DNS: Re: PAB nIANA facts

DNS: Re: PAB nIANA facts

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 23:59:23 +0100
Toru san and all,

Toru Takahashi wrote:

> Masataka Ohta <mohta&#167;necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> >Jeff;
> >
> >>   The current IANA is really insignificant with respect to the New
> Corporation
> >> that is to be formulated, regardless of what it may be called.
> >
> >Could you please explain why you take it granted that some new
> >organization is necessary in addition to the existing
> >
> >FYI, "because the WP says so" is not an acceptable answer.
> Ohta-san,
> I saw White Paper as a result of compromize between CORE/POC group and Ira
> Magaziner. They have long meeting in fact to move to CORE/POC site. So, Don
> Heath said some kind of VICTORY.

  Oh really?  Interesting evaluation.  In fact the White paper mad it quite clear
the IAHC/MoU process was not successful in the preamble and history parts of the
White Paper.  Here is an excerpt.

"Although the IAHC proposal gained support in many quarters of the Internet
community, the IAHC process was criticized for its aggressive technology development
and implementation schedule, for being dominated by the Internet engineering
community, and for lacking participation by and input from business interests and
others in the Internet community.(13)  Others criticized the plan for failing to
solve the competitive problems that were such a source of dissatisfaction among
Internet users and for imposing unnecessary burdens on trademark holders. Although
the POC responded by revising the original plan, demonstrating a commendable degree
of flexibility, the proposal was not able to overcome initial criticism of both the
plan and the process by which the plan was developed.(14)  Important segments of the
Internet community remained outside the IAHC process, criticizing it as
insufficiently representative.(15) "

 And.....  (Also another excpert from the White paper)

  5) "undertake, in cooperation with IANA, NSI, the IAB, and other relevant
organizations from the public and private sector, a review of the root server system
to recommend means to increase the security and professional management of the
system. The recommendations of the study should be implemented as part of the
transition process; and the new corporation should develop a comprehensive security
strategy for DNS management and operations."


  Now I fail to see any stating that that CORE/POC have any specific role here.  In
fact the indications seem quite the contrary.

  Could you please post a definitive statement where anything is being moved
to an CORE/POC "Site", depending on how and what you define as a

> We have to have strategy to join "New IANA" and build new order for the Internet
> self-governance.

  Oh really?  Interesting.  When does the "WE" intend to publish such a plan?  What
involvement does this "WE" have to do with the new non-profit corporation outlined
in the White Paper?  Please enlighten us all!  >;)

> regards,
> Toru Takahashi
> --------------------------------------------------------
> TAKAHASHI Toru  toru&#167;TokyoNet.AD.JP
> http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html
> Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp.(TokyoNet)
> Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ)
> Chair of Executive Council, Asia Pacific Network Information Center(APNIC)
> Phone:+81-3-3341-6302
> Fax:+81-3-3341-2881
> Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku,
>         Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan
> ------------------------------------------------------


Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1&#167;ix.netcom.com
Received on Sat Jun 13 1998 - 05:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC