IP: Train wreck time? An answer to Dave Crocker's finger slip.

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

These two notes have an interesting background. Dave Crocker called for
stopping the emotional discussion of the DNS issue and getting down to
facts. Then as the result of a finger slip (oh how often I have done this
with IP) the reply to a message from Gordon Cook accidentally CCed the
com-priv list. As you can see that resulted in a long note from Gordon
defending his original note and then a reply from Dave admitting the slip
and then discussing Gordons analysis note. 


Originally I was not going to send out the Gordon reply and let sleeping
dogs lie but when Dave sent his (hopefully final note) out I felt it had
become very public and that the combined notes had enough importance to
send them to IP.


So here we go


Dave


Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:12:18 -0400
From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv () lists psi com>
Subject: Train wreck time? An answer to Dave Crocker's finger slip.
X-Comment:  Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet


Dave crocker pressed the wrong buttons and caused the following to go to
com-priv.


Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:50:52 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com>
To: cook () netaxs com
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv () lists psi com>
Subject: Re: Personal Attacks, Power, and the PAB


Gordon,


        Shame on you.


        You tell me you can't get into this in detail and then you turn
around and say that you have been hearing things "from your side of the
fence". What the hell are you talking about?


Cook: We all press the wrong button at times, so I can empathize with
Dave. But Dave you have, nevertheless, stated a couple of things in public
that I will now answer. I believe that it was the weekend before last that
I said something that caused you to feel that my rough neutrality vis-a
vis IAHC/IPOC/PAB was wavering. You emailed your concern. I replied that
if you felt that I didn't understand what was going on, you should feel
free to call me. You called me and we talked at length. Now during that
conversation, when you chided me for not being up to speed on some aspect
of the DNS wars, I explained that indeed I did not care to get into that
level of detail. That I was not, after newdom moved, on any of the DNS
lists and didn't care to be. No desire to get into that level of detail.
Yep. But I never said that I would not continue to listen and attempt to
figure out the "big" picture.


Crocker: Of course, now that I'm out of town for 2 weeks, we can't get on
the phone and pursue this carefully, as I suggested. You worked very, very
hard to get things right about ARIN.  I think that we deserve the same
effort and care, Gordon.


Cook: Since this became public by a slip of the finger, I am happy to
elaborate. I have made it very plain since last March that ARIN was my
main concern. Now, getting ARIN straight, lead to looking at government
meddling which ostensibly was on account of DNS. Also looking at ARIN and
that aftermath led to a further interest in IANA. Though I believe that
Jon means well, I am dismayed at what I haved learned about IANA
operations and processes. These are in serious need of over haul. Either
Jon will manage the task or he will, I fear, have it done for him.
Unfortunately bringing basically the same old processes under the ISOC
envelop isn't going to work.....audit and accountability trails are I
believe mandatory.


But if one looks at IANA and IANA institutionalization and reform, one
also has to begin to look at Jon's fiscal situation and his relationship,
or lack of one, with ISOC and the US government. Right now ISOC is looking
like his only home. Especially if he isn't willing to compromise on the
issue of the new domains. I think it is unfortunate that he appears to be
so intent on adding the IAHC/IPOC/PAB domains to the root servers, that we
are now in a potential train wreck situation.


There is substance -not mere speculation- to the question of moving root
zone or "dot". I would not stick my neck out on something like this if I
did not have absolutely solid evidence. This has turned into something far
more serious than just DNS. It is about power indeed and various parties
are drawing lines in the sand and daring the other side to overstep the
boundary. Ten days ago it looked to me that the disarray was such that Jon
could move root zone where he wanted and that the likely consequences of
doing so would be minor. It looks to me now that this is no longer the
case.


During the past 10 days that I have watched this discussion, the
reasonable comments that I have seen have come from Robert Shearing and
Jay Fenello. As I said a few days ago, your position has never been, in my
opinion, that strong and the shrillness of the recent discourse along with
your defensiveness does not imply dealing from a position of strength.
You have a technical building process to accomplish.   Get on with it. Let
us know when you pass some of your milestones... I believe that you are
already late in some areas, but as I said I am not following this at that
level of detail. 


When people want to talk with me however I am willing to listen. Others
besides you have been talking. Vint has been driving this from MCI because
of his belief in the Internet society. Therefore you have MCI as a
signatory.
You have only two other industry signatories of note: DEC and UUNET. (US
companies with $50 million a year in revenues.)


I would like to hear exactly what happened that caused DEC to sign. I have
had complaints from industry figures that Digital signed with considerable
reluctance. At the July 31st Forum on Domain Names Jay Adelson, Digital,
stated that Digital signed the gMOU, but with an attachment, which -
stressed the importance of stability, that nothing is done to jeopardize
the .com domain, and posed a question, to what degree will we allow
registries to do it all themselves. He reportedly expressed concern over
how fast we are implementing the MOU.


Has this attachment been made public ? What has been the response to this
attachment from the IPOC ? Is it on the MOU web pages? I just went there
and don't see any reference. Next question. Who signed on behalf of UUNET?
Mike O'Dell or John Sidgemore? I tried to find out UUNET's current
position and called them this afternoon with no luck. O'Dell is at IETF
and Sidgemore is out of the office. If UUNET Sidgemore signed, why would
not Worldcom also sign? If O'Dell, does he have the authority to do it on
behalf of UUNET. Is UUNET a signatory? I ask that of you and shall ask it
of John Sidgemore.


You (IAHC) have created a process where the outcome has been one of
placing Jon Postel on a collision course with the US government. I am not
saying that either you or Jon intended this. But, intent or not, that is
the outcome. You have attached your anchors to ISOC, an organization
having the allegiance of a minority of this industry and headed by Don
Heath who had been, up to this point in time, an MCI executive with no
internet background. I have reports from many people who have dealt with
Don this summer that he too has only one intent and that is to push
straight ahead....peddle to the floor. Damn the torpedos. He has he
believes no need to slow down. None to compromise.


Your intense desire to apply counter pressure at every debating point is
remarkable. If you really understand that you are right, then build a
system that works. Go off and just do the damned thing. When you have done
it come back and ask Jon to put the new domains in the root servers. But
you better do it quick because the US government has put its own process
together and, by the time your system is working, the US process may have
rendered it obsolete. 


If you are willing to back off for a few months and become part of the
NOI, fine. That, at this point, is probably best for the internet
community. If not then one of two things will happen. (1) Jon Postel will
blink in the face-off now developing and will leave the root zone files
alone. This will mean that anything you develop may never come to fruition
for the NOI could forbid new gtlds. Or (2) Jon doesn't blink, moves the
root zone files so that you can get your way. If he should do this against
the direct wishes of the Administration, he will probably force an
executive order asking the largest players on an emergency basis to meet
in washington and insitute their own palace coup form of internet
government to keep the net running...... Remember that the white house
considers the net "critical infrastructure." Souch an event would render
Jon and the current IANA irrelevant. That is a lose lose scenario for
everyone. But it looks to me to be the precipice towards which you
(IAHC/IPOC/PAB) are so stalwartly marching.


Any organization at this point that really understands the dangerous
stress levels of the politics involved would be foolish to pony up the
money to become a CORE registrar. For despite the fact that you are, at
this point, the choosen instrument of the IANA, the IANA could find itself
over thrown.


It looks to me since you and I talked ten days ago that the
clinton/gore/magaziner telecom operatives have made a decision that they
will not permit the emblem "beaten by IAHC/IPOC/PAB" to be hung around
their necks. So the trains are moving toward each other. The question is
who will apply the breaks.


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






Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:12:45 -0400
Reply-To: dcrocker () brandenburg com
Originator: com-priv () lists psi com
Sender: com-priv () lists psi com
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv () lists psi com>
Subject: Audits and accountability
X-Comment:  Commercialization and Privatization of the Internet


At 04:11 PM 8/11/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> Dave crocker pressed the wrong buttons and caused the following to go to
> com-priv.


        Indeed, Dave screwed up very badly.  He is very upset with himself and he
apologies profusely to everyone.  Having just made a strong plea for
re-establishing focus on content, he observes that the peregrinations of
his wayward note fed entirely the wrong flames.


> Dave. But Dave you have, nevertheless, stated a couple of things in public
> that I will now answer. I believe that it was the weekend before last that


        Can't complain with a desire to clarify, no matter how bad I feel about
the way this came about...


> Unfortunately bringing basically the same old processes under the ISOC
> envelop isn't going to work.....audit and accountability trails are I
> believe mandatory.


        Well I, for one, agree that audit and accountability trails are mandatory,
so we don't have any disagreement on the issue.  However, I have no idea
what you are referring to about "under the ISOC envelope" but it sounds
like a problematic reference and probably a problematic model of things.
By the way, what "audit and accountability trails" are you referring to?
What trails are missing?
        
> But if one looks at IANA and IANA institutionalization and reform, one
> also has to begin to look at Jon's fiscal situation and his relationship,
> or lack of one, with ISOC and the US government. Right now ISOC is looking
> like his only home. Especially if he isn't willing to compromise on the


        There are lots of possibilities.  If ISOC is even on the list, it is
almost certainly not very high on the list.


> issue of the new domains. I think it is unfortunate that he appears to be
> so intent on adding the IAHC/IPOC/PAB domains to the root servers, that we
> are now in a potential train wreck situation.


        IANA did not initiate the requirement for additional names.  IANA did not
develop the specifications for adding the additional names.  IANA has
approved formation of group to respond to community pressure, after 2 1/2
years of debate, and IANA has approved the output from that group, based on
extensive community feedback, including formal signatures of support.


        Characterizing IANA as "intent" personalizes matters, entirely missing the
fact that all this work comes out of operational pressures that are
serious, immediate and overdue for resolution.  Characterizing IANA as
"intent" also trivializes the great number of additional participants in
this activity.


> There is substance -not mere speculation- to the question of moving root
> zone or "dot". I would not stick my neck out on something like this if I
> did not have absolutely solid evidence. This has turned into something far


        I have previously asked you to clarify your language, since the references
you were making did not match the terminology or references I was/am
familiar with.  


        They still don't.  


        I made some guesses about what you really meant and responded accordingly.
 My guess was that you are trying to refer to a change in location for the
physical master of the DNS root, i.e., the place that contains pointers to
all the TLD data bases.  That has been under discussion for a long time,
has had nothing to do with geopolitical forces, and should be viewed as
remarkably uninteresting in the scheme of Internet operations issues.
Given current politics, of course, no one wants to view the topic that
simply.  (In fact, it has been amusing to see some people treat this
particular issue as if it were a piece of deep dark technical arcana,
rather than the very simple 1-machine operations task it is, involving
infrequent changes.)


> During the past 10 days that I have watched this discussion, the
> reasonable comments that I have seen have come from Robert Shearing and
> Jay Fenello. As I said a few days ago, your position has never been, in my
> opinion, that strong and the shrillness of the recent discourse along with
> your defensiveness does not imply dealing from a position of strength.


        As always it is easy to dive into matters of tone and style.  As always
such a dive continues to be more likely to drown us than to float us in to
shore.  If it would help to admit that we are all dishonest, slimy,
arrogant, and ignorant, I'd gladly count myself in.  But that isn't the
issue.  The issues are real and overdue operational (and legal) concerns, a
solution that is being pursued for them, the base of support for it, and
the need for making forward progress.


        The issue is:  What is the issue?  What specific problems are there with
the gTLD MoU and, more importantly, what changes need to be made?  Ever
since the original draft plan there has been a continuing process of
feedback and modification.  That process hasn't stopped and won't.


        If there are problems with the details of the plan, list them
specifically.  Since it is trivial to shoot holes at any and all proposals,
the real test of credible criticism is the offering of credible alternatives.


        Offer alternatives.


        Oh.  One more concern:  The alternatives need to fit into an integrated
plan and be achievable in a timely fashion.  It's easy to offer an isolated
alternative and much more difficult to balance it amongst the many
different constraints.


> You have a technical building process to accomplish.   Get on with it. Let


        Good suggestion.


> You have only two other industry signatories of note: DEC and UUNET. (US
> companies with $50 million a year in revenues.)


        Well, counting all the other 150+ signatory organizations as not
significant is a curious evaluation process and I'm sure that, for example,
Mindspring will be interested to hear that its several hundred thousand
user base is irrelevant, as will France Telecom, as will...


> I would like to hear exactly what happened that caused DEC to sign. I have


        We all do love conspiracy theories, don't we?  My, but they ARE exciting.


        As you said, there is work to do.  We should ALL get on with it.


> stated that Digital signed the gMOU, but with an attachment, which -
> stressed the importance of stability, that nothing is done to jeopardize
> the .com domain, and posed a question, to what degree will we allow


        Let's see.  Digital signed at the beginning of May and it is now the
middle of August.  This isn't exactly current news is it?


        A number of companies added comments and expressed concerns.  As I keep
pointing out, concerns do not mean non-support.  We ALL have concerns.  The
desire to focus on the fact that people have concerns is very curious and
it's difficult to figure out what is constructive about it.


        As to the specific concern about reliability, Digital is hardly unique in
this matter.  The IAHC plan expressed requirement for stability, as has
anyone with even the most modest operations experience.


> Has this attachment been made public ? What has been the response to this
> attachment from the IPO


        Interesting question.  I would expect it to be available through our web
page, assuming that there is an on-line copy available. 


> You (IAHC) have created a process where the outcome has been one of
> placing Jon Postel on a collision course with the US government. I am no
        
        Hardly.  We were commissioned by IANA and IANA gave formal approval for
the output.


> the outcome. You have attached your anchors to ISOC, an organization


        ISOC organized the activity and has underwritten costs.  I know that some
people are fond of characterizing this as anchored to/by ISOC but it
represents a complete failure to understand the actual participation and
process of this work.  Don Heath participated in the discussions, as did 11
other people.  Scrutinizing each person is, no doubt, great fun, but this
brings us back to a more important question:


        What is wrong with the details of the plan and what are the specific
proposals for change?  


        It does not matter whether the people on the committee brush their teeth
infrequently, consort with farm animals, or vote Republican.  What matters
in the content of the work.


> Your intense desire to apply counter pressure at every debating point is
> remarkable. If you really understand that you are right, then build a
> system that works. Go off and just do the damned thing. When you have done


        Gordon, this is a wonderful idea and one that I, especially, subscribe to.
 Unfortunately, quite a few people have chosen to vault this obscure
operations issue into the world of geopolitical debate, ostensibly worthy
of public comment by the US President and the European Commission.  Surely
you are not suggesting that the political forces at work be ignored?


        For that matter, it is difficult to develop community consensus when those
opposed find it so convenient to spread misinformation, or worse.  This has
become a topic everyone loves to attack.  It's visible.  It involves lots
of money.  It's easy.  Become a critic of the gTLD MoU and see your name
appear on national media.  


        As delightful as we might find it to ignore such activities, leaving such
attacks unanswered means that there is no fair public discussion.


        Surely you are not in favor of that?


> If you are willing to back off for a few months and become part of the
> NOI, fine. That, at this point, is probably best for the internet


        It is always easy to let a schedule slip.  What is difficult is meeting
one.  It is always easy to add a few months here and then a few more months
there.  It is especially easy for those who have not been involved in this
for 3 1/2 years to casually suggest more slippage.


        Here's the bottom line:  The US government (you know, the same folks who
would like the schedule to slip) have established a public deadline, namely
the end of the NSI/NSF cooperative agreement, in April.  By that time,
either NSI is going to choose to be a team player or they are going to
choose to fragment the net.  NSI has taken the moral high ground concerning
reliability.  Their public statement is that sharing of com/net/org depend
upon reliability.  Given their recent operational track record, no end of
amusement accrues from THEIR being a messenger for this concern, but it
does not alter the legitimacy of the message.


        That means that we need a stable operational base before 1 April 98.  The
project milestone calculations back from 1 April aren't very difficult.


        Now, there has been discussion of extending the deadline.  The government
does have that legal alternative.  But what is the result?  NSI gets to
tout the failure of alternative processes and otherwise continue to
entrench a monopoly market.  How does this serve the users of the service?


        We do not need com/net/org to be integrated in by 1 April.  That isn't
feasible.  In fact, it will likely require an extension to 1 April to cover
the necessary transition time, while com/net/org go through transition
design and implementation.  But this is predicated with having NSI fully
signed up for such an effort BEFORE the cooperative agreement ends.
  
> community. If not then one of two things will happen. (1) Jon Postel will
> blink in the face-off now developing and will leave the root zone files


        IANA specifies the TLDs.  That's been a 10 year reality.  For all of the
what-ifs and maybes, the operational reality has been that IANA specifies
the changes and the operator of the root implements it.  It is very easy to
get distracted by threats and distortions, but we should all try to ignore
such distractions.


> alone. This will mean that anything you develop may never come to fruition
> for the NOI could forbid new gtlds. Or (2) Jon doesn't blink, moves the


        It would be interesting to see the US government dictate such a thing.
For that matter, it has already been interesting to watch international
reaction to the idea that the US government is "in charge" of this global
resource.


        In any event, there are many maybes and iffs.  One can fritter away untold
amounts of time wondering about such things.  Or one can do the work.
Remember doing the work?  That's what we would rather focus on and I think
it a far more productive path, don't you?


> root zone files so that you can get your way. If he should do this against


        Again, the personalization "you can get your way" is seriously unhelpful.
I did not generate the idea for additional TLDs or for sharing.  None of us
on the committee generated these ideas.  They came from the community.


> the direct wishes of the Administration, he will probably force an


        Yes, it really IS great fun to wonder about "if".  There are many
possibilities and they are all enticing.  Hence, the important exercise to
worry just a bit about "likely" and not just "if".  In a situation having
people on various sides of an issue, a favorite exercise is for one or
another player to whisper in people's ears about what they will do or what
the other side will do.  This makes is very important to consider the
source of information and consider the nature and demonstrated history of
the participants.


        Are there actions that you have seen or statements of intention that you
have heard, which indicate that such a terrible outcome will be pursued?


> government to keep the net running...... Remember that the white house
> considers the net "critical infrastructure." Souch an event would render


        Believe it or not, the White House is not the only place that has that
view.  Quite a few of us do.


> everyone. But it looks to me to be the precipice towards which you
> (IAHC/IPOC/PAB) are so stalwartly marching.


        Then you need to look much closer, as I originally suggested, because none
of the players in this piece of theatre are nearly as amateurish as your
script would suggest.


> It looks to me since you and I talked ten days ago that the
> clinton/gore/magaziner telecom operatives have made a decision that they
> will not permit the emblem "beaten by IAHC/IPOC/PAB" to be hung around
> their necks. So the trains are moving toward each other. The question is
> who will apply the breaks.


        1.  What actions have the White House taken which makes them a winner or
loser?  The most relevant action was to state that they want the Internet
to be run with self-governing private initiative.  You might want to look
closely at the gTLD MoU because that's exactly what it is.


        2.  What actions or history of any of the participants from the IAHC or
iPOC or PAB or IANA would suggest such cavalier behavior needed for the
outcome you so fear?


        3.  What makes you think that, among its various interactions with people
and groups, the iPOC doesn't include discussions with folks in the US
government (and the EC, and industry and...)?


        The reason I sent a note expressing such distinct unhappiness, Gordon, is
that there is such a thing as diligent reporting and there is such a thing
as feeding the flames of hysteria.  


        The distinction between them should not be very difficult.  But apparently
it sometimes is.


d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker                                          dcrocker () imc org
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA               info () imc org, http://www.imc.org


Member, interim Policy Oversight Committee     http://www.gtld-mou.org