NAIPR Message

Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations

Robert and all,

Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Peter Veeck wrote:
> [snipped beginning of discussion to save space]
> >
> > Throughout history there have been two competing beliefs.  Single --
> > versus many.  I happen to believe in the philosophy of many.  I don't
> > feel that it is good to put all of the eggs in one basket especially, in
> > any mission critical situation.  This means that I prefer:
> >       multiple smaller computers over one big computer.
> >       multiple administrators rather than a single administrator.
> >       multiple registries rather than a single registry.
> >       multiple suppliers rather than a single source.
> As a general rule I agree with you. Redundancy is important in operational
> systems.
> > I feel that there is ample evidence that when you have one organization
> > providing all of the information for the root-servers you might reduce
> > the number of failures but you will increase the magnitude of the
> > failures that occur.  The same is true of root-servers, exchange points,
> > backbone providers, and (continuing down the chain) my desk.
> >
> > If there is no way to distribute the functions of a single element or
> > organization, then I want checks and balances on that element or
> > organization.  If I am dependant upon a single item, I WANT A "SAY" ON
> > IT.  In other words, if a single organization is to "control" the
> > Internet or any vital part of it, I feel that everybody involved, from
> > Grandma at her computer to the highest official at the biggest provider
> > and beyond, should have a say in selecting the decision makers for that
> > organization.
> >
> > I can see no reasonable way to have an Internet wide vote on the
> > selection of ARIN's board members who will control IP addresses vital to
> > operation.  Therefore one of the solutions that I see is for there to be
> > multiple registries.  I see a hand picked registry as only an extension
> > of the existing registry.  NAIR is an opportunity for a competing
> > registry.
> >
> Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
> well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.

  I hope you are correct here Robert.  
> I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
> addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
> confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
> the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
> (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
> with their space as they please.

  Here is where I find a VERY BIG problem.  There should be set
by which IP allocations can be assinged. RFC2050 and RFC1917, do not
have this spelled out very well.  As such and form what I can
form posts by ARIN board members, these RFC's SEEM to be the guidline,
hence there is a problem.
> Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
> original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
> original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
> limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
> functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
> role of downstream registry.

  NAIR could also fulfil the same role that ARIN does.  ANd I hope we
> In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
> down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
> would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
> completely open field operating the root zone.

  I disagree greatly here.  I believe that with some good procedures
and requirnments any number of orgs could become registries and play
a part in operating a segment of the root zone.
> In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
> so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
> relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.

  Very true.  Those that put together the gTLD-MoU seem to be prime
> I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
> group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
> to development of DNS.  POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
> ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
> can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
> however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
> the process.

  I agree that derailing the process or at present, lack there of, is
wise.  ANd as in all things there is always room for improvment.
> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.

  Yes, do form a registry and join NAIR, do not sign the gTLD-MoU.  That
contract is flawed at best.
> > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> > government.  How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?
> Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
> That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
> up. We better get planning.

  Agreed!  And the battle is joined NOW, I believe.
> Yours,
> Rob Nelson
> rnelson at

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at