From touch at ISI.EDU Tue Aug 19 17:01:23 2003 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:01:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] forwarded post - need help on history of A-Root server's delegation Message-ID: <3F42BA53.1060101@isi.edu> (forwarded on behalf of charles.simon at cigref.fr) PS - some gaps inserted by my rewrapping tool; blame me if they're in the wrong place -- Joe Touch Postel Center Director USC/ISI ------------------------------- > Hi, > > I'm new here so please forgive me if I break any written or unwritten > rules (didn't find any of those 2 on the website anyway). English is > also a foreign language to me so pardon my French. > > I'm currently working at the Cigref which is a French CIO's > association (www.cigref.fr). Some of you may know my boss, S?bastien > Bachollet, as he is the one reviewing the latest gTLDs' > introduction's process for ICANN (fell free to flame on). At the > moment, I'm finishing a short paper on the Internet for our members > to get a clue on what ICANN and other Internet's actors do and do > not. As we were reviewing the latest version of our work, one > question rose: who gave NSI/VeriSign the authority to manage the > A-Root server? > > After 3 days working on it, I came up with a little story and I'd need > someone to validate it. I Hope some of you could help me out. > > So here goes the story as I get it based on official documents and > some quick e-mails with people from AT&T. > > In 1998, the Internet Green and White Papers state that "currently, > NSI operates the A root server" but it is merely a fact, it does not indicate when the delegation first took place. Then the Amendment 11 > to the Cooperative Agreement Between NSI and the U.S. Government > authorized NSI's continued operation of the primary root server. It > looks and tastes like a renewal of delegation from the USG to NSI > but, then again, it doesn't say when the A Root server's management > was delegated in the first place and, most importantly, by whom. > > I found some writings saying the A root server's delegation to NSI > came down from the NSF/NSI Agreement (Cooperative Agreement NO. > NCR-9218742) effective from January 1, 1993 on. Someone who was part > of InterNIC on behalf of AT&T also thinks it came down from there. He > remembers the first day of operation as being 4/1/1993 with > presentations later at the IETF plenary session in Columbus. I > couldn't check it myself, the Columbus meeting was the 26th meeting > of the IETF and the proceedings served on IETF's site start only with > the 29th one. > > What bugged me in this story was that the Cooperative Agreement only > aim at registration services and, on October 19, 1992, in the course > of discussing its agreement with the NSF, NSI published a so-called "Proposal for Network Information Services Manager(s) for NSFNET and NREN" which led to InterNIC to be formed (see it there: > http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/dns-control/rs.internic.net/nsf/nis/proposal-toc.html). > > In this proposal, it is said (see section K of the proposal): "Network > Solutions [...] manages the domain root server for the entire > Internet". > > So I guess they meant the root system, right? So it mean NSI manage > the root system before 1993, still right? At the same time, somewhere > else in the proposal (Appendix B), it is said NSI was only a > subcontractor to Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and > handled the root system for military uses. After scratching my head > quite a bit, I came to the conclusion the meaning of some terms used > in the Cooperative Agreement changed in the course of time. Like the > term "registration" was pretty much wider at the time that it is > today so it mislead me to wrong conclusions when reading the > Cooperative Agreement. The result of the Cooperative agreement was > indeed to delegate the root's management to NSI directly and for > non-military uses when NSI did actually manage it before but under > indirect contract with the DISA and for military uses. > > This theory goes along quite well with Article 3.A of the Agreement ("The Awardee shall provide to non-military internet users and > networks all necessary registration services (which were) previously > provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency Network > Information Center(the DISA NIC)"). > > That's the story as I got it. Can someone confirms that the facts > above are acurate and possibly corrects what's wrong, adds up things > I forgot? > > While working on the subject, I also encountered further questions. > Back to the NSF's story, this institution only delegated 3 things in > early 1993: > > (i) Registration Services, > (ii) Director and Database Services, > and (iii) Information Services for the NSFNET. > > NSI was assigned the first job, AT&T the second, General Atomics the > third. Following NSI's proposal, the 3 delegees joined up to build up > InterNIC. In December 1994, when the Midterm Evaluation by NSF took > place, General Atomics got dismissed. Then, in december 1997, NSI got > InterNIC out of the IP allocation's loop (Amendment 7 to Cooperative > Agreement Between NSI and U.S. Government) and ARIN showed up. From > then on and until ICANN popped up, I don't know what happened. > > So, I just have 2 questions on that subject, maybe some old-timers > could answer them: > > - does someone know where to find the original agreements between > AT&T and the NSF (Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218179), General Atomics > and the NSF (Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218749)? > > - how did AT&T and NSI get along regarding InterNIC until InterNIC > was passed over to ICANN and who did what (respective jobs of NSI, > AT&T)? > > I heard AT&T trademarked InterNIC at the time and then passed it to > the DoC. If it's true and as I read somewhere else NSI tried to fly > away with InterNIC's name and homepage when ICANN jumped in, I guess > it should have been ugly at the time. Overall, Internet history is > quite a mess to me so I hope you could help me getting my ideas > straight on those few points. > > Thanks for reading this so far, I hope I'm not spamming, I sent a > previous version last week but it seems it didn't make it to the list > > Charles > > Ps: oh, also, I know root-servers' operators are generally volunteers > picked up by Postel at the time but my questions are really specific > as it seems the process for delegating the A-root is kinda special. > Thanks again.