Subject: Future of IANA (and IETF)

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 07:16:54 GMT

> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > The RFC Editor function is separate from the IANA function today
> > but happens to be carried out by the same institution (ISI). It will
> > be the IAB's job to ensure that the RFC Editor function is funded
> > in future.
>
As it should be the IAB's responsibility to secure funding for the IANA
function.  Both the RFC Editor and IANA serve the IETF and IRTF through
the IAB.

> From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
> I still think the IETF should be worried about this new organization still
> controlling protocol assignments.  Is the IETF willing to relinquish its
> controlling body (at least with respect to Internet protocols) to a new
> -corporation-?
>
For those of us who lived thru the earlier arguments, the answer to this
has already been settled.  The IETF is not willing to change its
controlling body, not even to a relatively freindly one called the
Internet Society.

What has happened is a stable relationship where the IAB stands between
the ISoc (the customers: users and "stakeholders") and the IETF (the
engineering staff).

The current arrangement looks like this:

 ISoc
 - IAB
  -- IANA
  -- RFC Editor
  -- IESG
   --- IETF
    ---- Working Groups
  -- IRSG
   --- IRTF
    ---- Research Groups

I know of no agreements to modify this set of relationships.

There are also operational bodies, that have always been coordinated
together with the IETF under the IAB: NANOG, RIPE, et alia.  Many of the
members of the IAB have been drawn from the three areas of research,
engineering, _and_ operations.

At one time, we talked about having a unified Internet Operations Task
Force, but the groups are working pretty well as they are, and there has
not been a crying need to change anything.  Ain't broke, don't fix it.

Where the new ARIN and CORE fit has not been completely specified, but we
could expect ARIN to be under NANOG (whom it serves), and CORE to come
under either the IAB or ISoc for liaison, review and appeals (as a
worldwide organization).

Jon Postel made a proposal at the Dec IETF meeting to add another
non-profit body, that would coordinate money from ARIN, APNIC, RIPE (in
its registrar capacity) and CORE to fund IANA, in addition to the ISoc
generated funding on behalf of the IAB.

I do not understand the rationale for having a separate body.  Presumably,
there are financial or accounting reasons, or simply the desire to
incorporate the new body in a traditionally neutral country to avoid all
the US legal issues.

Why cannot ISoc handle the accounting?

Where is ISoc incorporated?

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:29:41 +0000 (GMT)

> incorporate the new body in a traditionally neutral country to avoid all

IANA is currently funded by the US government.  This allows the US 
government to claim authority over the IP address space and the
domain name system, both of which are under IANA's nominal or real
control.  This funding will end shortly.

A separate body is needed to replace this funding.  If it is properly
constituted, it will be able to claim that it is the ultimate
authority for the IP address space and the domain name system.

Unfortunately this body faces serious legal threats.

At present IANA is not a legal entity; it is essentially the name of
a function carried out under a US government contract.  Because it 
doesn't exist, or because it is a US government activity, it can't be
sued. 

It is very likely that lawsuits will be filed on DNS issues as soon
as a new entity is created.  These threats are well-known.  Costs
are likely to be very high and there is a real risk of multi-million
dollar damages having to be paid by any entity responsible for DNS.

Under these circumstances it is impossible for IANA to simply be an
ISOC activity; ISOC doesn't have the necessary resources.  It needs
to be a separate legal entity with considerable financial strength.

I have previously suggested that because the legal threats are 
mostly associated with DNS questions, it would make a lot of sense
to split IANA into three separate legal entities, one responsible
for RFC editing, numbers, etc; one responsible for the IP address 
space; and a third responsible for domain name issues.  

The first would seem to face no legal risk and would handle most of 
the responsibilities that IANA has today.  It would be ultimately 
responsible for the IP address space and DNS, but would be separated
from the other two by legal firewalls.  This IANA could be funded
by the IETF or could be funded from below, by the other two new 
entities.

The structure for funding the second is, I believe, already pretty much 
in place; the NICs would jointly fund it and manage it.  The NICs are
financially and politically stable.  The Internet can actually function
without DNS, but not without an intelligently managed IP address space.
So it makes a great deal of sense to design for an IP address space 
management structure that has no connection whatsoever to the domain
name system, where most of the legal threats are coming from.

The third entity would seem to correspond more or less to the POC, the 
Policy Oversight Committee of the gTLD MOU.  It would need to be
incorporated and given a more stable financial base than it has now.

Current proposals are to incorporate IANA as-is, exposing the key
institution of the Internet to very serious risk.   We need to 
legally isolate each of IANA's functions and then protect each as
best we can.

--
Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:19:34 +0000

Bill,

>-- William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 

As far as the IANA technical function of assigning protocol parameter 
values is concerned, I agree, and if the funding for that function 
becomes an issue, the IAB will have to take up the problem.

  Brian Carpenter (IAB Chair)

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:59:50 -0800

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 09:29:41AM +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
[...]
> space; and a third responsible for domain name issues.  
[...]
> legally isolate each of IANA's functions and then protect each as

Jim's proposal to split the functions of IANA makes a lot of sense.  

It is an unfortunate fact that by allowing NSI to charge fees, NSF 
turned domain names into a money-making proposition, instead of 
something that should have been run on a purely cost-recovery basis.  

If we continue down the path of having registries run as for-profit 
entities the root zone becomes an ever more valuable economic asset, 
and the entity that manages it becomes a bigger and bigger prize -- 
susceptible to legal action and takeover attempts of various kinds.

The solution is to make the root zone authority a non-profit, and 
to further require that all TLD registries(*) be run on a cost recovery 
basis.

I have no problem whatsoever with there being multiple gTLD 
registries.  The problem comes with allowing them to operate as 
for-profit entities.  Under such a model, the root zone authority 
will be under some legal pressure initially, but once the principle 
is established the legal liability is much reduced.  With for-profit 
registries, however, the legal liability is an on-going concern.

(*)I make the usual distinction between registries and registrars 
here -- of course, registrars can run as profit or non profit 
entities, as they wish.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

---

From: Kim Hubbard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:29:07 -0500 (EST)

> under either the IAB or ISoc for liaison, review and appeals (as a

I'm assuming that you're saying ARIN serves NANOG because of the 'North
American' in NANOG's name.  Please keep in mind that ARIN as a regional
registry is not limited to only serving North America.  We also are the
regional IP registry for Latin America, Carribean and sub-saharan Africa
(at least for the time being).  So saying that ARIN is under NANOG is
inaccurate.

Kim Hubbard
ARIN

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 08:32:16 -0800

Folks,

>to further require that all TLD registries(*) be run on a cost recovery 

This, of course, is exactly what Magaziner rejected explicitly.  

Given the force of the White House and the generally positive press the
Green Paper is getting, there needs to be a concerted campaign to educate
the public about the detriments caused by allowing registries to be run as
for-profits.

d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker                                          +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                           fax: +1 408 249 6205  
675 Spruce Dr.                               [email-masked]
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                    http://www.brandenburg.com

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:08:04 -0600

> the public about the detriments caused by allowing registries to be run as

You mean the "detriments" of better service and lower prices, right?

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([email-masked])| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:29:26 -0500

> You mean the "detriments" of better service and lower prices, right?

No, this does not automatically hold.

If the service is a subsidized monopoly, it could very well be priced well
under the actual break-even point for a for-profit registry.  It's quite
possible, for instance, to envision the 3 following worlds:

1) Large subsidy, sufficient to pay enough staff for good service for free.
This was the main model for the entire early Internet history.

2) No subsidy, price stabilizes high enough that good service remains.

3) No subsidy, and constant price wars keep pulling the price down
to where nobody can provide good service.  Consider the number
of ISPs that have gotten over-run by $20/mo "all you can eat" internet
access.  Not many are able to charge HIGHER anymore, and not many are
suceeding in providing as good service as they could at $30/mo.  It's
not just small startups that get bit here - I seem to remember about a
year ago the biggest of them all having to chat with various attourneys
general about this issue. ;)  

There are of course other scenarios as well...
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 12:38:07 -0800

>You mean the "detriments" of better service and lower prices, right?

In case there are others who are similarly confused on this matter, let me
clarify:

The user of a domain name is "locked in" to it, since it comes to be an
important part of the communications activities for the user.  Once the
user has chosen the domain, the cost of their having to move to a different
domain becomes extremely high.

As such, the registry tends to be able to hold the domain name user
hostage.  The detriments of having a customer be the captive of their
supplier is well acknowledged in business.  However the Internet community
has had the unusual benefit of seeing just how real this potential is,
given the many and varied problems both with prices that are too high and
service that is quite poor, with respect to the handling of the com/net/org
operation.

And there is not magic to the reason for this.  When a supplier has no
incentive to keep prices low and service good, they don't.  They do
whatever maximizes profits.

As such, it is the position of many that the role of domain names in the
Internet infrastructure dictates that registries be operated in a strictly
cost-recovery basis and with direct public oversight.  One might debate the
details about different/better ways of implementing this, but the strategic
difference between allowing for-profit vs. non-profit is very much the
difference between pro-supplier and pro-consumer.

I'll also note that the Magaziner Green Paper will provide no meaningful
oversight to the for-profit registries, thereby making their misbehavior
that much more likely.

d/
--------------------

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:48:34 -0800

> You mean the "detriments" of better service and lower prices, right?

I think he is referring to the detriments such as NSI charging $50 
for something that, according to all accounts I've seen, costs them $5 
or less.  [That figure alone should remove all doubt that a TLD 
registry is in fact a pure monopoly.]

I think if you want a clear example of better service and lower 
prices you should look to Nominet.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:40:52 -0500

>oversight to the for-profit registries, thereby making their misbehavior

Ok Dave, I'll call your bluff.

Are you suggesting that if I agree to change Iperdome into
a not-for-profit corporation, that you and the MOUvement
will support our entry into the root.  

If this is all that it will take for us to gain entry into 
the root, then I am prepared to take you up on your offer.  
If not, then please clarify your position.

Please note:  This will introduce competition at the 
registry level, regardless of whether we are a for-profit 
or a not-for-profit corporation.  In either case, the best 
interests of the Internet community will be served.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:29:54 -0800

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 05:40:52PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> will support our entry into the root.

I won't speak for Dave, and I don't speak for PAB in this.  But as far
as I personally am concerned, if you run a non-profit registry, and
you allow open access for shared registrars, then yes, I probably
would support your entry into the root.  As long as the two entities
(registrar and registry) were appropriately separate, I would also
support your being able to run a registrar that would register in your
registry, as well as any other shared TLD registries. 

I will be a little more specific:  The model I have long advocated is 
that there be an authority (let's call it the Root Zone Authority, or RZA) 
that approves what I have called "charters" for new TLDs.  Anyone can 
propose a charter, but obviously there would be basic requirements 
that must be met (running on a cost-recovery basis, and sharing, for 
example). 

A TLD charter would be a legal document -- besides defining how the 
registry would be run, it would define the requirements that shared 
registrars must meet to be able to register names in that registry.  
All registrars that wished to register in this shared registry would 
sign the charter (similar to the CORE MoU).

As an example, consider the .mus registry that Cary Karp has 
proposed:   it is designed to support bona-fide museums of all kinds.  
There already is an international association of museums to decide 
what is a legitimate museum and what is not.  Someone would write a 
charter for the .mus registry; one of the conditions of registering a 
name in .mus would be that the international museum association 
(whatever it's called) would approve.  However, that association 
would not run the registry.  

Any registrar who signed the charter for the .mus registry would be 
able to register names in the registry; and the registry would be 
open to any registry willing to sign the charter.

> If not, then please clarify your position.

Well, according to this scheme you would have to write a charter and 
get it approved, and whether or not I actually supported it would 
depend on the details you put in the charter.  But on the face of it, 
I think a .per registry is a fine idea, and it certainly could 
compete with .nom, for example.

But note that the charter idea is actually a great deal more flexible 
-- you really could have a .law tld only for lawyers, for example, or 
a .med.  The complaint has been that what constitutes a legal 
professional or a medical professional is hard to define 
internationally.  But this way you make it the responsibility of the 
proposer of the charter to answer those hard questions.

> interests of the Internet community will be served.

That's what I always thought :-)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:59:05 -0500

Well, I think we are making progress :-)

I agree with most of the criteria you specify,
as does the Green Paper.  Now, how do you suggest
we move to the next level?

Jay.

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:01:39 -0800

> we move to the next level?

The GP does not require cost-recovery for registries, and locks NSI
into a nice profitable monopoly forever.  Furthermore, the GP does 
not allow the CORE registrars a prayer of recovering their investment 
in developing the registry software.  

Which, by the way, you may have missed this, has *always been intended*
to be made publically available under some license like the GPL or the 
BSD license, so that it would be available to any other registry that 
wanted to use it (check the RFP).

Clear evidence that, contrary to the misinformation that seems
rampant in the anti-MoU camp, that the possibility of other shared
registries has always been accepted, and even encouraged, by 
supporters of the MoU.

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:19:03 -0600

> in developing the registry software.  

Good.  CORE misled people about their ability to actually go online
with what they were selling.  I challenged CORE and the IAHC to insert their
TLDs into the root more than six months ago, and was met with stony silence.

Now its obvious WHY the TLDs weren't entered into the root - Postel didn't
have the authority to do so.  More importantly, BOTH HE AND CORE KNEW IT!

Anyone who paid CORE/IAHC their fees without HARD PROOF that they in fact
had the authority to do what they claimed should either (1) sue for fraud,
(2) is a fool, or (3) gambled and lost.  

Take your pick.

By the way, the only way CORE could have *possibly* recovered those
costs is by maintaining a monopoly on registration operations.  The FACTS,
Kent, are that CORE is now claiming that registrations at the *registry*
level will be $15/year/name, and is now demanding $2,000/month from EACH
registrar (all 88 of them) until they get online.

That's $176,000 a month - plus the $880,000 already collected.  That's quite
a hole in the ground to fill in, and the only way to accomplish it was and
is to have a stranglehold on the back-end registry business so you can
assess that $15 charge on *every domain registered*.  On top of that, every
REGISTRAR will be significantly in the hole when this thing goes online,
pretty much excluding a straight pass-through pricing model - unless, of
course, you like using greenbacks as fire-starters.

The problem is, I think I can do it for less.  Yes, with our TLDs you have
one back-end registry - but that's also true for CORE's TLDs.  Yes, you can
use any ISP, or even deal with the registry as an END USER (something CORE
prohibits) - if you want to.  Unlike CORE, which is passing through a
flat-fee of $15/name according to what I heard of their recent meetings
and discussions, we will offer quantity-of-business discounts for
registrars, and our *registrar* cost will almost certainly be lower 
than COREs *EVEN IN SMALL QUANTITIES*.

The reason CORE is running scared is that without its MONOPOLY over the
registry business, it can't possibly pay for its development effort.  Well
gee, since when are you guaranteed a rate of return in business?  That's
right - when you have a monopoly.

As for these operations being "non profit", yeah, right.  Emergent is doing
this development *AT COST*, right?  Wrong.  Registrars who are fraudulently
taking registrations for TLDs they don't even have a prior claim to (ie:
.WEB) aren't doing anything wrong either, correct?

Some set of ethics these people have...  Sheesh.

> wanted to use it (check the RFP).

Intent and action are two different things.

By the time CORE is done, the bill will likely be over $1.5M.  You're going
to *give that away*?  Your registrars know this?  They WILLINGLY signed up
for that?  They WILLINGLY gave you $10,000, and now $2k/month, knowing that
their advantage in the business will be ZERO the day the software is done
and released?  There is NO back-door deal and intent to keep this registry
business as a *monopoly* so you can recover those costs?  Your registrars
entered this line of business with FULL DISCLOSURE that you wanted to, 
intend to, and will have OTHER registries and software packages online, 
all in competition with the "clan of 88", and ALL on the back of the 
Clan's investment?

And you expect me to *believe* this?  Do you expect *anyone* to believe
this?  This is beyond incredulity - its well into the range of certifyable
insanity.

Better to back and talk to those registrars.  They don't seem to think
this is what they were sold AT ALL.  I have received solicitations by mail
from a couple of them - and that is NOT what they believe, or what they
are representing to the world.  They didn't develop those ideas in a vacuum
- they got the information from CORE.

> registries has always been accepted, and even encouraged, by 

That's a flat-out lie, even in your own view of the world - CORE has 
no intention of operating a shared REGISTRY and never did.

CORE intends to operate a shared REGISTRATION system - with ONE registry
authoritative for their TLDs.

Please describe how this differs AT ALL from any other private concern which
also does that job, and has open access to any registrar who wants it on
equal terms?

Leave the "profit" word out of it - if I can do the job for $10 in a
for-profit mode, while your non-profit requires $15, in which model
does the consumer get a better deal?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:49:12 -0800

>that must be met (running on a cost-recovery basis, and sharing, for 

I, too, have long and publicly advised that those wishing to offer TLD
service should formulate a proposal and pursue it, with IANA.  It has been
interesting to observe that critics of the gTLD MoU have been more
interested in being critics than in doing the legwork to develop such a
proposal and develop support for it.

As to the type of organization and structure which I personally believe
should be approved, I'd say that Kent's description is exactly, right,
except that I believe the TLD management entity must have an explicit
public-interest oversight function, as well as being required to operate on
a strict cost-recovery basis.  This is along with having a legal charter
and operating an open shared registrar scheme.  

Given the remarkable willingness of Magaziner to permit NSI a conflict of
interest by being both the registry operator and a registrar, I need to
also add that the entity running the registry must not also act as a
registrar.

d/

ps.  I described all this to Magaziner in early December, with POC members
present and largely supportive of the proposal.  Ira decided to pay more
attention to the desires of those wishing to make profits off of registries
than for the concern about REAL stability of operations or concern for
end-user benefits.

--------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:18:53 -0500

Kent,

I was almost beginning to see light at the end of this 
never-ending tunnel.  Both Karl and Richard have responded 
to some of the more obvious differences to this post.  

I have a couple of more below:

At 05:01 PM 2/3/98 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>into a nice profitable monopoly forever.  

Nothing in the GP is final.  If you have suggestions on how it 
can be improved, then please join us in an open debate with the
goal of a mutual solution to these questions.  This is known in
some circles as consensus building.

One of the overriding themes of the MOUvement is that NSI must
be destroyed at all costs . . . even to the point of fracturing 
the Internet.  Why is that?

>Furthermore, the GP does 

Why is this an obligation of the GP?  Anyway, your suggestions 
here are as welcome as they are in any other area where the GP 
disagrees with your position.

>wanted to use it (check the RFP).

Not only am I aware of this, but I have had conversations with
Emergent and the POC on using your software.  The response:
   It is your *intent* to make it publically available, but the
   current contract precludes Emergent from working with *any*
   other registries during and for a period of one year after 
   the conclusion of their contract.
Even though I have requested such, CORE/POC have not waived 
this restriction.

>registries has always been accepted, and even encouraged, by 

This is blatantly false . . . and it is certainly not
conducive to mending the fence and working towards a
mutual solution.  Frankly, I am disappointed with the
result of this exchange.

Regards,

Jay Fenello

---

From: "Raides J." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 01:28:37 +0000

> open to any registry willing to sign the charter.

	That sounds an equilibrated proposal! Hummm ...

> proposer of the charter to answer those hard questions.

	... and that's all to do! Well ... maybe there'll be some problems, but
it will solve INMHO more problems that it posses ... and decentralizes
the Internet a bit!

> That's what I always thought :-)

	Thanks for reading me ..

	Raides J.