From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>
Date: 3/29/98 11:28am
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

On Sunday, March 29, 1998 8:55 AM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@mcs.net] wrote:
@I suggest that you speak to the Board of Trustees - or better, that the DOJ
@do so. I do NOT agree with many of the positions that ARIN takes (despite
@being on the AC) and have outlined my position clearly in my Green Paper
@filings.
@

Thanks for the reply. I agree that ultimately the Board of Trustees are the
people responsible for ARIN, assuming that the United States Government
continues to allow this to move forward. Apparently, some of the people
involved with the DOC Green Paper now realize that it was a mistake to
allow the National Science Foundation to help railroad ARIN into being as
a way to free NSI for their IPO and run at the .COM TLD registry.

Now we have a situation where Jon Postel has a non-profit company
compliments of the U.S. taxpayers and assets (IP addresses) have been quietly
transferred to ARIN which now has companies locked into their policies.
All of this was apparently done with no concern for U.S. laws regarding
the disposal of government assets. Also, it appears that the InterNIC
data base was handed to ARIN because ARIN now has all of the same
names and addresses which other companies can not obtain.

The value of the assets transferred to ARIN are easily in the millions if
not billions of dollars. A precise amount can not be determined because
at this stage it is still unclear exactly what assets are under ARIN. Because
of Jon Postel's position as a Trustee, some claim that the entire IPv4 address
space is under ARIN because the .ARPA TLD is controlled by ARIN as well
as the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone which is critical to the IPv4 address allocation
business.

Some would argue that ARIN should be allowed to take its position on the
side-lines, handle allocations and keep its costs low. The NEW IANA company
could then deal with ARIN when it is created. Unfortunately, ARIN does not
appear to be willing to follow this path. ARIN now claims that it has been
working with RIPE, APNIC and the IANA for the "past year" to create yet
another entity called GAR (Global Address Registry).

@@@@ http://www.arin.net/archives/arin-members.9803

"The three current regional number registries (APNIC, RIPE, ARIN) have
been working for the past year with the IANA to create a Global Address
Registry (GAR) for this purpose."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Apparently the U.S. Government knows nothing about these activities. GAR
does not appear to be anywhere in the decision-making that the National
Science Foundation (NSF) did to help create ARIN. Furthermore, GAR appears
to be a parallel organization to the NEW IANA company. Apparently the GAR
strategy is to pay lip-service to the U.S. Government's DOC process and
proceeding while another group prepares to move the control of all IP resources
to GAR leaving the NEW IANA without assets and a purpose which will cause
it to fail.

In my Green Paper comments I point out that a simple solution to all of this
is for the U.S. Government to use the ARIN vehicle that it has helped to create
(legally or not) and that vehicle can be cleaned up to save time and get the new
TLD registries created while handling the minimal tasks of IP allocations and
ASN assignments (which are sold for $500 each). Since ARIN has a Board of
Trustees, some advisors, and some former NSI employees they have some of
the pieces needed to form the NEW IANA. This is especially the case because
Jon Postel is an integral part of ARIN and he is proposed to be one of the decision
makers in the NEW IANA.

If the U.S. Government allows Jon Postel to become involved in several different
InterNIC-like operations, then they will have a very difficult time tracking the flow
of assets from one operation to another. As we have seen, people do not seem
to keep books on these operations and U.S. Government officials seem to be
incapable of managing these assets and projects because the right hand does
not know what the left is doing and people work to keep it that way. The only
way to stop this is for the U.S. Government to temporarily place the IANA and
Jon Postel in one place and make sure they closely watch what is happening.
This will allow the U.S. Government to properly dispose of the various assets
(if that is their desire) and this can be documented in public proceedings as
opposed to behind the scenes with private groups like ARIN, APNIC and RIPE
which do not answer to the public.

I agree that there is risk in putting all of the eggs in the ARIN basket. Unfortunately,
the alternative is not less risky. The alternative would be to place all of the eggs
in the NEW IANA basket only to find that it has a hole called GAR, compliments
of ARIN, APNIC and RIPE. The U.S. Government would be the laughing stock of
the world if that is allowed to happen. As a U.S. citizen and a taxpayer, I would
prefer not to see that happen. Also, I would prefer to see the delays in the creation
of the TLDs ended. These delays are primarily the result of shifting positions of
Jon Postel over the years and the U.S. Government's unwillingness to stop the
merry-go-round to allow the world to get off and get down to business.

1992 - Jon Postel (aka IANA) helps NSI obtain InterNIC contract [1]
http://rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/proposal-toc.html
1992 - NSI teams with the IANA [2]
http://rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/sectionH.html
1995 - NSI starts charging for .COM names
http://www.internic.net
1996 - IANA delegates huge block of IP addresses to @Home via former USC/ISI employee
http://www.home.net
1996 - ISOC Board directs Jon Postel to develop business plan [3]
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg09.html
1996 - IANA invites TLD registrars to USC/ISI and accepts $1,000 for .WEB
Money returned and postings deleted from mailing list archives
1996 - Jon Postel delegates .US entries to brokers who start charging cities
1996 - The IANA creates the ISOC/IAHC and appoints members
http://www.iahc.org/
1997 - Jon Postel adds new root name servers outside of the U.S.
1997 - Jon Postel announces .US registry may start charging in 1998
1997 - CORE Registries pay $10,000 and raise over $800,000 based on IANA promises
http://www.gtld-mou.org/
1997 - Jon Postel reverses .US delegations and brokers close businesses
1997 - Jon Postel helps to organize ARIN and IP number charging
http://www.arin.net
1998 - The U.S. Government announces the Green Paper
1998 - Jon Postel forms ITAG to direct the NEW IANA
1998 - Jon Postel "experiments" with redirecting Root Name Servers
U.S. Government officials respond and restore configuration
1998 - Jon Postel endorses the U.S. Government plan [4]
1998 - ARIN announces it has been working with Jon Postel to form GAR

What will be next ?

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

[1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/proposal-toc.html

Section M: Personnel Qualifications

@@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/sectionM.html

...
M.3 IANA Manager and Advisory Panel Chairman

Network Solutions proposes Mr. Jon Postel as the IANA Manager and
Chairman of the Advisory Panel for the NREN NIS Manager project. He
will provide services as an employee of USC's Information Sciences Institute (ISI),
subcontractor to Network Solutions.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[2] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/sectionH.html

"H.1 The NREN Internet Network Information Services Center Team"

"Our Team is composed of Network Solutions, the incumbent manager and operator
of the DISA NIC, and ISI, a leading computer science research organization, which
has provided the IANA, RFC editing, .us Domain structuring and registration, Monthly
Report coordination, editing, and production, and similar services to the Internet for
many years. Network Solutions has teamed with ISI to take advantage of their many
years of experience with providing services to the Internet and to provide the additional
knowledge and skills needed for this solicitation. The relationship between Network
Solutions and ISI is a solid one, based on mutual respect for the complementary skills
and knowledge each brings to network services. We are already accustomed to operating
as an integrated team, with ISI subcontracted to Network Solutions to provide assignment
of TCP service port numbers and other protocol parameters, and with ISI (as the IANA)
having delegated to the DISA NIC the registration of users for the Internet. The proposed
organization of the Internet Network Information Services Center (INISC) is illustrated in
the figure below. The qualifications of the key personnel proposed are well known to users
of the Internet."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[3] http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg09.html

RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society endorse in principle
the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains",
dated June 1996 by Jon Postel, and approve the role assigned to the Internet Society in
this proposal. The Board authorises Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal to
include a business plan for review and approval by the Board."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[4] @@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_20_98.htm

###
From: <postel@ISI.EDU>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/20/98 8:53pm
Subject: IANA's Comments on Docket No. 980212036-8036-01
Comments of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in regards
to the Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration 15 CFR Chapter XXIII
[Docket No. 980212036-8036-01]
Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses:
Proposed Rule ("The Green Paper")
20 March 1998
We commend the United States government on its "Green Paper" which
formalizes the need to improve the technical management of Internet
names and addresses, along with the transfer of Internet technical
management functions from the current government-sponsored agreement.
In addition, we concur with the proposal to open the domain name
system for competition while maintaining the stability of the
Internet.
Internet Governance:
There is an unambiguous need for technical coordination of the
Internet. The root name server system and the unique assignment of
Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and numbers must be maintained for
the global Internet to function.
Historically, IANA developed as the central authority for these
functions as an outgrowth of United States government-sponsored
research which fostered the development of the Internet. It is time
for that organization to evolve.
We propose the following for the new IANA:
o the new organization should be the central authority for root server
functions and Internet Protocol address and number assignment
o the new organization should be a separate, not-for-profit entity
o the new organization should be industry-supported with consensus
governance (maintaining a functioning tradition of Internet
self-governance)
o the board of directors should represent the global Internet and its
constituent users
o the new organization should develop and maintain the criteria for
registries and registrars with the consensus of the Internet community
Domain Names:
We applaud the results of the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC)
and the development of the generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of
Understanding (gTLD-MoU).
We maintain that the preferred evolution at this time is toward a
non-profit registry with multiple, competitive registrars.
We believe that new gTLDs can and should be introduced to the system
in a controlled manner by community consensus.
We see the trademark issue as a complex one best addressed by experts
in that field and respect the work of the IAHC and Policy Oversight
Committee (POC) in this area.
We believe that the US government has a key role in managing the
transition of the current operation of the COM, NET and ORG gTLDs by
the Internic to a new model of operation consistent with the
principles being established for competition in domain name
registrations.
Root Servers:
We agree that root server security and maintenance can be improved. In
order to evolve to a standard operational model, we suggest the
following:
o performance requirements
o contracts for operation
o criteria for root server site selection
o redistribution according to objective criteria
o maintenance by third-party service organizations
US Domain:
We believe that discussion of the US domain should be pursued
independently of the overall management structure for the Internet or
the discussion of gTLDs.
We note that under the current US domain structure and delegations the
General Services Administration already has the authority to
transition all xxx.GOV domain names to xxx.FED.US domain names and all
yyy.MIL domain names to yyy.DOD.FED.US domain names.
Conclusion:
We believe that the root server functions should be moved as soon as
the new organization is incorporated. We suggest that competitive
domain name registrations begin using the Council of Registrars (CORE)
model immediately thereafter.
This response is based on our reading of all public responses (to
date) to the "Green Paper", and is subject to revision based on
further comments and consensus from the global Internet community. We
are ready to move forward with the new IANA non-profit organization.
======================================================================
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/28/98 6:01pm
Subject: Using ARIN to Accelerate the Process

NSI recognizes in their submtal to the U.S. Government's DOC Green Paper
that there is merit in solving the "chicken and egg" problem by appointing a
board and then allowing that board to elect new members.

@@@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/scanned/NSI.htm

"As a recent example of such a transition board, NSI employed an appointed board
for the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), a recently incorporated
non-profit Internet corporation, which NSI helped establish for the Internet community.
Selection of the initial board through a democratic process was impractical, and yet a
board was required to move the effort forward in a legal and legitimate manner. The
transition board has allowed NSI to complete its sponsorship of ARIN, relatively quickly
and virtually without incident. All subsequent ARIN directors have been selected in
accordance with the corporate bylaws."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Because ARIN is part of the DOC's Green Paper investigation and rule making, I suggest
that the ARIN "structure" be used to help solve many of the chicken and egg problems.
In other words, why not build upon the structure that is there as opposed to waiting
to create a new one ?

One of the reasons I suggest this is that Jon Postel (aka IANA) is an integral part
of the ARIN structure. <http://www.arin.net> Also, it is still unclear what Internet
resources ARIN manages, exclusively or with others. As an example, who manages
the .ARPA TLD ? Who "owns" all of the ASNs, which ARIN and other registries
sell for $500 each. Also, the questions have never been answered about the value
of the assets that the U.S. Government transferred to ARIN in the form of valuable
IP addresses. This was done under the direction of the National Science Foundation
and the owners of those IP addresses had no say in the matter.

By using the ARIN structure, the DOC can accelerate the process of getting
new TLD registries and registrars on-line. The DOC can also add U.S. Government
over-sight to ARIN which will be needed to help protect companies that have
had their valuable IP addresses deeded to ARIN by the NSF. Rather than go
through the long and painful process of creating yet another company, I suggested
that the ARIN structure be used and the existing ARIN staff, board and advisors
be augmented to allow the decisions to be efficiently made allowing the Internet
to grow and the DOC to meet its ambitious schedule.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 3/29/98 12:05pm
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

Jim,

I believe that the only Green Paper comments filed by ARIN was the
attached message. While this position was approved by the trustees,
the most important thing is that it was the result of review and
discussion at our recent membership meeting.

I do not know if any of the other associations which filed comments
had opportunity to review their submission with their membership.

/John

===

>Subject: ARIN Position on Green Paper
>To: arin-members@arin.net
>Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:58:02 -0500 (EST)
>From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
>Sender: owner-arin-members@arin.net
>
>
>Hello,
>
>As you know, the first ARIN member meeting was held Friday, March 20th.
>The meeting was a big success with many issues being raised and discussed.
>
>Over the next several days we will be posting detailed minutes of the
>meeting, however, one issue discussed was ARIN's position on the
>Green Paper. Since today is the deadline for submitting comments on
>the Green Paper, I sent the following comments this morning. ARIN's
>position as noted in our response was discussed during the meeting and
>agreed upon.
>
>If you would like to offer additional comments, please send them to
>the arin members mailing list.
>
>Thanks,
>Kim
>
>
>
>In response to the Request for Public Comment on the "Improvement of
>Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" (Green Paper), the
>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) would like to take this
>opportunity to express our appreciation for your efforts with regard to
>the complex issue of Internet governance.
>
>The ARIN membership is in full agreement with the bottom-up premise the
>green paper is based upon. Current administration of IP numbers is based
>upon the same premise. It is the users of the IP space who ultimately
>have the most say over the administration of the IP space through the
>memberships of the regional number registries.
>
>At this time, the ARIN membership has chosen to focus solely on the issues
>relating to Internet Protocol numbers reflected in the green paper. We
>therefore, submit the following recommendations;
>
>While we recognize the need for the centralized authority of the new
>corporation, we must take exception to the paper's defining view on
>the role of the new corporation. Specifically, the following statement:
>
> 1. to set policy and direct the allocation of number blocks
> to regional number registries for the assignment of
> Internet addresses;
>
>It is our position that to effectively reflect bottom-up governance,
>the setting of IP allocation policy should be the role of the regional
>number registry members through a coordinated effort. The three current
>regional number registries (APNIC, RIPE, ARIN) have been working for the
>past year with the IANA to create a Global Address Registry (GAR) for
>this purpose.
>
>The GAR will be responsible for the following functions:
>
> - Coordination of the regional number registries and the Internet
> community with respect to setting address resource allocation
> policies
> - Delegation of address resources to regional Internet
> registries
> - Delegation of in-addr.arpa domains
> - Operation of the in-addr.arpa domain
> - Creation of new regional Internet registries
> - Venue of final appeal of regional registry decisions
>
>GAR will be in a position to interact directly with the new corporation on
>IP-related issues.
>
>The structure of GAR will include an oversight committee composed
>of two representatives from each of the regional number registries,
>one representative from a non-registry Internet organization, possibly
>from the IAB/IETF or the new corporation and a minimal staff capable of
>providing administrative support to the oversight committee.
>
>The creation of GAR will guarantee the oversight of Internet Protocol
>numbers will be kept in the hands of individuals familiar with the
>technical limitations of IP numbers and cognizant of the need for
>stewardship of this limited resource. It will also allow for the
>structured coordination of all regional number registry efforts.
>
>Regardless of the final decisions, the ARIN membership expect to be
>fully involved in the structural development of the new corporation
>with respect to IP number management, either directly or indirectly
>through GAR.
>
>Respectfully yours,
>
>Kim Hubbard
>President
>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>submitted on behalf of the ARIN Board of Trustees, Advisory Council and
Members

CC: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/29/98 1:21pm
Subject: ARIN IP Address Valuation

IP addresses are no longer free. The IANA (Jon Postel) and ARIN <http://www.arin.net>
now charge for these addresses. Jon Postel is one of the Founders/Trustees of ARIN.

The creation of ARIN has increased the grey market trading activities for
IP addresses. The street value of a /16 block of IP addresses is approximately $50,000.
Therefore, each /8 block that is delegated to ARIN by the IANA is worth about $16,777,216.

According to ARIN's fees, they charge $20,000 per year for a /14.
<http://www.arin.net/feeschedule.html>

There are 64 potential /14s in a /8. This means that ARIN can lease
a /8 for $1,280,000 per year. If one uses a conservative 10% return
then one could expect to have to capitalize a block for $12,800,000.

ARIN is fortunate that they apparently do not pay anything for the
assets they have been handed by the U.S. Government. It is still
unclear how many /8s that ARIN is managing. ARIN apparently
fixed their prices in conjunction with RIPE and APNIC because there
is no other competition in the U.S.

ARIN now claims that they are working in conjunction with APNIC,
RIPE and the IANA to create a new organization called GAR or
Global Address Registry. This organization appears to have largely
the same function as the NEW IANA proposed by the U.S. Government.
It is unclear where GAR will fit into the picture as the valuable IP
address assets are divided up as the rest of the world is distracted
over Top Level Domain names. This is like dividing farm land while
people fight over the bill-boards standing on it. Clearly, the land has
more value in the long-term.

The value of the IP address assets is not trivial. The U.S. Government
needs to step in to make sure that asset transfers to private companies
are properly documented. At the moment this does not seem to be
happening. Instead, the people behind ARIN want to give the impression
that they have been around for a long time and that they work closely
with APNIC and RIPE and that the U.S. Government is not involved.

This is like a group that used to manage the concessions at a National
Park now selling off home sites as the Park Rangers retreat to other
activities. It appears that people are hoping that when the Rangers
return the homes will be built and deeds will be created and the U.S.
taxpayers will not ask any questions. It is not too late to ask the
questions. In 6 months it may be too late. The questions have to be
asked before the InterNIC contracts expire.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/29/98 12:35pm
Subject: FW: Questions for ARIN's Board of Trustees

----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 11:34 AM
To: 'Doug Humphrey'; 'John Curran'; 'Michael Dillon'; 'Scott Bradner'
Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; 'Carl Oppedahl'; 'charles mueller'; 'dstein@travel-net.com'; 'KathrynKL'; 'lsundro@nsf.gov'; 'Eric Weisberg'
Subject: Questions for ARIN's Board of Trustees

1. Who currently controls the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
(i.e. what servers does it run on ?)

2. Who currently controls the IN-ADDR.ARPA DNS zone ?
(i.e. Who can add/delete entries ?)

3. Is ARIN involved in either #1 or #2 ?

4. Where did ARIN get it's whois database of names and addresses ?

5. What /8 IP blocks does ARIN claim to manage ?

6. Where does ARIN get /8 IP address blocks ?

7. What does ARIN pay for those /8 address blocks ?

8. What is the value of IP addresses currently on ARIN's books ?

9. How many other companies compete with ARIN in the U.S. ?

10. How do other companies obtain the same advantages as ARIN ?

11. How does ARIN determine the prices it charges for addresses ?

12. Where is the open financial information that ARIN claimed it would provide ?

13. What IP blocks have been delegated by ARIN ?

14. How much have companies paid for these blocks ?

15. Are all of the payments in cash ? or is equipment and other compensation
taken as payment ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Date: 3/29/98 12:16pm
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

On Sunday, March 29, 1998 11:05 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
@Jim,
@
@ I believe that the only Green Paper comments filed by ARIN was the
@ attached message. While this position was approved by the trustees,
@ the most important thing is that it was the result of review and
@ discussion at our recent membership meeting.
@
@ I do not know if any of the other associations which filed comments
@ had opportunity to review their submission with their membership.
@
@/John
@

Thanks for the reply. Can you provide a few pointers to
the open discussions and debates among your trustees
and members regarding the so-called "GAR"...? There does
not appear to be any mention of it on the original ARIN
discussion list or the members list prior to the Green Paper
comments.

By the way, was the National Science Foundation aware of
the plans for "GAR" prior to helping with the creation of ARIN ?

Also, what assets have been transferred from the U.S. Government's
InterNIC to ARIN and how are those accounted for on ARIN's books ?

I have more questions, but we can start with these.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>
Date: 3/29/98 2:48pm
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

On Sunday, March 29, 1998 1:00 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@mcs.net] wrote:
@Jim:
@
@This is precisely the reason that in my Green Paper comments I argued that
@those organizations and individuals who can be identified as (1) being a
@part of the existing and former power base in these matters, and/or (2) who
@have, personally or organizationally, contributed to anti-competitive
@activity must be *BARRED* from any ongoing involvement.
@
@This includes Mr. Postel and in fact the entire current IANA structure.
@

I agree. In my Green Paper comments, I suggest that the budget for the
National Science Foundation be cut and that USC/ISI be censured from
receiving additional NSF funding for a period of at least 10 years. If the
United States can censure schools for engaging in deal making with
student atheletes, similar actions should be available to prevent more
damage to the commercial Registry Industry.

People seem to forget that many people are now moving into service
based industries where information is a key asset. If the NSF is allowed
to manipulate these service industries via their $3.8 billion dollar annual
budget, private companies have two choices. One, they have to "play ball"
with the NSF or two, they have to go out of business. For people that do
not want to play ball, they have little choice. As we have seen, some
companies move to Virginia to play ball and to drink from the NSF stream.

What is a shame is the fact that NSF managers still to this day actively
try to undermine commercial companies and the emerging Registry Industry.
They sit there in Arlington, Virginia helping to create "spin" and manipulating
the funding so that their political cronies have the money to go market the
next intellectual gem. IPv6 is a good example.

The NSF still does not seem to see the huge negative impact they are
having on commerce in the U.S. Not only are they using $3.8 billion in tax
dollars of U.S. taxpayers, they are helping to prevent companies from creating
more jobs via new businesses. If they do allow progress to be made, they
jump in to make sure they have a "tax" to try to get more funding to keep
their cycle going. Of course, while they do this they get the Internet Society
to suggest to the White House and Congress that the Internet should not be
taxed. Of course they do not want it taxed. The NSF wants to keep helping
to create companies around them in Virginia to collect the taxes. ARIN is
a good example. It is primarily a cyberspace tax collector.

In the IPv8 Plan, there is no ARIN. Via a simple plan to structure (number)
the TLDs, the IP resources get automatically distributed to the TLD registries.
Each TLD registry is delegated a full 32-bit address space to manage and
32 /16 blocks from the IPv4 space. It is distributed evenly and fairly. Any
overhead from address space management gets distributed across the
Registry Industry.

With the direction the NSF has set, there will be monopolies created that
are handed the Internet resources. These monopolies are run by people that
the NSF has funded in the past. In my opinion, Congress needs to get to the
bottom of the NSF funding and begin tracking where the money goes. It is
not in the interest of the U.S. taxpayers for the NSF to be funding a subversive
group of people that then undermine U.S. Government policies in the name
of science. I think that young people should grow up with a view that their
teachers and educators are people that work together with the government
and help to support its goals. The NSF is funding people that want to over-throw
or replace the government and they seem to be proud of it.

We are fortunate that other government agencies have now started to see
the pattern of the NSF's projects. It is a shame that NSF managers still are
allowed to continue these activities and still have money to manipulate these
fragile markets. This can only be stopped if Congress removes the funding.
Unfortunately, the NSF is asking for more funding not less. Wonders never cease.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 3/29/98 2:00pm
Subject: Re: ARIN's Direction

Jim:

This is precisely the reason that in my Green Paper comments I argued that
those organizations and individuals who can be identified as (1) being a
part of the existing and former power base in these matters, and/or (2) who
have, personally or organizationally, contributed to anti-competitive
activity must be *BARRED* from any ongoing involvement.

This includes Mr. Postel and in fact the entire current IANA structure.

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/29/98 5:45pm
Subject: Adding Insult to Injury...

If anyone has wondered what will happen to the leaders at the NSF
who have helped to create the InterNIC mess...

@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/home/special/notices.htm

The President today announced his intent to nominate Dr. Neal F. Lane
as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Dr. Rita R. Colwell as Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

See also...http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/OSTP_Home.html

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'weisberg@texoma.net'" <weisberg@texoma.net>
Date: 3/30/98 12:50am
Subject: The Clock is NOW Ticking

On Sunday, March 29, 1998 10:21 PM, Eric Weisberg[SMTP:weisberg@texoma.net] wrote:
@This sounds great. I have a few questions/suggestions:
@
@1. Do we need participants representing the major divisions among us to work out
@the details and oversee the voting process--Dave Crocker, Chuck Gomes, you,
@???, perhaps Ken and Ellen and a referee (Karl Auerbach?) ?
@

Eric,

You might be making the problem more complex than it currently is
(or has become). The focus now needs to shift to the legacy Root
Name Server Cluster that the U.S. Government controls. It is now a
simple matter to add some lines of ASCII text to those Root Name
Servers for the various companies that are ready to start serving the
new TLDs.

The U.S. Government is going to need some specific guidance and
input from interested parties to determine which companies are truely
ready to go. One would hope that companies like NSI and others
involved in the Registry Industry would work together at this stage to
get the name servers properly configured to support the new TLDs.

I suggest that people not directly involved in server management or
the actual registry operations can best help by being consumer
advocates. You can help provide guidance to the U.S. Government by
making sure the people in the various agencies as well as the Congress
are aware of the growing number of companies that are willing to
start a TLD registry. In summary, we need a Consumer Reports for
the Registry Industry.

We can not expect the U.S. Government to spend the time becoming
an advocate of the various TLD registries. We can also not expect the
old or new IANA to help in this regard. If the IANA had truely wanted to
see new TLDs added, this would have happened a long time ago. At
this stage we have to prepare for a three-way struggle between the
NEW IANA, the new registries and the U.S. Government. Fortunately,
the U.S. Government has indicated that they will force the NEW IANA
to add the entries, which believe it or not will likely take less than 30
minutes.

Yes, we now have this boiled down to a 30 minute clerical task. If the
U.S. Government wants to avoid the continued exposure to more risk
of massive class action lawsuits for censorship and damage to businesses
that are being denied the same rights that NSI and ARIN are enjoying,
then they have to act and act quickly. The clock is now ticking and it
is easy to measure how much revenue NSI and ARIN are amassing in
this impending, post-InterNIC, transition.

The U.S. Government has made it clear that they control their legacy
Root Name Servers and they have made it clear that private businesses
will be allowed a shot at the same opportunities that NSI and ARIN
have been handed on silver and gold platters. I suggest that people make
sure that the U.S. Government now makes good on those promises.
That has to be the focus, otherwise we might find that the NEW IANA
and other delay-minded people will try to divert these matters for another
couple of years. That would not be a wise thing for the U.S. Government
to allow to happen at this stage of the game.

In closing, I suggest that the U.S. Government deliver Dr. Jon Postel
to these forums to start discussing what he needs to do to carry out
the orders he is going to be given. If he does not appear in a timely
manner, then I suggest that the U.S. Government begin taking steps
to seize the legacy Root Name Servers and begin making arrangements
with NSI or other experts to prepare for the changes that will be required
to begin getting the U.S. Government out of the censorship business
and out of the hot water that the National Science Foundation has placed
them in...

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 3/29/98 7:55pm
Subject: Re: The Clock is NOW Ticking

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:
> On Sunday, March 29, 1998 10:21 PM, Eric Weisberg[SMTP:weisberg@texoma.net] wrote:
> @This sounds great. I have a few questions/suggestions:
> @
> @1. Do we need participants representing the major divisions among us to work out
> @the details and oversee the voting process--Dave Crocker, Chuck Gomes, you,
> @???, perhaps Ken and Ellen and a referee (Karl Auerbach?) ?
> @
>
> Eric,
>
> You might be making the problem more complex than it currently is
> (or has become). The focus now needs to shift to the legacy Root
> Name Server Cluster that the U.S. Government controls. It is now a
> simple matter to add some lines of ASCII text to those Root Name
> Servers for the various companies that are ready to start serving the
> new TLDs.
>
> The U.S. Government is going to need some specific guidance and
> input from interested parties to determine which companies are truely
> ready to go. One would hope that companies like NSI and others
> involved in the Registry Industry would work together at this stage to
> get the name servers properly configured to support the new TLDs.

My guess is that more companies are ready to go than one might realize.
However I soubt that NSI is just yet, but I bet they are starting to
get ready.

>
>
> I suggest that people not directly involved in server management or
> the actual registry operations can best help by being consumer
> advocates. You can help provide guidance to the U.S. Government by
> making sure the people in the various agencies as well as the Congress
> are aware of the growing number of companies that are willing to
> start a TLD registry. In summary, we need a Consumer Reports for
> the Registry Industry.

I agree compleatly.

>
>
> We can not expect the U.S. Government to spend the time becoming
> an advocate of the various TLD registries. We can also not expect the
> old or new IANA to help in this regard. If the IANA had truely wanted to
> see new TLDs added, this would have happened a long time ago. At
> this stage we have to prepare for a three-way struggle between the
> NEW IANA, the new registries and the U.S. Government. Fortunately,
> the U.S. Government has indicated that they will force the NEW IANA
> to add the entries, which believe it or not will likely take less than 30
> minutes.

I do hope that the NEW IANA will take a intrest in teh adding of the
new gTLD's and also recognize the RSC's as well and any TLD's thay may
have at least routed.

>
>
> Yes, we now have this boiled down to a 30 minute clerical task. If the
> U.S. Government wants to avoid the continued exposure to more risk
> of massive class action lawsuits for censorship and damage to businesses
> that are being denied the same rights that NSI and ARIN are enjoying,
> then they have to act and act quickly. The clock is now ticking and it
> is easy to measure how much revenue NSI and ARIN are amassing in
> this impending, post-InterNIC, transition.
>
> The U.S. Government has made it clear that they control their legacy
> Root Name Servers and they have made it clear that private businesses
> will be allowed a shot at the same opportunities that NSI and ARIN
> have been handed on silver and gold platters. I suggest that people make
> sure that the U.S. Government now makes good on those promises.
> That has to be the focus, otherwise we might find that the NEW IANA
> and other delay-minded people will try to divert these matters for another
> couple of years. That would not be a wise thing for the U.S. Government
> to allow to happen at this stage of the game.
>
> In closing, I suggest that the U.S. Government deliver Dr. Jon Postel
> to these forums to start discussing what he needs to do to carry out
> the orders he is going to be given. If he does not appear in a timely
> manner, then I suggest that the U.S. Government begin taking steps
> to seize the legacy Root Name Servers and begin making arrangements
> with NSI or other experts to prepare for the changes that will be required
> to begin getting the U.S. Government out of the censorship business
> and out of the hot water that the National Science Foundation has placed
> them in...
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI

Regards,

CC: "'weisberg@texoma.net'" <weisberg@texoma.net>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'weisberg@texoma.net'" <weisberg@texoma.net>
Date: 3/30/98 1:21am
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

Eric,

As a follow up to the previous posting...here are some
things that I think the U.S. Government should order Dr. Jon Postel
to do in his capacity as a government contractor called the IANA.

1. I think that Dr. Postel should be ordered to remove the references
to the 4 additional Root Name Servers that he added over the past
year in preparation for his attempt to redirect the servers outside of
the U.S.

2. I think that Dr. Postel should be ordered to work with NSI to get
the legacy Root Name Servers pointed at new TLD Name servers
that would serve .COM and other popular TLDs. This will help to
reduce the load on the legacy Root Name Servers.

3. I suggest that the U.S. Government begin moving any of the
remaining 9 Root Name Servers to hardened U.S. Government
facilities with the proper levels of security that would normally
be found for critical telecommunication resources.

This is where the focus should be during the next few weeks...
..there is not a lot of time and some of these transitions will
take time because of their nature...the U.S. Government has
to get started as soon as possible...companies have waited
long enough....the games and talk-a-thons need to end...

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'weisberg@texoma.net'" <weisberg@texoma.net>
Date: 3/30/98 2:05am
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

Eric,

As yet another follow-up, I suggest that people start to
compile a complete description of the people and facilities
involved in the legacy Root Name Server Cluster that the
U.S. Government is going to use to introduce the new
TLDs.

The people from the U.S. Government that will be giving
Jon Postel orders to make the changes may not be aware
of who will be carrying out those orders. To help accelerate
the process, any information that we can compile or
recommendations we can make will help to accelerate the
process. Here is a start.

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

A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

Network Solutions, Inc. (A)
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070

Hostname: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 198.41.0.4
System: SUN running SUNOS

Host Administrator:
Kosters, Mark A. (MAK21) markk@NETSOL.COM
(703) 925-6874 (FAX) (703) 742-5427

Record last updated on 31-Aug-95.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

University of Southern California (ISI2)
Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Hostname: B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 128.9.0.107
System: ? running ?

Host Administrator:
Koda, Jim (JK7) koda@ISI.EDU
310) 822-1511

Record last updated on 12-Aug-95.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER)

Hostname: C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.33.4.12
System: SUN running UNIX

Coordinator:
Administration, PSINet Domain (PDA4) psinet-domain-admin@PSI.COM
(703) 904-4100 (FAX) 610-825-8616

domain server

Record last updated on 17-Apr-96.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

University of Maryland (UMD-TERP)
Computer Science Center
College Park, MD 20742

Hostname: D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 128.8.10.90
System: MICROVAX-II running UNIX

Coordinator:
Sneeringer, Gerry (GS307) sneeri@NI.UMD.EDU
(301) 405-2996

domain server

Record last updated on 12-Aug-95.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA)
Mail Stop 233-8
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
USA

Hostname: E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.203.230.10
System: SUN running SUNOS

Coordinator:
Operations, Nsi Network (NNO2) noc@NSIPO.NASA.GOV
(800) 424-9920 (415) 604-0063 (FAX) (415) 604-0063

domain server

Record last updated on 07-Nov-97.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

Internet Software Consortium (ISC)

Hostname: F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.5.5.241
System: DEC ALPHA running BIND 4.9.5

Host Administrator:
Vixie, Paul (PV15) paul@VIX.COM
+1 415 747 0204

Domain Server

Record last updated on 09-Oct-96.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS)
MS CV-50
7990 Boeing Court
Vienna, Va 22183-7000

Hostname: G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.112.36.4
System: SUN running UNIX

Coordinator:
McCollum, Robert W (RM584) bobm@NIC.MIL
(703) 821-6214 (FAX) (703) 821-6161

Root Domain Server

Record last updated on 21-Apr-97.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

Army Research Laboratory (B)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

Hostname: H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 128.63.2.53
System: SUN running UNIX

Host Administrator:
Fielding, James L. (JLF) jamesf@ARL.MIL
(410)278-6829 (410)278-6642 (FAX) (410)278-5077

Record last updated on 17-Aug-95.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

[No name] (NORDU)

Hostname: I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.36.148.17
System: SUN-4/60 running UNIX

Coordinator:
Liman, Lars-Johan (LL846) LIMAN@SUNET.SE
+46 8 790 65 60 (FAX) +46 8 24 11 79

Record last updated on 09-Jan-97.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

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

As mentioned in a previous posting. I suggest that the U.S.
Government move the above servers to secure facilities and
make sure that they are directly managed by U.S. Government
employees or contractors with signed agreements. In the case
of the last root server (I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) I suggest that
it be deleted from the RSC at the same time as the other 4
servers that were added during the past year.

As NSI points out in their Green Paper response[1], this work
has to start now. U.S. taxpayers should no longer have to
put up with games being played on their critical Internet
infrastructure. The people listed above should get a visit from
the proper U.S. Government DOD agencies to make sure they
are aware that the U.S. Government is not playing games. If they
do want to continue playing games, then the U.S. Government
should delete those Root Name Servers from the above list.

[1] @@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/scanned/NSI.htm

"Further, the lack of accountability, availability, and contractual obligation
of the root server operators and the security of their systems needs to be
changed now."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The U.S. Government is better off having a few Root Name Servers
in its cluster that it can control as opposed to a large collection with
no accountability. Also, as soon as .COM and some of the other
TLDs are moved off of the above servers, they will have less load.

The clock is now ticking on the reconfiguration of the Root Name
Servers and the TLD Name Servers. Let's not lose sight of the goal
which is to get the new TLDs entered so the world can move on
to more productive dicsussions.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Paul A Vixie'" <paul@vix.com>
Date: 3/30/98 7:08am
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

On Monday, March 30, 1998 1:43 AM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@i have been told that the IANA is in full cooperation with the DOC, and so
@i believe that the Internet Software Consortium's F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET server
@is being operated in full conformance with the DOC's wishes. if this is not
@the case, i would like to be told.
@

It might be helpful to provide people with a complete description
of where the F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is located, how it is funded,
and the various operational policies that are in place that will allow
the U.S. Government to manage its contents. At some point, U.S.
Government officials will have to make a determination if that server
conforms to the needs of the U.S. taxpayers. That point should be
sooner, rather than later.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Paul A Vixie'" <paul@vix.com>
Date: 3/30/98 7:33am
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

On Monday, March 30, 1998 1:43 AM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@i have been told that the IANA is in full cooperation with the DOC, and so
@i believe that the Internet Software Consortium's F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET server
@is being operated in full conformance with the DOC's wishes. if this is not
@the case, i would like to be told.
@

In order to make sure that the U.S. Government records are
complete, can you provide a written trail of all communication
with people regarding what you have been "told" to do ?

Also, I would think that the U.S. Government would need to
do an assessment of how well that server conforms to U.S.
Government privacy laws. Since complete domain names
are sent to the root servers, the operators of these servers can
track who is looking at what. This is an eavesdropping vantage
point that the U.S. Government may not want to delegate on
behalf of the American people without having a better understanding
of how the server is operated.

Has the U.S. Government ever evaluated the privacy aspects
of the "F" Root Name Server ?

Also, has traffic to or from the "F" Root Name Server ever been
filtered or denied for any reason ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Paul A Vixie'" <paul@vix.com>
Date: 3/30/98 8:57am
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

On Monday, March 30, 1998 1:43 AM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote:
<snip>
@there are servers for every zone, including ".". the ones for
@"." are called "root name servers". there are 13 of them. they
@all publish exactly the data given to them by InterNIC, and InterNIC
@only gives out data which has been given to it by IANA.
@

Paul,

You may not have been following all of the DOC proceedings.
NSI has indicated what several people have pointed out in the
past which is that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has
been controlling what goes in the Root Name Servers. They
are still responsible for this activity. The NSF is an agency of
the U.S. Government. It does not report to the IANA.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 3/30/98 9:26am
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

At 11:16 AM 3/29/98 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Sunday, March 29, 1998 11:05 AM, John
Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
>@Jim,
>@
>@ I believe that the only Green Paper comments filed by ARIN was the
>@ attached message. While this position was approved by the trustees,
>@ the most important thing is that it was the result of review and
>@ discussion at our recent membership meeting.
>@
>@ I do not know if any of the other associations which filed comments
>@ had opportunity to review their submission with their membership.
>@
>@/John
>@
>
>Thanks for the reply. Can you provide a few pointers to
>the open discussions and debates among your trustees
>and members regarding the so-called "GAR"...?

It certainly was discussed at the member meeting. One
of the distinct advantages of ARIN over the previous
situation is that this type of discussion is far more
visible to the community.

I don't know about past references, although APNIC or
RIPE minutes may mention it earlier.

/John

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Date: 3/30/98 9:39am
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

On Monday, March 30, 1998 8:26 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
<snip>
@>Thanks for the reply. Can you provide a few pointers to
@>the open discussions and debates among your trustees
@>and members regarding the so-called "GAR"...?
@
@It certainly was discussed at the member meeting. One
@of the distinct advantages of ARIN over the previous
@situation is that this type of discussion is far more
@visible to the community.
@

When will all of the information on ARIN be visible ?

What IP allocations are being made ?
Where are the financial records posted ?
What Internet resources does ARIN claim to have ?

@I don't know about past references, although APNIC or
@RIPE minutes may mention it earlier.
@

The real key will be how much information can be obtained from
U.S. Government records via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request. ARIN claims that GAR has been in the works for the
past year. That would imply that the National Science Foundation
should have a record of those plans.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <antitrust@essential.o...
Date: 3/30/98 5:09pm
Subject: RE: ARIN's Direction

On Monday, March 30, 1998 6:52 AM, Roger Marquis[SMTP:marquis@roble.com] wrote:
@On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Jim Fleming wrote:
@> Thanks for the reply. I agree that ultimately the Board of Trustees are the
@> people responsible for ARIN, assuming that the United States Government
@> continues to allow this to move forward. Apparently, some of the people
@> involved with the DOC Green Paper now realize that it was a mistake to
@> allow the National Science Foundation to help railroad ARIN into being as
@> a way to free NSI for their IPO and run at the .COM TLD registry.
@
@How do Network Solutions and now ARIN get away with this? Not only is
@the Internic charging $50/year for services that cost them $3-4/year to
@provide but they're off-loading those services and amassing a fortune
@with no evident government supervision. Now ARIN is charging equally
@outrageous prices for Netblocks, not offering smaller netblocks, and
@can be expected to amass another fortune at the expense of Internet
@business such as ours.
@
<snip>

I would suggest that you ask Neal Lane of the NSF how these
companies get away with this. You might want to ask him soon
because it appears he is being promoted to the White House.

@@@ http://www.nsf.gov/home/special/notices.htm

The President today announced his intent to nominate Dr. Neal F. Lane
as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Dr. Rita R. Colwell as Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

See also...http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/OSTP_Home.html

and...http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/nl980213.htm

and...http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/wh213nl.htm

If you do not feel this is fair, you might also want to ask
the Ms. Linda Sundro, the Inspector General of the NSF.
Also, the Department of Justice (DOJ) may have an opinion
on this.

There is also the Department of Commerce (DOC). They
are active in this area.

Eventually, the buck stops at the White House and that
is where Neal Lane is headed. Maybe he will be able to explain
to Clinton and Gore what he has created.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'KathrynKL'" <KathrynKL@aol.com>
Date: 3/30/98 5:46pm
Subject: FW: The Clock is NOW Ticking

----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 4:43 PM
To: 'James B. Slayden Jr.'
Cc: hostmaster@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov
Subject: RE: The Clock is NOW Ticking

On Monday, March 30, 1998 8:43 AM, James B. Slayden Jr.[SMTP:slayden@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov] wrote:

@Jim,
@
@e.root-servers.net is already run from a secure NASA facility by NASA contractor
@personnel. The NIC record is correct and up to date.
@
@James S.
@
@-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@James B. Slayden Jr. Network Engineer/DNS Administrator
@slayden@nsipo.nasa.gov NASA Integrated Network Services (NISN)
@650-604-6404 NASA Ames Research Center
@-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@

That is great news. I assume that you will be following the orders
from the U.S. Government. Hmm...maybe you could put a U.S. Flag
sticker on the side of the machine...sort of like the Space Shuttle...

Keep up the good work...!!!

God bless America

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Paul A Vixie'" <paul@vix.com>
Date: 4/1/98 8:36am
Subject: Redirecting the Root Servers

On Monday, March 30, 1998 1:43 AM, Paul A Vixie[SMTP:paul@vix.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@> The people from the U.S. Government that will be giving
@> Jon Postel orders to make the changes may not be aware
@> of who will be carrying out those orders. To help accelerate
@> the process, any information that we can compile or
@> recommendations we can make will help to accelerate the
@> process. Here is a start.
@
@speaking as the operator of F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, i have always trusted
@jon postel to know who he should be taking "orders" from and i will
@continue to do so. when i agreed to operate a "root name server" i
@also agreed to publish only IANA-approved data therein.
@

Paul,

Just to be clear on this. Are you saying that when Jon Postel redirected
the Root Name Servers to pull from his server at USC/ISI that you followed
that direction ?

Did all of the Root Name Server operators follow that direction ?

Was that redirection some sort of protest against NSI controlling the roots ?

Is that redirection any different from the redirection that Eugene Kashpureff
made to protest NSI's control of .COM ?

Has the FBI asked you anything about how you operate your server ? Does
anyone from the U.S. Government monitor the operations of your server ?

You once said that you were going to go ballistic and make changes to
your server if things did not go your way. How can the U.S. Government
have a large number of people depending on the legacy Root Name Server
Cluster and have the individual operators going in different directions ?

One last thing. I know that you claim that Root Name Server Clusters (RSCs)
do not exist. When Jon Postel redirected the Root Name Servers, did that
effectively split the legacy cluster into two clusters ? Again, what was the
point of that redirection and were you directly involved ? In other words, did
you have to type anything, or does Jon Postel log into your server and make
changes ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Ellen Rony'" <erony@MARIN.K12.CA.US>
Date: 4/1/98 11:51am
Subject: RE: Question to the once and former InterNIC

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 10:17 AM, Ellen Rony[SMTP:erony@MARIN.K12.CA.US] wrote:

@Today the Internet community begins the transition of the NSF/NSI
@Cooperative Agreement to the private sector.
@
@My immediate and simple questions are:
@What links on the InterNIC site will no longer be operative? Which ones
@will be moved to the netsol site?
@

Ellen,

I would think that the National Science Foundation (NSF)
would be the agency that is still managing the InterNIC.
You might want to check with Don Mitchell or Linda Sundro.

One of the issues that needs to be worked out is the final
resting place for the domain name INTERNIC.NET. Clearly
NSI does not need it because they are developing the
WORLDNIC.NET brand name.

Apparently AT&T trademarked the name InterNIC in the
early days because they had lawyers to do it. Now they
evidently have "given" it to the NSF. The NSF apparently
does not know what to do with it. I heard that Don Mitchell
wants to "give" it to NSI. I doubt that would happen, given
the other gifts that Don has given to participants in the
InterNIC fiasco.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'cgomes@internic.net'" <cgomes@internic.net>
Date: 4/1/98 11:58am
Subject: RE: Question to the once and former InterNIC

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 10:45 AM, Chuck
Gomes[SMTP:cgomes@internic.net] wrote:
@The site has already been updated. At the moment there are no changes in
@links, although eventually the link to Directory Services provided by AT&T
will
@go away. The changes made are mostly cosmetic with some correction of
wording
@to correspond to the current InterNIC agreement which just involves NSI.
@

What happened to AT&T ?
Their contract was supposed to run longer than NSI's...see below

If AT&T is gone, how is NSI going to abide by the following ?

@@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/review/section2.html

"NSI agreed to:

``... [provide the information from these assignments] to the directory and
database services provider to be made available to the entire Internet
community.''

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The "directory and database services provider" is AT&T.

AT&T should have all of the "information" from the assignments.
AT&T has the duty to make that information available to the "Internet
community".
That is what AT&T agreed to do, as their part of the InterNIC contract
with the U.S. Government, via the NSF.

Surely AT&T understands what they have contracted to do
and will step forward and provide the required information as
the InterNIC contract(s) end. The AT&T contract lasts well
beyond the year 2000. The NSI contract ends soon. One
would assume that AT&T will be called upon to help manage
the transition for the next couple of years.

AT&T
DS Award - $4,543,336 (Estimated) - Expires September 30, 2003 (Estimated)
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9218179

GA
IS Award - $4,793,092 - Expires September 30, 1998
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9218748

NSI
RS Award - $4,369,334 (Estimated) - Expires September 30, 1998 (Estimated)
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/showaward?award=9218742

===
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@CHAOS.COM>
Date: 4/1/98 12:34pm
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 11:03 AM, Tony Rutkowski[SMTP:amr@CHAOS.COM] wrote:
<snip>
@
@Dooley began her remarks by noting that she was
@speaking for more than 700 ISP member companies,
@and that they support the Green Paper process,
@but concerned that users and service providers
@might be under-represented on the new IANA Board,
@that there be careful consideration in expanding
@new gTLDs, that the .US country domain management
@be revamped, and that a stable and secure root server
@system be effected.

Tony,

Thanks for the excellent summary. One of the themes that seems to
be common among many parties is the interest in making sure that
the legacy Root Name Server Cluster (RSC) is stable and secure. I
recently suggested that all of the U.S. Government RSC operators
help to provide a better feeling for the security and stability of their
RSC. Many companies depend on that RSC, although more and more
companies are learning that there are alternatives that provide better
performance and better stability and security.

I was encouraged that Curt Howland of NASA informed me that the
server he operates is stable and secure. I assume that NSI also
has a stable and secure server. I am not sure about some of the
other parties.

It is encouraging that the IETF members are rallying around Jon Postel
at their meeting in Los Angeles, near USC/ISI. While there might be
talk of splitting the legacy Root Name Server Cluster away from the
U.S. Government, I think that people in the U.S. need to have the
comfort that the U.S. Government is not going to allow the stability
and security be compromised on any servers that remain in that RSC.

No matter what happens, I think that the U.S. Government should
become pro-active in making sure that there is a Root Name Server
Cluster that is stable and secure and 100% under their control. It
makes no sense for the U.S. Government to spend a lot of time,
energy and money developing plans to add new TLDs only to find
when the time comes to add those TLDs they do not have control
over the servers. This could cause chaos, which people do not need.

I realize that some of the details of Root Name Server operations
are too complex for non-engineers. Despite that I hope that the
average civilian realizes that people and companies have come to
depend on the U.S. for a certain level of service and it is in everyone's
best interest to maintain and improve that service. This is not an
international vs U.S.-centric issue. It is a question of common sense
and stability and security.

In closing I would point out that if the Internet was like the airline
industry and we found that some of the FAA towers were operated
by people that wanted to experiment with having commercial
airliners flying at all different altitudes, people would expect the
U.S. Government to step in to inform their contractors that this
is not an experiment that the American people want to pay for...
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>
Date: 4/1/98 12:50pm
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 3:44 AM, Curt Howland[SMTP:howland@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov] wrote:
@
@I wasn't reassuring you, Mr. Fleming, I was laughing
@at you.
@
@> From JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net Wed Apr 1 09:39:13 1998
@...
@> In closing I would point out that if the Internet was like the airline
@> industry and we found that some of the FAA towers were operated
@> by people that wanted to experiment with having commercial
@> airliners flying at all different altitudes, people would expect the
@> U.S. Government to step in to inform their contractors that this
@> is not an experiment that the American people want to pay for...
@> -
@> Jim Fleming
@> Unir Corporation
@> IBC, Tortola, BVI
@
@That's the easiest one in the world to answer: Don't
@force the American people to pay for it. If you don't
@like the service, take your business elsewhere.
@
@Please remove me from your direct mailing list.
@
@Curt-
@
@

I have removed Curt Howland from the mailing list.
Maybe he does not represent the view of NASA.
It might be good to find out who does...

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

E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA)
Mail Stop 233-8
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
USA

Hostname: E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.203.230.10
System: SUN running SUNOS

Coordinator:
Operations, Nsi Network (NNO2) noc@NSIPO.NASA.GOV
(800) 424-9920 (415) 604-0063 (FAX) (415) 604-0063

domain server

Record last updated on 07-Nov-97.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

==========================================
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>
Date: 4/1/98 1:50pm
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing

I did some more checking. I called the 800 number that NASA has
posted below. I spoke to a very nice fellow named Roger. He was not
sure who was in charge of the "E Root Server" but after asking around
the computer room he came up with the name Dave Garrett and said
that Dave's phone number is 650-604-4787.

While on the call with Roger I asked if Curt Howland had anything to
do with the E Root Server. Roger chuckled and said that Curt worked
there but that the number below is for the WAN operations and people
do not know about the E Root Server.

I started think about this and decided to check my mail log. I discovered
the message below from James Slayden which I hope helps to give people
a better feel that the NASA server is safe and secure. For some reason,
in drafting my note to Tony, I recalled this nice note from Mr. Slayden
and attributed the NASA response to be from Curt Howland. After further
review of Mr. Howland's notes, I see that he was trying to provide an
alternative view from NASA. I hope that Mr. Slayden's view is the official
view.

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

Jim,

e.root-servers.net is already run from a secure NASA facility by NASA contractor
personnel. The NIC record is correct and up to date.

James S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James B. Slayden Jr. Network Engineer/DNS Administrator
slayden@nsipo.nasa.gov NASA Integrated Network Services (NISN)
650-604-6404 NASA Ames Research Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 3:44 AM, Curt Howland[SMTP:howland@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov] wrote:

@
@I wasn't reassuring you, Mr. Fleming, I was laughing
@at you.
@
@> From JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net Wed Apr 1 09:39:13 1998
@...
@> In closing I would point out that if the Internet was like the airline
@> industry and we found that some of the FAA towers were operated
@> by people that wanted to experiment with having commercial
@> airliners flying at all different altitudes, people would expect the
@> U.S. Government to step in to inform their contractors that this
@> is not an experiment that the American people want to pay for...
@> -
@> Jim Fleming
@> Unir Corporation
@> IBC, Tortola, BVI
@
@That's the easiest one in the world to answer: Don't
@force the American people to pay for it. If you don't
@like the service, take your business elsewhere.
@
@Please remove me from your direct mailing list.
@
@Curt-
@
@

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

E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET

NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA)
Mail Stop 233-8
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
USA

Hostname: E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET
Address: 192.203.230.10
System: SUN running SUNOS

Coordinator:
Operations, Nsi Network (NNO2) noc@NSIPO.NASA.GOV
(800) 424-9920 (415) 604-0063 (FAX) (415) 604-0063

domain server

Record last updated on 07-Nov-97.
Database last updated on 29-Mar-98 03:40:13 EST.

==========================================
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <jrf@doorstep.unety.net>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("ekgermann@cctec.com","JimFleming@...
Date: 4/1/98 4:36pm
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing

As far as I know, Eugene Kaspureff was not paid by the
U.S. Government. Jon Postel is paid by the U.S. Government.
Do you see the difference ?

I have suggested in the past that the U.S. Government
should get OUT of the business of providing a Root Name
Server Cluster. Alternate RSCs could now handle the job
plus many ISPs just point directly to the TLD Clusters.

Instead of getting OUT of the business, the U.S. Government
has decided to first clean up the situation they are
in by getting more INTO the business. My point is simple,
if they are going to get in to clean up and then get out
they should do it properly and all of the i's and t's
should be taken care of. The current loosey-goosey
seat-of-the-pants approach will not allow them to clear
the air to make a clean exit.

Plus, it appears that ISPs and companies want the
U.S. Government to provide a gold-plated RSC. If they
did not, they would be working harder to set up other
RSCs. The IAHC/CORE group has not even taken that
simple step. This makes them subject to the U.S. Government's
legacy RSC. They are voting by not taking or providing
another path. The IETF has done the same thing, nothing.

Jim Fleming

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("amr@CHAO...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>
Date: 4/1/98 3:09pm
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing

On Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:17 AM, James B. Slayden Jr.[SMTP:slayden@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov] wrote:

@Ok, Let's get some spin control on this thread. Curt Howland DOES in fact work
@for a NASA subcontract, and IS part of the e.root-servers.net administration
@team. Curt's jockularity is widely known, and should not be construed as a
@personal attack against anyone. We are somewhat beating this thing to death
@and could we please move on. As the previously included email from myself
@indicates, all is fine and dandy with e.root-servers.net. I believe that if
@any Governmental policy changes are requested of the root servers, we ALL would
@do our best to comply. Again, we need move on here.
@

Yes, I agree that we need to move forward and continue to
try to identify which of the current legacy Root Name Servers
will be following the U.S. Government's orders. It is nice to know
that NASA will be following orders. It would also be nice if we
could make sure that 100% of the Root Name Servers in the
Cluster the U.S. Government controls will ALL follow orders.

We also need to determine who owns and operates those servers.

Do the people involved have U.S. Government security clearances ?
If so, what level ?

Also, are the privacy rights of the American people being protected ?
For example, are domain name lookups being logged and if so,
who has access to all that data ? Do we really want that kind of
data being tossed about in a jockular manner ?

-

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Ira Magaziner
Date: 4/1/98 10:20pm
Subject: TLDs From Outer Space

I just received some info from NASA on the Root Name Server
that they operate as part of the legacy cluster (RSC). I half in
jest suggested that they put an American Flag on it to make it
look like the Space Shuttle.

Then a thought occurred to me...

Why not have the astronauts select the NEW TLDs that are added
while they are up in the Space Shuttle ? Then when people ask
where TLDs come from people can look up at the sky and say,
"I'm not sure...somewhere up there..."

Here is how it would work. New TLD Registries would prepare
proposals in advance of each Shuttle Mission. On each mission,
some set number of TLDs would be selected by the astronauts.
They could send e-mail of their open decision-making process.

Since Shuttle Missions are scheduled well in advance and since
they do not occur that often, new TLDs would be added at a pace
that might satisfy the "go slow" people's wishes.

What do you think ?

:-)

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 4/12/98 9:20am
Subject: FW: Lock-in: via both DNS and IP

----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 1998 7:58 AM
To: 'Roeland M.J. Meyer'
Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; 'Don Heath'; 'John Curran'; 'Karl Denninger'; 'Scott Bradner'; 'vinton g. cerf'
Subject: RE: Lock-in: via both DNS and IP

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 7:12 AM, Roeland M.J. Meyer[SMTP:rmeyer@MHSC.COM] wrote:
<snip>
@
@Personally, I feel that some light needs to be shone on ARIN as well in
@this regard.
@
@___________________________________________________
@Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)

Roeland,

Many people tried to point this out. You are seeing one of the many
"double standards" of the Internet Society (ISOC) in action. On one
hand the ISOC claims to be against allowing companies to gain
economic advantages in the domain name registration arena while
on the other hand supporting ARIN as a monopoly with arbitrary fees
set (fixed?) in conjunction with RIPE, APNIC and of course the IANA.

It is all a large multi-level-marketing (MLM) pyramid scheme. People
enter at the bottom and work their way to the top. ISPs that "play ball"
(as I was told) become millionaires and keep their mouths shut. When
they need a for-profit company to push an idea there is one close at
hand. When they need a non-profit, they create one or find one to
mouth the "party line". Finally, when they need the U.S. Government
to help them there is always some agency (like the NSF) with a few
fools to hand out a few million dollars to keep the pyramid growing or
to help put up road-blocks to prevent the "wrong" people from progressing.

Everyone has a choice, they can join the crowd and spend their life
flying around the world, first-class, eating sushi, and working their way
to the top of the pyramid, or they can try to help society by continuing
to contribute new ideas and technology as opposed to living off the MLM
organism. In my case, I have chosen to work to create more Internet
resources and to give those away free to help more people communicate
and to spread the wealth around. That is what IPv8 is all about. In the
IPv8 Plan there is no need for a central tax-collector like ARIN. Via a
simple "structured root", the domain name and IP resources are evenly
distributed. Obviously, the people behind the ISOC MLM schemes do
not like that plan. Soooo...we agree to disagree...I continue to work on
IPv8 and they continue to work on your wallet....

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Ira Magaziner
Date: 4/12/98 10:43am
Subject: FW: Lock-in: via both DNS and IP

----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 1998 9:38 AM
To: 'John Curran'
Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; 'Don Heath'; 'Karl Denninger'; 'Roeland M.J. Meyer'; 'Scott Bradner'; 'vinton g. cerf'
Subject: RE: Lock-in: via both DNS and IP

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 9:16 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@ I am confident that you'll provide folks with input on other
@ options for performing this function, and personally welcome
@ such to the extent that they're feasible to deploy.
@

John,

Keep in mind that you (BBN) have massive blocks of IP
addresses. Multiple /8s. Those are worth billions. I can
understand your interest in supporting ARIN. I hope that
you agree that 99.9999% of the people and companies
in the world are not sitting on the mountain of resources
that you control. I hope that BBN follows through and
returns those resources to the common pool.

Here is a feasible plan that could have been used. It will
give you a flavor for what a "structured root" is like. If BBN
decides to return the resources it is sitting on, this plan
may have some appeal to you if you are interested in
fairness.

======== A Simple Structured Root Plan ========

Imagine if there are only 256 TLD slots. Imagine if they are
numbered from 0 to 255. Use a random number generator
to take the current TLDs in the legacy Root Name Servers
and assign a number. There may be 10 or 12 extra slots that
can easily be filled in the next 6 months.

Now, with this 8 bit TLD number (TTTTTTTT), you can overlay
it onto the IPv4 address range in the following manner:

aaaaaTTT.TTTTTxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx

Now, you run the "aaaaa" field from 0 to 31 over and over and
delegate the entire IPv4 address space to the various TLD
authorities based on their TLD number (TTTTTTTT). This means
that each of the 256 TLD authorities gets 32 hunks of the IPv4
address space to MANAGE, just like the IANA "manages" it.
In effect, you have 256 Jon Postels. This would be more fair.

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

Now...we have to get to the key word..."feasible"...the above
is only feasible if people are willing to give up control and to
move away from centralized models of control. That does not
appear to be the course of action with ARIN or the new improved
IANA that will be here shortly, all endorsed by the U.S. Government.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Date: 4/12/98 12:59pm
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 10:30 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
@Good morning Karl... comments interspersed as usual.
@
@/John
@
@At 09:45 AM 4/12/98 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
@
@>Well, ARIN was *given* this by the IANA, but I've yet to see evidence that
@>the delegation was proper or lawful - or that the IANA *legitimately* had
@>control or oversight to do so.
@
@The IANA appears to have been doing such delegations for
@many years under the implicit endorsement of ISOC, IAB,
@FNC, and the IETF community. Along these lines, the
@creation of ARIN was not significantly different that
@of the other regional IP registries.
@

It is very different.

1. Jon Postel is on the Board of ARIN (http://www.arin.net)
2. NSI people are not only benefiting from their NSI stock IPO but now ARIN
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe other people besides NSI people
deserve to participate in these U.S. Government programs ?
3. IN-ADDR.ARPA appears to be under ARIN's control
4. It also appears that the .ARPA TLD is controlled by ARIN
Of course, the U.S. Government was duped into thinking that
IP addresses and TLDs have nothing to do with each other.
5. Companies have allocations in blocks now inherited by ARIN, they are locked in.
The ISOC complains about "lock-in" in the TLD arena, but turns their head here.
6. ARIN is a private company, non-profit means nothing, expenses can still be hidden.
7. No procedure exists to allow other private companies to do this.
8. The U.S. Government gave away assets without any proper procedures, (bids, etc.)
9. Apparently the InterNIC databases were copied and transferred to ARIN by NSI.
The NSF claims they have no control over the databases. Yet, apparently they
can authorize these transfers.

@>Further, ARIN's rates were set before ONE SINGLE MEMBERSHIP had been sold,
@>were essentially set unilaterally by Kim Hubbard, ...
@
@The BoT was involved in establishing the initial rates (as is
@to be expected given financial responsibilities of a trustee).
@The proposed rates were publicly posted, discussed at length,
@presented at NANOG several times, and did undergo significant
@evolution as a result.
@

The mailing lists clearly state that the rates were set based
on the APNIC and RIPE models. This appears to be price fixing.

@I'm not one to judge IANA's legitimacy; there appear to be
@dozens of folks already debating that topic.
@

The U.S. Government has funded people to handle Internet resource
allocations. The U.S. Government has also funded many aspects of the
Internet from the Root Name Servers, the the back-bones and all the
way to organizations like MERIT that funds NANOG.

Now that U.S. citizens and taxpayers want to make sure that they
are getting their money's worth and that fair and proper procedures
are being used to distribute resources, these people want to deny that
they have been working for the U.S. Government. They now want to
make their own rules. They want to take U.S. Government assets and
go develop private companies to exploit those assets. They expect
the U.S. taxpayers and citizens to step aside as they impose their
new cyberspace taxes on the community, all to pay for their non-profit
perks.

@>ARIN's *operational expenses* as an association should be paid for by
@>membership dues and nothing more. The allocation function should be charged
@>out only for the CLEARLY DOCUMENTABLE incremental cost for providing EACH
@>allocation. If there are fixed expenses which accrue due to the management
@>of EXISTING space, then they should be also charged out at the CLEARLY
@>DOCUMENTED incremental cost of providing each.
@>
@>Anything else is contrary to the proper functioning of a non-profit
@>stewardship function.
@
@Actually, it's an cost-allocation model that did receive significant
@discussion at the BoT level. If this is how the members want things
@to go, speak up.
@

Maybe ARIN should disclose ALL financials on their web site.

Maybe ARIN should disclose ALL IP allocations as they are made each week.

Also...
What are all these NSI people being paid ?
How much NSI stock do they own ?

Were any other people given the opportunity to do this job ?
Who was interviewed ?
Where are the U.S. Government records of those interviews ?

@>Note that the ACTUAL incremental cost of providing a robotic-like allocation
@>function is EXTREMELY low. The problem is, as soon as you allow "discretion"
@>into the decision process, then it gets EXPENSIVE.
@
@Absolutely. The key to low costs is removing discretion and the human
@component. I will note that the guidelines established by the AC with
@respect to utilization verification, etc., will be a very significant
@factor in the overall cost per allocation.
@

I do not believe that the people behind ARIN are concerned about costs.
They are operating in one of the most expensive regions of the U.S.

@>I believe that other organizations could provide this function at a lower
@>cost.
@
@Once there are crisp guidelines, I'm personally of the opinion
@that the allocation function could potentially be better
@automated (or even outsourced) At the present time, we lack
@the specificity necessary to even consider such an approach.
@It is, however, within the AC's ability to bring clarity in
@this area.
@

John,

What you lack is authority. Just because the National Science Foundation (NSF)
was put between a rock and a hard place by NSI and did not have the clear
presence of mind to recognize that the InterNIC is/was not NSI and failed to
execute U.S. Government procedures in the proper manner, does not give ARIN
the right to walk in and homestead assets or cart them off to use in their private
company. Those assets belong to U.S. taxpayers. They paid for their development.

If the assets are going to be distributed, it should be done in a fair manner.
Allowing the NSF to drop them on a street corner in Virginia is not fair. Just
because NSF officials could not understand the nature of the assets does not
matter. They still have no right to give them away, especially to the people they
gave them to. They have already bent over backward to give NSI everything they
need. When does it end ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/12/98 11:35am
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

At 10:11 AM 4/12/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:

>I could go on and on but in summary...don't waste your time...
>people are better off working to create a larger virtual address
>space and to start using whatever means are available (IPv6?)
>to start routing between machines in that address space.
>
>If people are motivated to spend time on the IPv4 address space,
>then I suggest that they spend it with the U.S. Government
>officials who have opened up the whole InterNIC can of worms.
>There might be some hope that a fair system will come from the
>hearts of the American people who have elected people to work
>on such matters.

While I can't concur with the tirade which proceeded, I do have
to agree with the conclusion... at this time, working with the
government folks who have become involved (Ira et al) is the
right path for moving forward.

/John

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'John Curran'" <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
Date: 4/12/98 11:11am
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 9:37 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@ To the extent that you want ARIN judging IP number use or not,
@ please inform members of the Advisory Council... they are
@ currently discussing colorful approaches to utilization
@ measurement, etc. and hence the more input they get from the
@ community, the better.
@

I recommend that people not waste their time. People attempted
to discuss ARIN a year ago when it was dropped on the world as
another, IANA "done-deal". People asked to see budget proposals
that were mentioned in IANA reports, but none were shown. People
asked for justification for why NSI people would be once again
creating another cash-cow in the State of Virginia (near the NSF)
and they were told to sit down and shut up. People were told that
it is all cost-recovery and non-profit and all those good warm and
fuzzy things that seem to justify this endless stream of Internet
tax agencies that claim to be providing services.

Proposals were made for alternative approaches but they were
ignored or deflected with the usual academic double talk. People
tried to bring the Board members into the discussions but the
NSI people were too busy cashing out on their IPO and the fellow
from Mexico hardly responded. He apparently has now resigned.

I could go on and on but in summary...don't waste your time...
people are better off working to create a larger virtual address
space and to start using whatever means are available (IPv6?)
to start routing between machines in that address space.

If people are motivated to spend time on the IPv4 address space,
then I suggest that they spend it with the U.S. Government
officials who have opened up the whole InterNIC can of worms.
There might be some hope that a fair system will come from the
hearts of the American people who have elected people to work
on such matters. Fairness will not come from some self-appointed
group of people that are creating more self-serving structures
to tax the Internet community to help pay for more such structures.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/12/98 3:12pm
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

At 11:59 AM 4/12/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>...
>If the assets are going to be distributed, it should be done in a fair
manner.
>Allowing the NSF to drop them on a street corner in Virginia is not fair.
Just
>because NSF officials could not understand the nature of the assets does not
>matter. They still have no right to give them away, especially to the
people they
>gave them to.

Jim,

In my opinion, continuity of the IP allocation function
was the principle goal for ARIN formation. Given that
ARIN operates under the traditional IANA authority (which
is subject to significant discussion now days), you have
ample opportunity to present alternatives structures for
providing this function to the Internet community at large,
the USG administration, and your elected representatives.

Continuity has been provided, cross-funding from DNS has
been eliminated, and an input process for users of the
resource has been introduced. As far as I'm concerned,
ARIN will meet many folks criteria for success. Despite
this, there is no declaration that ARIN is only and best
model for doing the job; you should feel free to propose
any alternatives you feel appropriate.

/John

CC: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
Date: 4/12/98 5:18pm
Subject: Don't Forget GAR

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 2:49 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@mcs.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@I know darn well what I'm talking about because I do it every single day
@Alec, unlike the people who have had a "free ride" within ARIN and NSI
@before them for MANY years.
@

Lets not forget GAR, the Global Address Registry that ARIN claims
has been in the works for over a year. <http://www.arin.net/greenpaper.html>
Not only is ARIN not looking to reduce costs, they are encouraging the
creation of MORE tax collecting structures. This appears to be a political
move to divert attention away from ARIN and to make it appear as if ARIN
is entrenched and can not be changed.

The U.S. Government needs to re-open all of the matters related to the
InterNIC. ARIN was not created out of any need to offer a unique service.
ARIN was created to allow NSI (and SAIC) to divest itself of the bad publicity
that has surrounded the IANA's policies for many years. SAIC needed to
get rid of ARIN because it was causing spotlights to be turned on their
other government contracts which was not desirable. NSI was happy to
shed ARIN to allow it to make its IPO and to get ready for their DOJ
orchestrated WorldNIC/InterNIC transition. ARIN was a good place to
store the IANA hot potatoes. Now NSI is free to enter the market and ARIN
has to deal with the fundamental issues of fairness and resource allocation.

In my response to the Green Paper I point out that it is better to face
these facts and to minimize costs rather than continuing to build one
beauracracy after another to try to cover up the problems. The Green Paper
proposes to move the IANA to a corporate structure. I claim that the IANA
is already there, in the form of Jon Postel being on the Board of ARIN.
ARIN then pops up with GAR, as yet another group to fund. I suppose
this will require another 15 people and another plush office in Virginia and
yet another "CEO". This would be in addition to the proposed IANA Inc.

What is amazing about all of this is that the Internet Society sits around
and writes papers asking the U.S. Government not to tax the Internet
while the Internet insiders spend their time trying to cook up the next
way to extract taxes from ISPs and users. All of this drives the costs
up and there is not inherent benefit or new services. Also, most of the
taxes flow into the same small group of people's hands in and around
Washington, D.C. No surprise here.
Meanwhile, companies are making investments and placing capital
at risk building registries and the necessary facilities to operate those
registries and these people are derailed from bringing their investments
on-line. Who derails them ? The same people who are working to build
their own little society complete with its own tax agencies all funded
from capital and facilities provided by the U.S. Government and all
shielded from risk of failure by monopoly guarantees of market share.

Surely someone in the U.S. Government that understands capitalism
will see that the Internet socialism is a dead-end path and discourages
investors and attracts people who will attempt to live off of the taxpayers
and will continue to feather their nests all in the name of doing the right
thing which really amounts to paying them money and allowing them
to play all day long. That is not a productive direction to head...

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Alec H. Peterson'" <ahp@hilander.com>
Date: 4/12/98 6:06pm
Subject: ARIN Vacancy

Maybe Ira Magaziner or someone from the DOC or DOJ
should be added to the ARIN Advisory Council ? This group
could then become the IANA Inc. and direct the BOT and
the ARIN employees to start responding to the needs of the
Internet industry. This will save time, money and get the show
on the road.

@@@@ http://www.arin.net/council.html

Bill Darte (Washington University), billd@cait.wustl.edu
Karl Denninger (MCSnet), karl@mcs.net
Michael DeShazo (Hayes Computer), MDeShazo@hcs.net
Michael Dillon, michael@memra.com
Avi Freedman (Net Axcess), freedman@netaxs.com
Ed Kern (Digex), ejk@digex.net
Hank Kilmer, hank@rem.com
John Klensin (MCI), klensin@mci.net
Guy Middleton (UUNET Canada), guy@uunet.ca
Hilarie Orman (University of Arizona), ho@cs.arizona.edu
Alec Peterson (Erols), ahp@hilander.com
Jeremy Porter (Freeside Communications), jerry@fc.net
Samir Saad (AT&T), samir@qsun.ho.att.com
David Whipple (Microsoft), dwhipple@microsoft.com
One Vacant Seat

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>
Date: 4/13/98 1:53am
Subject: ARIN is staffed from NSI

On Monday, April 13, 1998 12:03 AM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@mcs.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@I got involved in ARIN precisely because I was one of the folks who had
@SERIOUS problems with how NSI handled this stuff in the past. I also had
@and have serious problems with Postel's handling of damn near everything he
@has touched in the last three years, and believe that his board membership
@in ARIN is a monstrous conflict of interest.
@

How is ARIN any different now from in the past ?
As far as I can tell the people are the same NSI employees from the InterNIC.

One of the ways that ARIN was "sold" by the ARIN Board members
was that NSI employees would not be running ARIN. They claimed the NSI people
would be replaced once things were started. What happened to that plan ?

Some of this sounds similar to the proposed Green Paper IANA Inc. plan.
People claim that Jon Postel and his ITAG group will not be involved once
it gets started. Will that end up like ARIN ?

Why is it that these organizations get started and people make all sorts
of claims to quiet the concerns and then when things become operational
all of those promises get convienantly forgotten ?

Why not just focus on the fact that the U.S. Government has once again
helped to launch a company to provide a conduit for the Internet resources
that Jon Postel slowly doles out ? Why not face the fact that the U.S.
Government needs to step into the middle of ARIN to help make sure that
these resource allocations are done fairly under the guidelines the U.S.
Government has for such operations they create ?

Why doesn't the U.S. Government use the ARIN structure they helped to
create to bring Jon Postel and his allocation policies into the open for
public review ? All of the so-called IANA resources can be monitored
from ARIN until they are properly distributed, via U.S. Government procedures,
to other companies. ARIN should have more than enough structure to
make that happen immediately. ARIN already is doing ASNs and IP
addresses. It should not be much of an effort to add some more of the
U.S. Government assets that the IANA has been managing. This will
save time and money.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
Date: 4/13/98 7:05am
Subject: Moving ARIN to Canada

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 8:10 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@Well, if the American legal climate is too hostile for an international
@effort like ARIN, then I'm certain that we can find a place for it up
@here in Canada and I'm sure that the Canadian government would be willing
@to treat ARIN as the important international effort that it is even if
@that means special legislation to protect it.
@

Michael,

Will the Canadian Government be funding the operation ?
WIll that lower the fees ?

What about all of the money that the U.S. taxpayers have already
spent on the development of ARIN. How does that get recovered ?

If I recall, you were one of the main advocates and architects of
the IAHC/CORE movement. You used to speak confidently about
how the IANA would do "x" and the ISOC would do "y" and the IETF
would do "z". You now seem to be fairly confident that you know what
the Canadian government will do and what ARIN would do, where does
this level of confidence come from ? Did you attend the recent annual
meeting at ARIN headquarters near Washington, D.C. ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###