GTE to acquire Genuity

Gordon Cook cook at netaxs.com
Fri Nov 14 15:58:59 UTC 1997


Rather than speak ONLY to the facts, Rodney can't resist some very nice
name calling and personal attacks because my criticism has obviously
offended him. And regardless of what an outsider to the internet might
think his motives were of course pure.  Let
the record speak for itself and let the discussion be taken off line and
NANOG be returned to operational matters.

Here, in full, is what I published in my sept 97 issue.

On July 13 Rodney wrote privately to us but for publication:  I've been
mulling over your request, and I'm not sure how best to answer it. One of
the misnomers about Genuity is that we're a start up. You'll actually find
that we were one of the 22 direct connects to the CIX router in Santa
Clara already in May of 1994, so I'd hardly call Genuity a start up.
Although we were certainly the smallest, or one of the smallest (Jamie
Saker out of Wisconsin at Synergy was probably a similar size), we were
very much in business before the Internet truly became mainstream.

Anyway, our early allocations were a couple of /24s, and then a 19/. We
had to plead with Kim Hubbard for another 19/, but were successful in
getting it only when we promised to be frugal in sub-allocations (she
didn't ask for empirical evidence). Then Genuity came in to being
(December 1995 when I sold 75% of the company to Bechtel).

At that stage, or soon after, things tightened up. We really didn't have
our act together as far as swipping address space that we had allocated to
customers, and we began to run out of space. At the NANOG held in DC in
1996 all of our pleading with Kim fell on deaf ears.... Justifiably on her
part (although at the time I felt a 2 x 4 was the best method of improving
her hearing). So I approached everyone I could for help, including Paul
Vixie and Jon Postel. Jon was very helpful, cuffing me around the ears and
telling me to go away and do what the NIC wanted everyone to do, and to
set an example. So, all of our Network Engineering staff got together, and
over the course of a week built all the audit tools needed, and SWIPd all
the addresses we had allocated, developed an ongoing plan and architecture
for allocating address space, then went back to Kim for more space.

Kim looked at the SWIP data, tested the integrity, and then agreed to
allocate us more address space in segments, but only if we agreed to
return the address space we already had if we wanted to get contiguous
space allocated (I am a big believer now in CIDR). We have stuck to this
religiously, and have only been turned down twice since then when we have
asked for more address space (we had to tighten up more of our sub
allocations). So we have not really seen any effect of RFC 2050 (I don't
think) because we were already being very conservative before it was
published.  We maintain a very strict regime with our customers, and
actually, although our customers are all corporate users, we commonly
allocate /27s to them if they cannot justify more space.

Jon Postel as a 
Genuity Board Member

You asked how Jon Postel came to be on our board. As far as I know, it is
the only board he sits on. He sits in one of my two board positions. He
helps me provide the Internet's view to the Bechtel side of the board, so
that the decisions they make are for the Internet, not against it. He
helps me lend weight to making sure that we help, not hurt. We've funded
well into 6 figures of software development through Vixie and Associates.
Jon helped make sure that the board understood that making the
applications 'freeware' and public domain was a 'good' thing.  Hence
"Vulture" and " Vulture 2" and Turk, which are available from Vixie's home
page, and are used by many. Also we've ended up funding indirectly some of
the other stuff that Paul does, related to bind, etc.

Jon made it clear, as part of his involvement in  our board, that his
connection with IANA etc would be one way - he would be looking for a flow
of help in the other direction only. We've sponsored ISOC at the fullest
level because of him, we provide significant services to ISI, JPL,
CalTech, and USC, and on the other hand we have disqualified ourselves
from opportunities where his influence might have helped (We will *not* be
applying/bidding to be one of the registrars in the new TLD world unless
it is clear that the decision making process can be shown demonstrably to
be untainted by any connection - currently unlikely).
 
The interesting thing is that Jon has helped make us a good net citizen in
an environment where one would believe that a privately held company with
very deep pockets could have instantly become a major force for the 'dark'
side.

You would have to ask Jon for his full motivation, but I will tell you
that you can spend as much time combing through the records as you want,
and you will see that all the apparent advantages have accrued on the
Internet's side. From our side, we have managed to build a solid business,
based on pretty strong morals and principles, and have attracted some
pretty good people who also appreciate the fact that we are able to
operate without having to look over our shoulders. Jon was instrumental in
this.

By the way, on the few occasions that I have asked Jon questions where he
felt a conflict, he has had no hesitation in telling me so. I have
respected that. I'd say that Genuity owes some significant part of its
success to being guided well by Jon in the good ways of the Internet. And
overall I think I can say that the net itself is a better place. [Editor:
Unfortunately, we did not recall, until we were going to press, that the
member of a Board of Directors of a corporation has a legal, fiduciary
reponsibility to that corporation. Thus, contrary to Rodney's assertion
about Jon's insisting that his membership not benefit Genuity, it could be
said that, if Jon had information about an action that he would take as
IANA, and he did not disclose it to Genuity, he might be acting in
violation of his legal, fiduciary responsibility to Genuity. If Jon served
on an advisory board, this liability would vanish. Unfortunately the web
page http://www.genuity.net/about_genuity/officers.html makes it very
clear he is a full member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. We
see this as one more example that, filled with good intentions as he may
be, Jon has gotten in over his head.]

=========
November 14, 1997:  since sensitivities are so raw let me make a couple
more things perfectly clear.  It is my understand that among the original
generation of internet founders Jon has likely profited from his full
time dedication to the network far less than any one else.  I have talked
with a lot of people who for various reasons are unhappy with things that
Jon has recently done.  However not once has anyone person ever suggested
that jon did anything for his personal benefit or profit.

NEVERTHELESS:  with the internet now a multi billion dollar a year global
industry, the same informal standards of operation for IANA that served
the internet well up to a couple of years ago are likely inadequate.  IANA
is perhaps the most critical set of functions in the entire network.  the
idea that one fallable human being like Jon - however well intentioned he
may be and I am sure that he is well  intentioned - can be both decision
maker and court of last resort on issues as contentious as IP allocation
and DNS - is an idea that is losing credibility.  Given the last two years
of DNS wars - if I may be allowed to have an opinion of MY own - it is
especially important that, operating in an arena where most people no
longer know him personally, Jon must take great care to avoid even the
APPEARNCE of any conflict of interest.

************************************************************************
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://cookreport.com/
Internet: cook at cookreport.com             New Special Report: Internet
Governance at the Crossroads ($175)  http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml
************************************************************************


On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Rodney Joffe wrote:

> Gordon,
> 
> I have to admit that you're right. You really do have all the answers,
> and you really do know it all.
> 
> I guess the fact that there are only two shareholders in Genuity, me and
> Bechtel, both of whom know exactly what Jon could and couldn't do, and
> who accepted his conditions when he joined the board, is unimportant.
> And the fact that Jon knew this, and understood that his fiduciary
> responsibility in this area was subject *only* to the shareholders, both
> of whom assured him in terms that he was prepared to accept that they
> would *not* expect him to or ask him to _abuse_ his position  of trust
> outside of Genuity to assist Genuity unfairly, is irrelevant.
> 
> Gordon, I have never been able to quite fathom out why you chose this
> industry to attempt to make a living, and not the same industry as the
> National Enquirer. I think you've missed your calling. I only hope your
> clients realise the true value of your reporting. 
> 
> So that others are privy to the same information that I gave you, let me
> be specific ( and remember, I don't owe ANYONE an explanation, but I
> want to undo the damage that your buffoonery has caused);
> 
> Bechtel never really had to make a choice about whether Jon joined the
> board or an advisory board. I nominated him to the board as one of *my*
> representatives. They didn't know Jon from a hitchiker before this. I
> wanted someone clueful to help me guide Genuity along a *good* path, and
> away from the dark side (obviously I passed on asking you). I think I
> can proudly say that Genuity has been an exemplary internet citizen (I,
> of course, may not have been). 
> 
> So when you attempt to to wind people up with your paranoia, you do
> someone who has done a lot of good for the Internet over *many* years a
> grave injustice. Fortunately I care more about what honest, good people
> like Jerry Scharf says, than I do about what you say. If I didn't, I'd
> probably spend some real energy telling you what I really think.
> 
> Does anyone know if Paul's RBL works on a single netaxs address?
> 
> Rodney Joffe
> Chief Technology Officer
> Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company
> http://www.genuity.net
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook at netaxs.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, November 13, 1997 11:38 PM
> > To:	Jerry Scharf
> > Cc:	nanog at merit.edu
> > Subject:	Re: GTE to acquire Genuity 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote:
> > 
> > > Gordon,
> > > 
> > > you have the way of spinning the longest line of crappy conjectures
> > into a 
> > > proposal of irresponsibility. 
> > 
> > false:   you should read what i wrote more carefully before you fly
> > publicly off t he handle.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm sure you could spin an equally long chain of 
> > > things into a reason why no one from the IAB or IETF ADs should have
> > anything 
> > > at stake with the industry they help direct. 
> > 
> > 
> > So IANA has no special powers?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > For this particular case, there 
> > > are facts to prove your conjecture flawed.
> > > 
> >  wrong because you misread my conjecture.
> > 
> > 
> > > I was consulting at Genuity when then needed to do their initial IP
> > address 
> > > gathering for their new network. They sent in a proposal to Kim, and
> > Kim told 
> > > them no. Rodney was very upset at the time, but there was never any 
> > > interference by the IANA. When Genuity provided better documentation
> > and 
> > > cleaned up some things, then they got address blocks like anyone
> > else.
> > > 
> > 
> > May I quote what you over looked:  Now I am confident that he has not
> > used
> > his position to give special benefit to  genuity. 
> > 
> > and later in the same post:  Rodney Joffe explained to me in very
> > glowing
> > terms this summer why jon
> > was on the 'board"  his explanation sounded fine. 
> > 
> > Further explanation - Rodney Joffe told me precisely the same story
> > which
> > i published verbatim.....and more besides.....  jon came out pure as
> > the
> > driven snow
> > 
> > 
> > > At least judge Jon by his actions, not by your inferred doubt. The
> > evidence is 
> > > that when put in the exact situation you feared, the IANA acted by
> > not acting. 
> > > Genuity was not harmed financially by this (I think even Rodney will
> > now admit 
> > > that) so there is no damage to be fretted about. Certainly there
> > will be a 
> > > tidy profit to Bechtel and the other founders of Genuity.
> > > 
> > 
> > I never suggested genuity was harmed.   I do state that one of the
> > senior members of the community who knows the laws of the fiduciary
> > legal
> > responsibility of members of boards of directors far better than I
> > pointed out that he believed it possible that a genuity stock holder
> > who was aware of jons proper from the internet point of view, could
> > have
> > taken legal action against jon for NOT making a decision that
> > benefitted
> > genuity and using his powers to act for the fiduciary benefit of the
> > company of which he was a director and for which he had such a legal
> > responsibility.
> > 
> > now I am a r ussian history Phd....read trained as an academic....as
> > is
> > jon.....and most academics aren't terribly aware of these
> > nuances.....so I
> > can understand jon's accepting the directorship.
> > 
> > guess my bitch is why would the presumably legally savvy business
> > staff
> > of genuity/bechtel have put jon however unwittingly into such a
> > position?.
> > 
> > I have been told be those who are also my seniors, that Jon is and
> > "icon"
> > and when one critcizes him one can expect all hell to break
> > loose....looks
> > like my seniors were right.....but it also looks like I owe him no
> > apology.
> > 
> > and before you continue your flame I hope you will look more carefully
> > at
> > what I am saying.
> > 
> > > I believe you owe Jon a personal apology for this.
> > > 
> > > jerry
> > > 
> > > 
> > ======================
> > read my original post more carefully this time.
> > 
> > Last time i looked Jon postel was still on genuity's board.  It is my
> > understanding that this gives him a LEGAL responsibility  to act in
> > the
> > best financial interests of genuity.  Seems to me this creates a
> > conflict
> > of interest given what with his powers as IANA he could do to benefit
> > genuity with IP allocations etc.  Now I am confident that he has not
> > used
> > his position to give special benefit to  genuity.  but I am also told
> > that
> > he could be regarded as culpable for not having helped them out when
> > it
> > could be argued he had the power to do so.  This is a distinction that
> > I
> > was slow to grasp and one that jon with a research rather than a
> > business
> > background might also be slow to grasp.
> > 
> > Rodney Joffe explained to me in very glowing terms this summer why jon
> > was on the 'board"  his explanation sounded fine.  Point is Jon could
> > have
> > had the same impact as a special advisor to the board.  one wonders
> > why
> > genuity bechtel attornies that could be expected to be aware of these
> > issues went with the board choice anyway.
> > 
> > does jons board position disappear when genuity is fully acquired?   i
> > would hope so.
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list