Subject: Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:23:32 -0700

Hello All -- 

As a willing participant in the IFWP processes, I am dedicated to
those processes, and I will do whatever I can to avoid allowing any
individuals, including my friends, from damaging the IFWP processes
with behind the scenes manipulations which damage IFWP credibility and
diminish the potential for developing the required Rough Consensus and
Running Code that we need to resolve the DNS Mess.

First, it is my position that the DNS Mess is the singularly critical
missing piece that we need to create in order to establish the New
Entitiy IANA replacement called forth in the White Paper.

We already have a working IETF to deal with protocol standards and
oversee administration of the registration assigned parameters.  We
already have a substantial administrative infrastructure in place to
deal with IPv4 addresses in ARIN.APNIC/RIPE.  These entities are
clearly able to perform the roles of "councils" in the proposed
structure of the New Entity which is to replace the old IANA.

In my view, it is the continued partisan fighting and closed council
manipulations in the DNS arena that are threatening to derail the
whole proposed result of the White Paper.

So, it is with grave concern that I am publishing the enclosed
messages that came to me via an opaque channel.  I will not dislose
anything I know about that channel, but I will also say that I do not
know how these messages escaped, or by what complete path they came to
be in my mailbox.  Frankly, I do not think it matters how I got them.

I am making them public in the interests of exposing the actions of
individuals, and in the interests of protecting the IFWP Process from
the bad effects of the implied shenanigans.  This kind of stuff must
be made known to the public for public evaluation.

My take is that Ira Magaziner is not in much of any position to deal
with this directly in that he clearly stated that he is not going to
pick a winner, and especially not pick a winner the comes out on top
by means of closed forum manipulations such as are indicated herein.
Perhaps Ira will feel some compulsion to speak out on this matter, but
I do not think we need his assistance in evaluating the situation.

I and my colleagues do not want this kind of behavior by the involved
parties to discredit the IFWP process, but we do understand that
public disclosure might very well bring discredit on the involved
individuals.  They will have to make their own explanations and deal
with the perceptions of the public.

If individuals wish to discredit themselves with back room actions to
deal other people and groups out of the IFWP process, or by trying to
privately control the public announcements of IFWP meeting results,
then they will have to pay the price when their actions become known.

Please note that I and my colleagues are trying to support the
processs, and are trying to protect the process by disclosing behind
the scenes actions such as indicated by the content and by involved
parties in the enclosed messages.

I expect that if the US Govt is forced back into the process by virtue
of the DNS fight growing into another world war, the answer will be "A
Pox On All Your Houses!" and all the DNS Children will be sent
permanently to their rooms.

Now is the time for us all to seriously begin to cooperate, or watch
things go downhill from here.

Best Regards...\Stef

PS:  Please take this action on my part as a serious warning.
     I will continue to publish any such materials that fall into my
     hands via suitably opaque channels...\s

}--------------
}
}Mime-Version: 1.0
}Date: Wed,  8 Jul 1998 14:03:54
}Subject: Fwd: Dixon
}
}Do not ask where this came from.  

}I find it rather interesting that Health and Dooley
}can now censor IFWP steering committee speech, don't you?
}
}--- begin forwarded text
}
}X-Sender: [email-masked]
}Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 13:46:38 -0400
}To: [email-masked], Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>,
}    [email-masked]
}From: Don Heath <[email-masked]>
}Subject: Dixon
}Cc: [email-masked]
}Mime-Version: 1.0
}Sender: [email-masked]
}
}I just had a very good talk with Barbara Dooley regarding Dixon's
}performance at the Brussels conference.  She is in complete
}agreement with me that he was wrong, out of line, incorrect, and
}must be removed from a position of speaking at all for the IFWP!
}It's being taken care of.  He _may_ be able to speak for the EuroISPA,
}_but_ there may be some question about that even!!
}
}Due to the sensitive nature of this matter, please try to keep this from
}being distributed too widely.
}
}--- end forwarded text
}

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 06:41:13 +0100

Einar and all,

> Running Code that we need to resolve the DNS Mess.

  Glad to hear it Einar!  >;)  BTW, what is "Rough Consensus"?

> Entitiy IANA replacement called forth in the White Paper.

  DNS is certianly ONE of several pieces that needs allot of cleaning up.
But certianly not the ONLY one.

> oversee administration of the registration assigned parameters.

  Yes The IETF has been around a very long time.  They do need some changes
however that are obvious to any of us that have worked with the IETF.  There
single biggest problem is not having a "Majority Consensus Model".

> We
> deal with IPv4 addresses in ARIN.APNIC/RIPE.

  Yes we do, unfortunatly.  And in the case of ARIN at least, there needs to be
some drastic changes considered.  Lack of portability of IP's is just one of
those
problems.  The other is IP allocation lock-in.

> These entities are

  Well respectfully, we don't agree on this point.  As many have other's have
pointed out on these lists and at Reston.

> whole proposed result of the White Paper.

  Very true.  Jay pointed this out yesterday.

> be in my mailbox.  Frankly, I do not think it matters how I got them.

  Interesting.

> be made known to the public for public evaluation.

  Agreed.

>      hands via suitably opaque channels...\s

  Well Mr Heath, what do you and Barbra have to say for yourselves?

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:04:02 +0100

Stef,

On a point of fact, Jim Dixon was President of EuroISPA when
he spoke at the Brussels meeting on Tuesday, but the presidency
rotated to George Hahn on Wednesday.

Apart from that, I suggest you ask people who were at both the
Reston and the Brussels meeting whether the report on Reston
given in Brussels was accurate. I can't judge, as I was only in 
Brussels, which was very constructive by the way. 

I trust you followed normal netiquette and obtained the original 
sender's permission before forwarding a message to such a wide 
choice of lists. Lest anyone wonder, I was not the opaque channel; 
I believe that breaches of confidentiality are unethical. 

   Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:16:51 +0100

Brian and all,

> rotated to George Hahn on Wednesday.

  So?  What does that have to do with the E-Mail (See below) to Stef is
referring?

> Brussels, which was very constructive by the way.

  Do you have a copy of that report?  IF you do than share it with everyone
so as they can judge for themselves.  IF not this is just another attempt
to side step the issue of the "Behind the scenes maneuvering".

> I believe that breaches of confidentiality are unethical.

  I am sure you do feel that the posting to which Stef provided (See below)
was embarrassing anyway as you were one of the people involved as it was
sent "TO" you along with Don Heath who originated the posting and
Barbara Dooley, whom was referenced in the body or the message.

  We find your actions in this matter unethical.  Besides that point did
Stef sign an NDA?  If not he has NOT violated any ethical practice
or law that I am aware of.

  You sir, along with Barbara Dooley, and Don Heath should be ashamed
of yourselves and owe the whole Internet Community and Jim Dixon
an apology.

}Mime-Version: 1.0

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:16:51 +0100

Brian and all,

}Mime-Version: 1.0

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:14:12 +0100 (BST)

> Brussels, which was very constructive by the way. 

<sigh>  OK, the Powerpoint presentation is attached.  People can
judge for themselves whether or not it is accurate.

In so doing, please be aware that when I wrote the presentation, I had
been travelling since the Reston meeting (DC, NY, London, Brussels)
without returning to my office, so I had no chance to review the
conference results. 

And therefore before I began talking, I said that this was one man's view
of what happened at the DC meeting, that I could only attend two out of
six workshops (because there were three each day and you had to choose),
and that necessarily my description was partial and incomplete. 

I also went out of my way to praise ISOC for their generousity in making
the INET venue available for IFWP/Europe.  I believe that I said something
about the new spirit of consensus that was transforming this process.

Oh well ;-}
 
--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:07:32 -0400

Folks,

I hope it will prove possible for us to step back from
the temptation, often so hard to resist, to engage in
ad hominem ("personal" for the latin-impaired) exchanges
and to focus our collective energy on the very important
effort to achieve rough consensus on the new IANA 
organization. 

Jon Postel recently contributed a fairly long description
of the status of his efforts and it would be enormously
beneficial to get constructive comments and recommendations
on it. Many of you will be in Geneva for the next round of
discussions contributing to the IFWP effort - it would be
helpful to get more done prior to that meeting by email,
with particular focus on input from those who may not be
in attendance in Geneva.

Reports from the July 1/2 meetings and the July 7 meetings
should be readily available and these factored into further
discussion as well.

There are just a few months remaining between now and September
and it seems to me that we have a good deal of work to do to
prepare for newIANA operation by that time.

Hopefully,

Vint Cerf

=================================================================
If you are using any email address other than [email-masked],
please change your address book to use that address exclusively.

See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24,July 98 http://www.isoc.org/inet98/

http://www.mci.com/aboutyou/interests/technology/ontech/cerf.shtml

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:07:32 -0400

Folks,

Hopefully,

Vint Cerf

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:19:47 +0100

Vinton and all,

> effort to achieve rough consensus on the new IANA

  You seem to be indication that the nIANA WILL be the new non-profit
corporation to which the White Paper refers to as the controlling organization
which the IFWP is attempting to put together.  Is that correct?  If so, where
and how do you arrive at this assumption?

> on it.

  I have on several occasions and received NO reply to questions
that I and many others have already posed to Jon Postel and the
IANA.  Why is this?  IF we are to be putting together a new non-profit
entity and the IANA is to play a role or part in that new organization
isn't it incumbent for Jon and the other IANA individuals to respond
to those question themselves?

> Many of you will be in Geneva for the next round of

  Agreed.  And there seems to be allot of constructive questions and
suggestions thus far.

> should be readily available and these factored into further

  Where are the July 7th notes and transcripts posted for public review?
Are there any?

> prepare for newIANA operation by that time.

  Again Vinton, you seem to be making an assumption that the nIANA
will be that organization.  Why is that?

> Vint Cerf

 Regards,

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:56:59 -0400

>and how do you arrive at this assumption?

It seems clear that the present IANA will have to change because
the manner of its support is changing. I have no pre-conceived
assumptions as to the outcome of all the discussions. Should I
have used a different term than "newIANA"? Is there one which is
not associated with any current proposal?

>to those question themselves?

I guess that depends on what the questions were.
>  Agreed.  And there seems to be allot of constructive questions and

yes and I hope we can keep on that track and avoid further
inflammation.

>  Where are the July 7th notes and transcripts posted for public review?

jim dixon tried to send his notes out as powerpoint but evidently
some re-mailers could not accept the large file.
>will be that organization.  Why is that?

I am not making that assumption - you've made that for me, apparently.
I am happy to use some term for the next IANA which isn't pre-judged.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:32:24 +0100

Vinton and all,

> not associated with any current proposal?

  Yes there is.  It is "NewCo" or "Entity".  Had you been at Reston or paying
attention
to the recent postings on the various lists, you would know this.  I am being
blunt here becouse I am finding it difficult to believe that you haven't been
paying attention, or you don't give a dam.  In either case, shame on you!  >;)

> I guess that depends on what the questions were.

  This is not an answer Vinton, and you know it!  Stop this kind of "Stone
Walling"
game.  It is so easy to see through it isn't even funny.  Jon Postel has no
intention
of getting directly involved.  He and others within the IANA and the ISOC would
rather stay aloof as much as possible and just make broad sweeping announcements.

> yes and I hope we can keep on that track and avoid further

  Or keep form making broad avoidance to specific questions and making broad
sweeping announcements that are way behind the pace of discussions.

> some re-mailers could not accept the large file.

  Well Jim knows better that this I am sure.  He knows that he should have
posted that report in Text format or broken it up into pieces and posted it that
way.

> I am happy to use some term for the next IANA which isn't pre-judged.

Yes.  And again it is "NewCo" or "Entity".

 Regards,