Subject: from Ira Magaziner Re: IETF relationship to new IANA

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:48:53 -0500 (EST)

I asked Ira Magaziner about the wording in the Green Paper in the
area of the relationship between the IETF and the new IANA.  This 
is his reply which he said I could forward.

Scott

----

>From [email-masked] Mon Feb 23 18:12:44 1998
From: [email-masked]
Mr-Received: by mta EOPMRX; Relayed; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:12:16 -0500
Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:10:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: this is what I am very worried about
To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Ua-Content-Id: MBLINKAA
X400-Mts-Identifier: [;61218132208991/1513276@EOPMRX]
Hop-Count: 1

Message Creation Date was at 23-FEB-1998 18:10:00

Thanks for your note.  The wording of the green paper is a mistake. We
certainly do not intend for the IETF to in any way become subserviant to this
new organization. We will correct it in the next draft.

   Ira

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:29:28 +0100 (MET)

> new organization. We will correct it in the next draft.

sory but why not in the FIRST place have a contact with the ietf and other 
internet "allready" organisations-not after the GP is isued 

i can understand  that sometimes it is diplomaticaly needed to avoide
speling out the name of some parties not to disterb others in some 
documents

beside IANA there was NOT ONE WORD about other internet organistions 
mentioned in the GP 

do they not exists for the GP people or is this a diplomatical "solution" 
to "please" the critics of this organisations who wish to establish some
other internet governance organisations in which they would have the "say"

if the USG want to be "neutral" in the internet governace process and do
the "best" for all  why not they have recognised the rolle and the work 
of long standing internet organisations and persons in first place as
some good diplomatic culture reqayers 

NO word at ALL in the GP 

ok IANA was placed in center in the GP and i apreciate this 
and if present iana people like dr.postel remains in the center of this 
"new" iana than i would suport it  and if the ietf iesg and other internet 
organisations like iab and isoc are aknowledged as the competent 
internet infrastrukture organisations than i would suport mr.magaziner 
trying to please "everyone"

otherwise he dont please me 

thank you
sascha

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:08:51 +0000

>internet "allready" organisations-not after the GP is isued 

Magaziner had many meetings with many people, including a lot of the
leadership of the IETF.  During the last IETF meeting -- which by chance
was in Washington -- a fair number of people met with him.

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:36:18 +0100 (MET)

> was in Washington -- a fair number of people met with him.

thank you mr.ballovin for this information

but how than it could hapen this "wording mistek" in the GP if the ietf
was meeting so often with him 

how than it hapens that no word on ietf or other internet organisations
are mentioned in the GP  

is mr.magaziner really a "diplomatic holly cyber man"-in the case that he
is "hiding and protecting the real internet interest against NSI and other
people who want to control the intenet their way" 
or is he a "tiger in the clothing of a sheep"-by doing so well to the
ietf and internet community by stating "no we dont want to make ietf
obsolete  yes iana should be inchargt-but not stating who would be the new
iana? yes you-internet organisations are not mentionen but you know we
like you and we mean you but we can not spell your name out - you
udersand.. diplomacy.."

it would be very helpful for me if i get your further opinion becouse 
so to be ablle to orientate my self  

it would satisfy me to hear that mr.magaziner is a "hiden" friend from the 
internet community and it would astonish me if he is not and really thinks
to "overcomme" the "natural internet authority" and to place us
policymakers as the ONLY leaders in the internet governance 

thank you in advance for your replay 
sascha

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:42:48 -0500

> > Thanks for your note.  The wording of the green paper is a
> > mistake. We certainly do not intend for the IETF to in any way
> > become subserviant to this new organization. We will correct it in
> > the next draft.

I hate to say this, Scott, but a lifetime of seeing politicians in
action leads me to have no faith in either the statement that there
was no desire to bring the IETF to heel or that this will not be in
the cards in the future.

I am not, you understand, saying that this *was* the intention or will
be the intention -- only that I have discovered that one can trust the
words of policicians on their intentions no more frequently than
random chance would predict. His stating so neither makes me believe
he does or does not have bad intentions towards us.

In other words, I have as much faith in Ira Magaziner as I do in a
pair of dice -- except that the dice are unlikely to explode and kill
you when you roll them.

The man has created an enormous amount of chaos for our community,
sowing uncertainty and fear into a self governance process that was
largely working just fine. If this was by design, he's a deadly threat
both to the functioning of the internet and to our autonomy. If this
was by accident, he's dangerous simply because he doesn't understand
what he is doing and has great power to cause destruction without even
realizing it. Either way, I do not see any reason for faith or trust
in the man.

Perry

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:22:28 -0500

Perry,

> was no desire to bring the IETF to heel or that this will not be in

Whether or not Ira can be trusted (say, for instance, because one
believes he is evil because all politicians are evil) is beside the
point. The fact remains he is an very important player in what is
going on right now. One can either attempt to engage constructively,
or take action that might well be perceived as openly hostile (and
make things *much* worse). There are no guarantees with either
approach, but rest assured that once the latter approach is taken, the
first option is no longer an option. Looking at the big picture, which
option would appear to have better odds of resulting in a positive
outcome?

> realizing it. Either way, I do not see any reason for faith or trust

Fine.  You don't trust the man. However, it does not follow that
attempts at constructive engagement should be abandoned.

Thomas

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:06:05 -0500

Thomas Narten writes:
> believes he is evil because all politicians are evil)

I'm not saying politicians are necessarily "evil". I'm saying it is
foolish to believe anything they say. There is a difference.

In the course of just this one battle, the various minions of the
administration have changed their tune more often than a band playing
a medley. One would be silly not to pay attention to experience.

> is beside the point. The fact remains he is an very important player
> in what is going on right now.

One wonders why, of course. I mean, so far as I can tell there is no
legal basis for his involvement. It appears that he's decided to
insert himself.

> One can either attempt to engage constructively, or take action that
> might well be perceived as openly hostile (and make things *much*
> worse). There are no guarantees with either approach, but rest
> assured that once the latter approach is taken, the first option is
> no longer an option. Looking at the big picture, which option would
> appear to have better odds of resulting in a positive outcome?

I am not merely being cynical when I say this: if you pretend you can
negotiate as an equal with a high level politician, you have already
lost everything. You believe this is "constructive engagement". From
my perspective, this is "pretending you are even remotely in their
league". They'll chew you up and swallow you before breakfast and
never even notice they've done it.

Attempting "constructive engagement" basically means surrender. None
of us is capable of negotiating effectively with these people, and we
are utterly fooling ourselves if we believe we are. We're
TECHIES. These are people that have survived for their entire working
lives in a shark pool. Natural selection has placed the guys who can
live in that world on top. These are people as skilled at manipulating
people as we are at writing C code. We can't deal with these people on
their own terms -- we cannot win that game. We have to deal with them
on *our terms*.

The major chance we have is that we do not *have* to negotiate with
them. I'm not suggesting hostility. I'm suggesting carefuly and calmly
explaining "thank you, but no thank you. We prefer to decide the
future of the way we assign protocol numbers or standards or anything
else we deal with on our own, by our own peculiar methods. We've been
self-governing for decades, and we are happiest that way, and until
such time as someone presents us with a court order, we'll just stick
to what we know."

If Ira Magaziner wants to dictate our governance, let him pay his fee,
show up at an IETF meeting, and talk in a POISSON meeting just like
anyone else. That's an environment where we understand the rules.

> attempts at constructive engagement should be abandoned.

What would "constructive engagement" consist of?

We're a legally constituted entity. He has no legal basis to dictate
to us. If a government agent came up to your home and told you that
henceforth he was running your family, would you say "well, lets
negotiate this" or would you say "could you please show me your legal
authority here?"

If we "constructively engage", it will be a matter of years before
federal appointees run the IAB and IESG (can't have that chaotic
NOMCOM running things -- after all, they aren't controlled by the
white house) and decide who can and can't do what in the IETF.

May I remind people that we do not believe in voting or kings? That is
not the IETF way.

Perry

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:03:20 +0000

>legal basis for his involvement. It appears that he's decided to

Your other points notwithstanding, there is indeed a very clear and
compelling reason for White House involvement -- the NSI contract.
NSI is operating .COM under a contract from NSF.  This contract expires
March 31.  And NSF has previously shown that they can assign that duty
to whomever they please -- SRI was the previous operator.  IANA is also
government-funded.  *Something* has to be decided; retaining the status quo
is also a decision.

The situation today is far more complex, of course, not least because
very many people care about who runs .COM and what other TLDs there are.
Furthermore, since there is disagreement *among several executive-branch
agencies* about what to do, it's not only reasonable, it's proper for
the White House to get involved.

Clearly, there are limits to what Magaziner and the White House can do.
There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for them to assert any degree of
control, influence, etc., over the IETF, the IAB, the IESG, or ISOC.
That very specifically means that RFC editing will remain under the IETF's
control.  Numeric parameter assignment is, too, except as we delegate it.
The IAB statement indicated that we wish to continue letting IANA do
this, even the new IANA.  Now, we can disagree -- as you have -- with
the wisdom of having any part in the new structure.  But as best I can
tell -- and this is based on what I've heard from various IETF folks
who met with Magaziner and/or contacted him since the GP came out --
this much is entirely our decision.  Magaziner is not mandating it,
because -- as you've pointed out -- he can't.

			Speaking for myself and not the IAB,

			--Steve Bellovin