Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations

[Jeff Williams]

Peter and all,

Peter Veeck wrote:
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > MR Nelson and all,
> >
> > Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
> > > > post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
> > > > modus operandi.
> > > >
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
> > > > address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
> > > > internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
> > > > involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
> > > > the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
> > > > point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
> > > > differently. That is your prerogative.
> > >
> > > In the FWIW department, this is precisely what has been seen on the
> > > nair-founders at texoma.net mailing list. I, along with some 30-50 other
> > > people were invited to become founding members of North American Internet
> > > Registry. (We were subscribed to this distribution list without our
> > > consent.) When I questioned the folks at Internet Texoma (texoma.net) what
> > > their (NAIR's) purpose was, I was told "that will be decided by democratic
> > > process".
> > >
> > > What later became clear, is that Internet Texoma feels that it has been
> > > wronged by the IP Address Assignment policies, and desires to do anythin
> > > possible to force anyone who can to give them globally routeable address
> > > space. I don't belive that their customer-base is sufficient to permit
> > > such an assignment (though I do not know for sure)
> >
> >   I don't believe that this is the perpose of NAIR, first of all.  And I
> > do
> > find it highly questionable to anyone who has followed the dialog to
> > be able to make any such claim.  But I will let other members of NAIR
> > answer your comment here.  Members, you are being challanged!  What
> > SAY YOU?
> > >
> 
> 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.
> 
> My background includes flying, where I found that your life expectancy
> was much greater in a multi-engine aircraft than in a single engine
> aircraft.  In a multi-engine airplane it is healthier to have two pilots
> rather than one.  I, in fact, disagree with the manufacturers, the
> airlines, and the FAA in that I prefer three pilots rather than two.
> That is another debate which I will not engage in here.

  Ahhhhh!  Well we do share some similar background,  I am also a pilot
myself.  Ex-Marine Fighter Pilot actually.  And as a Marine/Navy flyer,
we perfered the twin engine approach verses the Airforces single
engine prefrence.  This has proven over time to be a superior
approach.
> 
> 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.

  This is known as redundancy in design.  I agree.
> 
> 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.

  Well put.  And exactly what NAIR I believe is about in esance.
> 
> 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.

  Yes exactly.
> 
> They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> government.  How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?

  You can't.  You can only hope.  Few dictatorships in history have
ever een benevolent.
> 
> Peter Veeck
> RegionalWeb.Texoma.net

Regards,
-- 
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 ix.netcom.com