned is that some registrars took
>preregistrations on the new seven names for some period of time.  It is
>believed that they have them sitting there and would like to be able to
>use them and bill for them as well as to be able to establish precedence.
>Can you say "how much am I offered for IBM.firm?"  
>
>CORE has signed the contract with Emergent (believed to be for $400,000
>plus $70,000 payable every month beginning immediately).  To meet these
>expenses, CORE, in turn, is planning to bill each registrar beginning in
>November $2,000 a month to ensure that CORE's bank accounts last long
>enough.  The new registrars, having poinied up a non-refundable $10,000,
>would undoubtedly like to be assured that their investment will pay off.
>They face the disquieting reality of knowing that, if the names don't go
>into the root servers their investment has become worthless.  Thus they
>have undoubtedly been pressing Kahin and Burr to ask Ira Magaziner to sign
>the "check" that will put money in the bank for them.
>
>We believe Magaziner has good intentions but he must understand that the
>Interagency task force which works for him is utterly lacking in
>competence and is asking him to shoot himself and the Clinton
>Administration in the foot on Thursday afternoon November 13 and announce
>the results the next morning.  We hope he will refuse.  Because you see
>there is no DNS crisis - such that not fixing it NOW will cause the
>Internet to break.  It would be a great pity if he pulled the trigger and
>bloodied his foot without understanding this.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>(Footnote:  the FCC is a major player.  Elliot Maxwell whom we hear spoken
>of with considerable respect has been very visibly involved with the
>working group.  On the other hand Mike Nelson has also been involved and
>we are told has his finger prints on the development of the policy
>direction.)
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Here is the note that prompted our investigation:  
>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:52:11 -0500
>From: Jay@Iperdome.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
>Subject: Re: NSI's role in adding new roots
>
>
>gTLD-MoU supporters and registrars have been told this:
>
>     May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT
>
>     The ad hoc committee has said it doesn't need the
>     U.S. government's approval to go ahead with its
>     plan. Appointed by the Internet Society, the
>     committee says it has direct control of the
>     computers that run the Net's addressing system
>     through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
>     (IANA). The government has "no choice" but to go
>     along with its plans, IAHC chair and ISOC
>     president Don Heath has said.
>
>   http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10345,00.html
>
>Now, Dave Crocker is saying this:
>
>At 10:00 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
>>We are fast approaching a critical moment.  The process of reaching it
>has
>>been extremely public, so there will be no surprise when the event
>occurs.
>>The moment is the request by IANA for addition of the new generic TLDs
>>(gTLDs) to the root DNS servers.  The request will be issued when the
>>gTLD-MoU's CORE project plans require it for testing, prior to live
>>registration operation of these gTLDs.  Nearly 90 companies have
>committed
>>significant funds and effort to this activity, so it's rather more than a
>>theoretical exercise.  It is a bottom-line matter for these companies.
>>
>>NSI is in an unfortunate position of being faced with open competition by
>>this enhancement and, at the same time, physically holding the master
>root
>>server to which these new TLDs will be added.  In some circles, having
>>control over a resource which enables the creation of competition for
>one's
>>organization would be called conflict of interest.
>>
>>So there is considerable import to the basis by which NSI chooses to
>claim
>>that it can add ISO (national) TLDs (nTLDs) but not add others, namely
>>gTLDs.  As a constructive member of the Internet community, NSI surely
>>wants to makes its position completely clear, as well as the basis for
>that
>>position.
>>
>>Your previous notes have cited text from the NSI proposal and have said
>>that portions of the proposal were incorporated by reference to the
>>Cooperative agreement.  The implication of these citations is that the
>>proposal only covers addition of nTLDs, presumably implying that since
>>addition of gTLDs (or any other kind of TLD) is not covered by that
>portion
>>of the proposal, NSI isn't obligated to perform such additions.
>>
>>What your notes have NOT done is to show a simple and complete sequence
>>which incorporates the text relevant to this question into that
>Agreement.
>>In other words, if NSI is planning to rely on this text as a basis for
>>refusing to take a direction from IANA, it needs to be more completely
>>developed.  To date, NSI has been completely responsive to IANA
>directions,
>>so that such a refusal is entirely without precedent.  As such, one would
>>hope that NSI has a clearly developed line of justification and, as a
>good
>>network citizen, has made that justification crystal clear sooner, rather
>>than later.
>>
>>Further, NSI has often cited the directive from NSF that it not add TLDs
>>without approval from the US government, yet the text in that directive
>is
>>not constrained and NSI has been continuing to add nTLDs.  The directive
>>does not distinguish gTLDs from nTLDs.  Instructions to add nTLDs have
>been
>>coming from IANA and the additions have taken place immediately.  Is
>there
>>documentation of NSF approval for each one of these changes?  If there is
>>not, then NSI has been showing selective interpretation of its
>instructions
>>and is not merely the mechanical participant it has been claiming.
>>
>>The moment that is approaching is the result of more than 1 year of open
>>discussion and debate, including many individuals, organizations and
>>countries all over the world.  90 companies are now engaged in producing
>>fully competitive registration services.  It will do the Internet
>community
>>no good service to refuse to take a directive from IANA and thereby
>create
>>an administrative crisis on the net.
>>
>>There is nothing unknown about the request that will be issued, except
>for
>>the precise date and we know that date is approaching quickly.  If NSI is
>>planning to refuse that request, it is time to tell that to the community
>>and explain the basis.
>
>
>Regards,
>
> Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>************************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
>431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
>Internet: cook@cookreport.com             New Special Report: Internet
>Governance at the Crossroads ($175)  http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml
>************************************************************************
>
>
>