IP: clarifications about NSI error and gTLD MoU status

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:17:35 -0700
To: John Markoff <markoff () nyt com>
From: Dave Crocker / IMC <dcrocker () imc org>


John,


        As always, your Internet reportage is being viewed as definitive.  As
always, it shows excellent balance and tries to indicate basic and essential
issues.


        There are two points I'd like to raise, one concerning a factual error and
the other a common, but I believe erroneous, interpretation:




1.  FACT


> From your article 
        <http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/071897network.html>:
> Such competitors to Network Solutions are now vying for recognition by the 
> International Telecommunications Union, which governs the workings of the 
> worldwide telecommunications network.


        To my knowledge, there are no efforts "vying for recognition" by the
ITU.  The only domain name ITU-related activity of which I am aware is the 
gTLD MoU work done by the IAHC, of which I was/am a member.  The ITU has a 
seat at the table for design and oversight -- and they have agreed to act as 
a "depository" for the MoU documents.  


        To the extent that "recognition" was an issue, it pertains to ITU's
willingness to perform the depository task.  They've already signed an
agreement to do this and the (an?) ITU Council of members has already
reviewed and massively supported this decision.  I suppose that additional
review could cause them to reverse this, but that's true for anything, no?


        Bottom line:  ITU is participating in a supportive role for the gTLD MoU
work.  ITU has no special authority.  If ITU backed out, it would have no
operational effect on the gTLD MoU work, since the rules and procedures are
defined in the MoUs, not in actions or statements by the ITU (or WIPO).




2.  INTERPRETATION


        All of the media -- your own article included -- are buying the NSI
position that the DNS problem was the result of operator error.  


        Here is a rather different view:


> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:03:08 -0700
> To: DOMAIN-POLICY () LISTS INTERNIC NET, nanog () merit edu
> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () netgate net>
> Subject: Re: Good Timing for .COM Problems ?
>
> At 02:16 PM 7/20/97 -0400, David Mercer wrote:
> > Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work,
>
>       That's not the problem.
>
>       The problem is bad procedures, not the failure to follow them correctly.
>
>       The procedures should have prevented the operator from installing the
> update, absent serious overrides.  Since it is far, far more dangerous to
> add a bad update than it is to delay the update, the procedures should have
> prevented the update as soon as the update data failed any of its validity
> tests.  To override preventative mechanisms should require the intervention
> of senior operations staff.  In other words, besides requiring a positive
> override, it should require additional staff who are not part of the
> regular, daily activity.
>
>       Merely issuing passive alarms that can be ignored is representative of
> basic ignorance about well-understood operator human factors.
>
>       I said well-understood.  That, of course, means that one must use
> designers knowledgeable in such matters.
>
>       NSI didn't.
>
>       That's a management error, not an operator error. 
>
> > I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be
>
>       Indeed, you shouldn't.  It's more important to change the procedures than
> it is to change the staff.
>
> d/
--------------------
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