NEWDOM: Re: offtopic for NANOG - do not read

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

If you can't stand the ranting on eDNS/NSI/NSF/IAHC delete this message NOW.

A simple lessons on hierarchy.


IANA is the numbering authority and the keeper of:

   Domain Name Assignments

   IP Address Assignments

   General Assignments


   MIB Repository

   MIB Interface Types

The Registries administer objects assigned to them by IANA.
The InterNIC (NSI) is just a contracted administrator for IANA
assigned objects. It is but one registry.

Others exist. (RIPE, APNIC and the keepers of the ISO TDLs)
InterNIC is paid by NSF but, as with the others, derives its
functional power from IANA. When I asked the InterNIC how to
appeal they sent back a quote from RFC2050:

Per RFC2050 -
6. Right to Appeal

If an organization feels that the registry that assigned its address
has not performed its task in the requisite manner, the organization
has the right of appeal to the parent registry.

In such cases, the assigning registry shall make available all
relevant documentation to the parent registry, and the decision of
the parent registry shall be considered final (barring additional
appeals to the parent registry's parent). If necessary, after
exhausting all other avenues, the appeal may be forwarded to IANA for
a final decision. Each registry must, as part of their policy,
document and specify how to appeal a registry assignment decision.

So the InterNIC has expressly stated that they are bound
by the rulings of IANA.

IANA has agreed to assigning domain objects based on the IAHC report.
(effectivly eliminating NSIs control over the gTDLs after a transition)
The NSF agrees and will not renew the contract with NSI.

Some argue that they can create their own way of running TDLs; they
do so without the peer review that legitimate channels provide.
Some are would-be tyrants that are attempting to usurp power by
assalting us with ranting.

Open forums for the establishment of new systems exist and can
be explored, tested, and evaluated within the stucture of IANA, IAB,
and IETF. These are the legitimate channels for establishing
new protocols and procedures.

It is NOT legitimate to flood NANOG and other forums for technical
interchange with these repeated arguments in favor of non-standard
systems. You can lobby Congress to stop what has happened, but
the United States government no longer holds all the cards.

The MoU that creates CORE (developed by the IAHC) is recognized by
the United Nation and was developed with the cooperation of two
UN agencies (ITU, WIPO), one US federal agency (FNC), three
federally and internationally recognized Internet organizations
(ISOC, IAB, IANA) and an independent international organization

This is within the bounds and scope of UN activities as defined by
the UN Charter. The Charter is treaty obligation of the United States
and falls under Article IV, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State
to the contrary notwithstanding."

So, I conclude:

Some would have you disregard:

o Contract Law
o Federal Law
o International Law

This is both illogical and irrational. The line of thinking
being propagated by those who wish to overthrow the legitimate
authorities theatens the stability of the Internet and all who
make a living from it.