Subject: The Future of IANA

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 01:39:09 -0500 (EST)

Here is mail forwarded to me today and described by the sender as a public
release by the IANA.  The author is Jon Postel.  The indented comments are
mine.

Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 11:49 AM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: IANA Statement on the Discussion Draft and the Root Servers

I am very pleased to see the "Discussion Draft" on "A Proposal to
Improve Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" released
today by the US Government.

This is a very complex area with a wide range of view and interests
and the government group lead by Ira Magaziner has worked hard to
consult with all the interested parties and arrive at a consensus
proposal.

Regarding the proposal itself, i am in agreement with the main theme
of the proposal and many of the specific aspects.  There is wide
agreement with the general principles described.

The proposal to place the coordination functions and IANA activities
in a new non-profit corporation guided by an international board of
directors matches very closely with my own suggestions for the
evolution of the IANA.

While the proposal allows for up to two years for the transition to be
completed, i anticipate and i believe the government would like the
transition to be completed much more quickly.

	Cook: While I have no doubt that Ira would like for the matter
	to be settled asap, Jon ignores Ira's stated principle that the US
 	government will not leave if the situation is not stable.

The general principles suggested for managing the creation of new
gTLDs and the arrangements for competition in the registering of
domain names provide a useful baseline.

I am less comfortable with the details of the proposal on how new
gTLDs, registrars, and registries would be established, and the
restriction to only 5 new gTLDs.  I look forward to further discussion
and work with the government team on these matters.

A public process started in the Internet technical community over a
year ago that resulted in the gTLD-MoU and the subsequent development
of the POC and CORE groups.

	Cook: What Jon does not state was that this process was not
	sufficiently public in the minds of many and never achieved 
	rough consensus agreement within the community.

It now appears that the government has explicitly recognized the
factors that motivated this Internet community effort, and that the
interests of the government and Internet community are converging.

To summarize, i am very pleased that the work to date has resulted in
this discussion draft, that there are large areas of agreement, and
that there is opportunity for further work on resolving the minor
I expect to continue the positive and constructive dialog with the
government.

--jon.

	Cook: I would like to ask Jon then how he considers his 
	unannounced action of late last Wednesday in diverting eight 
	of root servers to point to his B server at ISI on the eve of the 
	publication of the green paper to be equivalent to a constructive
	dialogue?

==================================================================

It is contemplated in the discussion draft issued by the government
that the operation of the root zone will be transferred to a new
organization performing the IANA functions.

While the time period for the transition of operational services to the
new orgaization is rather flexible in the discussion draft, it is
possible that the transition of the root zone operation may be
appropriate very soon.

	Cook: I disagree with Jon's characterization of "rather 
	flexible."  It is true that the draft doesn't say it should take 
	place at point x in time.  But the draft is very clear that it 
	should *not* take place until the new IANA Inc is up and 
	operational.  I ask Jon to define what he means by appropriate 
	and how he can maintain after the meetings he has had with Ira 
	that Ira might agree with his definition of appropriateness?  And
	veryJsoon?  VERY SOON meets the interests of the POC not the 
	sound criteria outlined in Ira's plan.  

As a verification that such a transfer can be accomplished smoothly and
without interruption to the operational service, a test is being
performed to rearrange the flow of root zone information.  Once this
test is completed the arrangements may revert to the previous
arrangements.

	Cook: This verification I am told is *not* a matter of technical
	concern or doubt.  It is simply doable.  From a technical point 
	of view there is no need for a test.  Given Jon's timing It is a
	political move and a highly provocative one.  I would like to ask 
	Jon why the test is continuing five days after it began?  Why are
	we playing chicken? Why the extremely provocative use of the word
 	"may" rather than ''will" revert to the previous arrangements?

	While, It would be impossible for anybody but an expert to tell
	what the root servers were pointed at, I have been told today by
	those with first hand knowledge that at least some of the
	rootservers were still pointed at B this morning. There appear 
	not to have been any operational problems associated with Jon's
	test. B loads from A, and always has, so absent the inflamatory
	insertion of new gtlds, the configuration of a root server would 
	be identical regardless of where it tooks its root zone from. No
 	operational problems can be blamed on this; and it did not change 
	the external behavior of the root servers in any way.  
	Nevertheless I still must ask 'Why"? this provocative muscle 
	flexing at this sensitive time?

There is very high confidence that these transitions can be
accomplished without impact on the operational service, and experienced
technical experts are assisting in this verification.

	Cook: An explanation of this statement would be highly useful.  
	If Jon changes the root, and then uses that change to insert the 
	CORE gtlds, there will be serious legal consequences.  Jon does 
	not mention that as an outcome of his current "test", so let's 
	assume that he does not intend to do so.   But if this is the 
	case, what is the reason for making the test now?  This is not 
	a move to build consensus.  Why can't Jon, in this critical 
	moment in the net's history, help to move us toward consensus
	instead of division?

It should be understood that there is no change to the data in the root
zone.  The contents of the root zone are decided on and prepared in
exactly the same way as they have been, and distributed through the
primary server at NSI (the A root server).

	Cook: Fine but where are we if 8 of the 12 root servers continue
	to point to root server B?   Jon can choose to sever accepting
 	updates from A at any moment.

--jon.

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               New Special Report: Building
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     Internet Infrastructure ($395)
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                       Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
glossary, executive summaries, special reports found at www.cookreport.com
************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 08:46:48 PST

The Jon Postel bashing that is going on is extraordinarily inappropriate.
Although I have not personally been following the travails of the DNS,
I know Jon well enough* to know that he is trying his best to create a
sound technical and managerial basis for the Internet name space,
robust enough on to support continued and growth of the Internet.
At least some of the other players in this drama are trying equally
hard, with equally good motives.

Let's back off a little.

Bob Braden

*Details available on request