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

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

Perry,

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

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

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

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

Thomas

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> attempts at constructive engagement should be abandoned.

What would "constructive engagement" consist of?

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

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

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

Perry

---

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

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

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

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

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

			Speaking for myself and not the IAB,

			--Steve Bellovin

---

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

--Steve Bellovin