No Subject

[nettime maillist <nettime@Desk.nl>]

>From cook@netaxs.com  Thu Apr  3 23:10:11 1997
Return-Path: cook@netaxs.com
Received: from access.netaxs.com (mail@access.netaxs.com [207.8.186.2]) by basis.Desk.nl (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA18955 for <nettime@desk.nl>; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:09:56 +0100
Received: from unix1.netaxs.com (mail@unix1.netaxs.com [207.8.186.3])
	by access.netaxs.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA14852;
	Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:14:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from cook@localhost)
          by unix1.netaxs.com (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id QAA20039; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:14:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:14:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com, nettime@Desk.nl
cc: heath@isoc.org, mitchel@nsf.gov
Subject: Is Rutkowskiis brief a pseudo brief or a real one- national security ansgle surfaces... re ARIN
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970403160938.13895e-100000@unix1.netaxs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: nettime

First a correction for my next to last sentence which was mangled in what
I sent out last night.

Tony has walked into to the White House and filled a power vacuum
against the IAHC internationalization of the network, and *for* turning it
into an american protectorate. American global capitalists can sleep well
tonight.

Second: Lets look at Tony's listing of his CV in his brief.  

2. Qualifications of the petitioner are well-known and a matter of public
record. He possesses degrees in both Electrical Engineering and Law, was
Chief of International Telecommunication Regulations and Relations Between
Members at the International Telecommunication Union, an FCC Engineer,
adjunct professor at New York Law School teaching the graduate program in
international telecommunications law, research associate at MIT, has held
industry positions with General Magic, Sprint, Horizon House, Pan American
Engineering, and General Electric, has appeared on several occasions as an
expert witness before committees of the U.S. Congress, [etc.]

Tony fails to list that for roughly two years (1994 through 1995) *HE* was
executive director of the Internet Society (ISOC). Isn't that strange? His
attacks on ISOC from early 1996 to the present are a matter of public
record. Why does he so despise the organization that he directed for more
than two years? If it was that bad why did he stay with it for so long.
The IAHC that he is so determined to destroy is an ISOC lead effort. A
less than charitable fellow might ask whether the policy recommendations
in his brief are motivated as much by his personal dislikes of ISOC as
they are by any other convictions. Why would he leave such a gaping hole
in the description of his own past?

3. Now lets look at some questions behind the version of the brief on his
web site.  Where is the formal date? Normally dates appears as part of the
caption. It is not there. Why?  Is there a single place where a document
such as this can be filed as a brief with the court? People have told me
they think not.   If it has been filled in multiple venues, why does tony
not list those venues. Is Tony's brief intended as an amicus document?
If so specifically with regard to what? Each entity involved would have
their procedures. . If this is really a filing, where then are the filing
docket numbers? Or is this just a proposal masquerading as a legal
document?  Is this a real legal brief or just a PR shot gun blast?

4. Unfortunately there is a military angle to this mess as well. I have
had some insider phone calls . I had also heard the statement made months
ago that ARPA has stood up and said that it owns IP numbers. There are
those in US DoD who have made it clear that THEIR policy objectives are to
be totally certain that in a future desert storm situation the US military
has plenty of assured IP space available to it on command.

Yet another tangled question arises from this morass. How much IP space is
enough and is the DOD feeling on this *SO* sensitive that when DoD heard
that ARIN was about to be sprung loose *IT* moved to stop that from
happening? Conjecture for sure.... But a question raised privately by
insiders who are far better connected than I am. Regardless of DoD wants
we still need an independent ARIN. However it is hard to imagine a
situation where this could not be done in a way that would be acceptable
to DoD.

The problem for the present is that these manuverings are being conducted
by the Clinton Administration behind closed doors and out of earshot of
the rest of us. If ARPA or DoD has a problem, let it come forward and say
so. Put the issues on the table and let there be public debate. 

In my opinion the reasons for a free and independent ARIN have not
changed. Nor have the reasons for getting the US gov't out from the
ridiculous mud puddle that Tony seems to have convinced it to step in. We
need credibility and trust from administration policy makers. In my
opinion such is not be found among Magaziner or his White House people or
with OMB.



************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://pobox.com/cook/
Internet: cook@cookreport.com             For NEW study: EVOLVING INTER-
NET INFRASTRUCTURE, 222 page Handbook http://pobox.com/cook/evolving.html
************************************************************************



---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@icf.de