Authority over IANA & IP #s was Re: 126.96.36.199/22
stjohns at ARPA.MIL
Sat Sep 23 04:24:22 UTC 1995
At 23:20 9/22/95, Guy T Almes wrote:
> Nice paper, but I think you're seriously off on the recompete of the NIC.
>It was more like 1992 rather than '88 as you write. Given the way the
>Internet changes character each year, that was quite a difference.
> Note one parallel with the current DNS fee debate: during the period
>(roughly) 1987 to 1993, the NSFnet EDU community depended on a NIC that was
>accountable to the DoD. There were examples of friction that resulted, but
>things were mostly quite amacable.
> Now the private-sector COM/ORG community is having to put up with
>vestigial accountability structure oriented around the NSF. There will be
>some friction, and there will be some patience, and there will be progress.
> -- Guy
You're correct mostly - my dates are off on that one issue - I should have
reread the paragraph. Unfortunately, none of these events are point
The beginnings of the recompetition started in 1988 before I left DDN, the
actual award didn't happen until around the date you mentioned. But, it
was known this was going to happen and the DOD was getting increasing
concerned about paying for all those non-DOD registrations. This resulted
in a number of discussions with NSF which eventually resulted in the
Internic solicitation. The seeds were planted in 1988, but took quite a
while to grow.
As I recall (possibly faultily), the DDN NIC recompetition completed and
resulted in contract award sometime before the Internic contract was
awarded - this happened after I left DDN. I think the actual award of the
replacement DDN NIC contract was 91 - my language is misleading. By Sept
1989 (when I left DDN), the SRI contract had been placed on year by year
extension pending getting a whole lot of issues in line.
More information about the NANOG