From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Aug 7 08:02:45 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Open Call for Nominations: ASO AC, ARIN Board and Advisory Council Message-ID: ARIN is currently seeking nominations for the following positions as originally announced on July 24 and July 29, 2002: * One seat on the ASO AC from the ARIN region. Nominations may be submitted by anyone. For details: http://www.arin.net/elections/aso/callasonom.html * Two seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees. You must be an ARIN member in good standing to submit a nomination or self-nominate. For details: http://www.arin.net/elections/index.html * Five seats on the ARIN Advisory Council. You must be an ARIN member in good standing to submit a nomination or self-nominate. For details: http://www.arin.net/elections/index.html The nomination period closes at 23:59 ET, September 30, 2002. Regards, ARIN Member Services From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Aug 7 15:15:49 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Conversion Date Change -- New ARIN Database and Templates Message-ID: ARIN opened beta testing for the new version of WHOIS on June 10, 2002. Beta testing for the new database and templates was opened on June 28, 2002. With the closure of beta testing on August 2, the release of ARIN's new services was planned for Friday, August 9. To allow for an additional week of beta testing, and to ensure the best possible service product is released for your use, the conversion to ARIN's new registration services has been moved from Friday, August 9, to Friday, August 23. An updated timeline for ARIN's database and template conversion is available at: http://www.arin.net/template_conversion/index.html * Conversion tips are available. We encourage you to take advantage of this additional time to test ARIN's new registration services and get a jumpstart on updating your organization information for the new ARIN database. You may view how your company's post-converted data by visiting the beta ARIN whois server via... http://www.arin.net/tools/new_whois_help.html ... or querying to port 43 of beta.arin.net. You can find an extensive set of information about the conversion at the first URL listed above. If you have further questions about beta testing or getting a jumpstart on updating your organization information for the new ARIN database, please send email to: jumpstart at arin.net Best Regards, Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net Thu Aug 8 18:43:05 2002 From: Jill.Kulpinski at exodus.net (Jill Kulpinski) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:43:05 -0700 Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? Message-ID: > Hello, > We have had a few cases over the past few months that I would like to make sure I understand ARIN's policy regarding. I would also like to hear the opinions of the community. > > Bob wants address space, say 20 /28s that are as 'non-contiguous' as possible (ideal is unique first octet #, lesser preference is unique in second octet, etc.) in order to 'mask' themselves from the person they are querying so the recipient can not block out a range of address space and evade Bob. Bob is performing what would be considered 'good spam' but I do not think that it is necessarily my call to be the internet ethics board regarding good and bad queries. If this uniqueness is required for Bob to be successful as an enterprise...they are technically justified as there is not currently a better means of appearing random...does the Hosting Provider have justification in assignment of non-contiguous space? > > John has a server that he wants to appear to other people as 50 servers and therefore he want 50 addresses for one physical device. He is trying to access URLs that his users have specifically requested to be signed up for (i.e. newsletter type deals), but with the amount of mail John sends on behalf of his Customers from one IP to these sites, the site may block the IP from the mass mailings. Does the Hosting Provider allow multiple addresses per one physical server to assist in the distribution of mail by not flooding a site with thousands of queries from one address? > > So, is the requirement from a business perspective to mask one's address through IP randomization of different forms appropriate to accept? I am having a hard time knowing where to draw the line at saying 'nope...not good justification'. I get the response from Prospects that they can not do business without being able to appear anonymous and I do not necessarily feel okay with then telling them good-bye or recommending a different business. We have been working to come up with alternative options for these Customers, but then it gets to the point of almost designing their network architecture and systems which was not the aim. Does the community have any suggestions on technology available that can provide anonymity without using a mass amount or dis-contiguous addresses? What are the thoughts regarding this idea for justification of address space? Is there an ARIN policy that applies at this time? If not, do we need to develop one? > > Any input (constructive please) would be helpful and thanks for your time. > Jill Kulpinski > > From john at chagres.net Thu Aug 8 19:04:51 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:04:51 -0600 Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008601c23f30$07350310$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> First example Bob: Would the customer beable to justify 20 contiguous /28 ? If so, then I don't think the RIR's care if they are out of different parts of your alloc's. Its your IGP, and you aren't pushing /28's to the nets BGP.. What Bob does with those addresses is between you and Bob via your contracts and AUP. That is controlled by your general business practices. If Bob or Many Bob's do things that other private networks dont like, you may see less connectivity to those other sites. Either way its not within the RIR's area of responsiblity to say. RIR's must be limited in their scope of policy. Second Example John: Does John qualify for 50 IP's ?? Can he do what he needs with 1, 10, ?? Again, thats more an internal policy rather than an external. Some companies will hand out IP's like they grew on trees, others are more conservative. If they can meet the requirements for the RIR's allocation, thats all they need to worry about. Its not the RIR's policy to generally control this directly. A RIR can affect a certain amount of control by not issuing an allocation in the future if the requester has been wasteful. Third Example, Random IP. The technology is called DialUp :) or DSL with DHCP.... Sorry, I don't see the need to be so obfusticated, at the network layer at least.. john brown > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jill Kulpinski > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:43 PM > To: ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? > Importance: High > > > > > Hello, > > We have had a few cases over the past few months that I > would like to > > make sure I understand ARIN's policy regarding. I would > also like to > > hear the opinions of the community. > > > > Bob wants address space, say 20 /28s that are as > 'non-contiguous' as > > possible (ideal is unique first octet #, lesser preference > is unique > > in second octet, etc.) in order to 'mask' themselves from > the person > > they are querying so the recipient can not block out a range of > > address space and evade Bob. Bob is performing what would be > > considered 'good spam' but I do not think that it is necessarily my > > call to be the internet ethics board regarding good and bad > queries. > > If this uniqueness is required for Bob to be successful as an > > enterprise...they are technically justified as there is not > currently > > a better means of appearing random...does the Hosting Provider have > > justification in assignment of non-contiguous space? > > > > John has a server that he wants to appear to other people as 50 > > servers and therefore he want 50 addresses for one physical > device. > > He is trying to access URLs that his users have > specifically requested > > to be signed up for (i.e. newsletter type deals), but with > the amount > > of mail John sends on behalf of his Customers from one IP to these > > sites, the site may block the IP from the mass mailings. Does the > > Hosting Provider allow multiple addresses per one physical > server to > > assist in the distribution of mail by not flooding a site with > > thousands of queries from one address? > > > > So, is the requirement from a business perspective to mask one's > > address through IP randomization of different forms appropriate to > > accept? I am having a hard time knowing where to draw the line at > > saying 'nope...not good justification'. I get the response from > > Prospects that they can not do business without being able > to appear > > anonymous and I do not necessarily feel okay with then telling them > > good-bye or recommending a different business. We have > been working > > to come up with alternative options for these Customers, > but then it > > gets to the point of almost designing their network > architecture and > > systems which was not the aim. Does the community have any > > suggestions on technology available that can provide anonymity > > without using a mass amount or dis-contiguous addresses? > What are the > > thoughts regarding this idea for justification of address > space? Is > > there an ARIN policy that applies at this time? If not, do > we need to > > develop one? > > > > Any input (constructive please) would be helpful and thanks > for your > > time. Jill Kulpinski > > > > > From crain at icann.org Thu Aug 8 19:32:49 2002 From: crain at icann.org (John Crain) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:32:49 -0700 Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007001c23f33$eb748840$5d2300c0@VAIO> If the customer is requesting 20 */28 then he should be able to justify 20 * 16 addresses A question I would ask is how many IP's are they binding to each interface? If it's multiple (i.e. 20) then I would question the technical need. If they actually have a large network but just want to number it in this de-aggregated manner, splitting it into 20 physical subnets, then I wouldn't see an issue from an address policy side. So if he has a network that would normally require that amount of address space, i.e. because the number of hosts/interfaces to be numbered is large enough, then my opinion is that how their ISP assigns those addresses is an internal matter. An issue for their own internal routing folks. John Crain This is my own opinion only. So don't blame the people I work for! (They're just to blame for everything other issue on the planet) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jill Kulpinski > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 3:43 PM > To: ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? > > > > > Hello, > > We have had a few cases over the past few months that I > would like to > > make sure I understand ARIN's policy regarding. I would > also like to > > hear the opinions of the community. > > > > Bob wants address space, say 20 /28s that are as > 'non-contiguous' as > > possible (ideal is unique first octet #, lesser preference > is unique > > in second octet, etc.) in order to 'mask' themselves from > the person > > they are querying so the recipient can not block out a range of > > address space and evade Bob. Bob is performing what would be > > considered 'good spam' but I do not think that it is necessarily my > > call to be the internet ethics board regarding good and bad > queries. > > If this uniqueness is required for Bob to be successful as an > > enterprise...they are technically justified as there is not > currently > > a better means of appearing random...does the Hosting Provider have > > justification in assignment of non-contiguous space? > > > > John has a server that he wants to appear to other people as 50 > > servers and therefore he want 50 addresses for one physical > device. > > He is trying to access URLs that his users have > specifically requested > > to be signed up for (i.e. newsletter type deals), but with > the amount > > of mail John sends on behalf of his Customers from one IP to these > > sites, the site may block the IP from the mass mailings. Does the > > Hosting Provider allow multiple addresses per one physical > server to > > assist in the distribution of mail by not flooding a site with > > thousands of queries from one address? > > > > So, is the requirement from a business perspective to mask one's > > address through IP randomization of different forms appropriate to > > accept? I am having a hard time knowing where to draw the line at > > saying 'nope...not good justification'. I get the response from > > Prospects that they can not do business without being able > to appear > > anonymous and I do not necessarily feel okay with then telling them > > good-bye or recommending a different business. We have > been working > > to come up with alternative options for these Customers, > but then it > > gets to the point of almost designing their network > architecture and > > systems which was not the aim. Does the community have any > > suggestions on technology available that can provide anonymity > > without using a mass amount or dis-contiguous addresses? > What are the > > thoughts regarding this idea for justification of address > space? Is > > there an ARIN policy that applies at this time? If not, do > we need to > > develop one? > > > > Any input (constructive please) would be helpful and thanks > for your > > time. Jill Kulpinski > > > > > From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Aug 9 04:15:45 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:15:45 +0200 Subject: Anonymity...is it justification??? In-Reply-To: ; from Jill.Kulpinski@exodus.net at 2002-08-08 15:43:05 -0700 References: Message-ID: <20020809101545.B23869@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2002-08-08 15:43:05 -0700, Jill Kulpinski wrote: > > > So, is the requirement from a business perspective to mask one's > > address through IP randomization of different forms appropriate to > > accept? I am having a hard time knowing where to draw the line at > > saying 'nope...not good justification'. I get the response from > > Prospects that they can not do business without being able to appear > > anonymous and I do not necessarily feel okay with then telling them > > good-bye or recommending a different business. We have been working > > to come up with alternative options for these Customers, but then it > > gets to the point of almost designing their network architecture and > > systems which was not the aim. Does the community have any > > suggestions on technology available that can provide anonymity > > without using a mass amount or dis-contiguous addresses? What are > > the thoughts regarding this idea for justification of address space? > > Is there an ARIN policy that applies at this time? If not, do we > > need to develop one? The ethical implications of bypassing the ability of people to put "no solicitor" signs on their doors aside, I think doing this via network allocations has two problems: 1. You're going to totally hose the routing table. Reducing the Internet into /24's is bad enough, I shudder to think of shifting to /28's! 2. It's a hack, and doesn't *really* do what people want. It will require sysadmins and network administrators be more sophisticated in their analysis, better tools, and so on. But in the end the information is still public, in the ARIN (or RIPE or APNIC) database. There was a talk at the Ottowa Linux Symposium on IP Anonymity, even with some software: http://www.zabbo.net/cebolla/ The idea here is to create a mesh of IP tunnels, using peer-to-peer techniques. If a largish ISP with non-congiguous space allocations, or a small group of ISP's, were to set this up as a service for their customers, I think that would be a better long-term solution. It wouldn't hose the routing table, and would be very, very difficult indeed to determine the "real" origin of a packet. -- Shane Carpe Privacy From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Aug 14 09:55:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:55:16 -0500 Subject: Fw: "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget." Message-ID: <062701c2439a$385033c0$8c56fea9@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: ; ; ; ; "Richard J. Sexton" ; "Joop Teernstra" ; "Milton Mueller" ; ; ; "Joe Baptista" Cc: ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:19 AM Subject: "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget." > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04947.html > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" > "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget." > ======= > > It seems to me that you first have to get the ICANN funding and funders properly arranged. > Some do not appear to be paying "rent" for their IPv4 32-bit address space. Some also do not > appear to be properly accounting for these assets to their shareholders. As an example, each > /8 allocation is worth between $1 and $2 billion dollars, based on the ability to sub-lease the > individual IPv4 addresses at $10 per month to consumers. Those assets should appear on a > company's balance sheet and be part of the annual report. It does not appear that AT&T does > that for the following asset. > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95 > ========= > > The above asset was apparently split between AT&T and Lucent Technologies at the time > Lucent was formed and after that. That does not appear to be reflected in the above allocation. > You might want to advise the manager of 0:0 .ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA on who actually > owns that asset. > > With respect to leasing the asset, and funding ICANN, if one assumes the $1 per year per domain > name fee, that would likely fund the operation with approximately $50,000,000 per year. Assuming > that may not happen, that $50,000,000 would have to come from some other source. The management > of the 0:0 .ARPA zone would be that source. ARIN, RIPE and APNIC already pay some token > amounts for their allocations. If one assumes 250 of the 256 blocks can be leased, and charges the > same for each block, then the annual fee for AT&T (and Lucent) would be $200,000. ARIN would > of course have to pay that for each /8 they are allocated. > > In the new 128-bit DNS system, the IPv4 32-bit non-TOS=0 address space is managed in blocks > by 8 (eight) TLD managers. That spreads the management around, and makes it more stable and > immune from a single-point-of-corporate failure. It also makes it possible to manage allocations for > low-cost or no-cost. That of course is not possible with the legacy 32-bit IPv4 Internet, where assets > are controlled by a small number of companies, which have to properly account for those assets > to their shareholders, as well as the expenses related to those assets. > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > 0:0 .ARPA > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Aug 16 21:33:57 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:33:57 -0500 Subject: Fw: What does a /8 Lease For ? Message-ID: <0f7d01c2458e$27f33cc0$8c56fea9@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" Subject: What does a /8 Lease For ? > There are 16,777,216 IPv4 addresses in a /8. > Many companies lease those addresses for $10 per month. > It is common for a broker to take one month as their annual fee in the real estate market. > > Given the above...that would mean a /8 leases for $160,777,216 per year. > > Will AT&T and the other companies be prepared to pay ICANN that each year ? > ...will that be split with Lucent ? > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95 > ====== > > What about ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ? > Will they be paying that each year to ICANN for *each* of the /8s they have ? > > Does ICANN need that much revenue from Address Space Leasing with the $1 per domain per year fee? > ....which may yield ~$50,000,000 a year... > > Should domain name fees subsidize address space users ? > Why does ARIN pay ICANN and not AT&T ? > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > > From susanne.nehzaty at telia.com Sat Aug 17 06:48:57 2002 From: susanne.nehzaty at telia.com (Susanne Nehzaty) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:48:57 +0200 Subject: Adress! Message-ID: <001101c245db$b09b3030$daa743d5@yingyang> Hi! Can you plz take my adress from the adress list. I dont wont any more email. Best regard Susanne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Aug 20 16:55:36 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Proposal for Transfer of 6bone Address Management Responsibilities to RIRs Message-ID: <200208202055.QAA09664@ops.arin.net> It has been proposed that the management of the 6bone 3FFE::/16 address space be transferred to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). More information about the 6bone can be obtained at http://www.6bone.net/. At a recent 6bone meeting, Bob Fink made a proposal for this management transfer. A copy of the presentation slides are available at http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/minutes/default.htm. These presentation slides were based on the text, "Policies for transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs," provided below. Please send your comments about this proposal to the ARIN public policy mailing list (ppml at arin.net). The 6bone will be conducting a similar review within their community and we will do our best to correlate and summarize the collective responses, issues, and concerns, made in regard to this proposal. This review process will end on December 31, 2002. Best Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policies for transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs Version: 20 August 2002 1. Introduction 6bone was established in 1996 as a continuing IPv6 test bed with the original purpose of testing of standards and implementations, and the more current focus on testing of transition and operational procedures, as well as application conversion. It provides an opportunity for those wanting early experience and/or needing to experiment with IPv6, with a minimum of startup complexity, particularly in terms of address management policies, and at minimal cost. It also provides an open peer process for information, hookup help, and support, with strong ties to the IETF process as well as to the operational community. To date, 6bone address space has been allocated and registered in an informal process quite separate from the existing Regional Internet Registry system. The purpose of this proposal is to establish a long term model that provides for a more "official" home for 6bone address space management within the established Internet administrative structures. At the same time, the proposal recognizes that 6bone's most important functions as an accessible and informal test bed network must be maintained. This document proposes the transfer of responsibility for administration of 6bone address space (3ffe::/16) to the Regional Internet Address Registries (RIRs). It describes a set of policies and procedures for this transfer, and for the ongoing administration of 6bone address space within the RIR framework. It should be noted that the ongoing operation of the 6bone, and policies related to it, are still the purview of the 6bone community itself. For example, 6bone network compliance with the 6bone routing guidelines is a matter for the community itself to resolve, typically by mail lists. It is also important to continue the strongly volunteer efforts of the 6bone, both to make it as easy and friendly as possible for individuals, sites and networks to experiment and learn about IPv6, but also to keep the process streamlined and cost-effective. 2. Definitions a) "6bone" and "6bone community", as it appears in section 3 below, means 6bone organizations and individuals including the RIRs, "6bone members" (see below), and those participating in the 6bone mail list. b) 6bone members are defined as entities which are approved for address space allocation by the 6bone community in accordance with 6bone policies, and who agree to be bound by those policies and the policies stated below. c) 6bone allocations are allocations of 6bone address space which are held by 6bone members, or made to 6bone members in accordance with these policies. d) 6bone address space is defined as IPv6 address space within the 3ffe::/16 address block. 3. Policies 3.1 General a) In consultation with 6bone, RIRs will implement a common set of policies applying specifically to 6bone allocations. This will follow the current RFC2772, "6Bone Backbone Routing Guidelines" and/or successor documents resulting as an evolution of conversations in the 6bone community and the RIRs.; b) 6bone members will be served by respective RIR in their region, for "6bone Address Services" including 6bone address allocation, database registration and maintenance, and ip6.arpa registration (as described below); c) In order to receive 6bone address services from an RIR as described here, each 6bone member must "join" that RIR, that is, enter into the appropriate membership or services agreement with the RIR. d) RIR fees will be waived for 6bone address services provided by RIRs to 6bone members (but not for other services 6bone members may require), until 1 year after this agreement starts. After this time each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made. This fee simply covers registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard RIR members. This administration fee should be as low as possible as these requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation process as those requested in the normal policy environment. e) Organizations may receive 6bone address services from the RIR only on approval by 6bone, and in accordance with these policies; f) 6bone members will have the option to receive other services from an RIR (including allocation of production IPv6 address space), by following the policy, process and procedures in place at the time of application for those services. g) Continuing compliance with 6bone policies, and with the policies defined here, will be verified by 6bone at least every 2 years; 3.2 6bone Address Services a) 6bone Address Services include allocation of 6bone address space, registration and maintenance of database records relating to that address space, and registration of ip6.arpa records; b) 6bone address space allocations will be made from 3ffe::/16 and only /32 prefixes will be allocated. There will be exceptions for unusual and new proposals per joint RIR and 6bone review and approval. A relevant example of this is one or more new strategies such as geographic or metro addressing; c) No additional 6-bone address space will be allocated to any 6bone member (therefore no provision will be made for aggregation of multiple allocations, reservations etc); d) 6bone address services will be provided strictly for experimental, non-commercial use; e) Allocations will be made on the clear and stated understanding that the prefix 3ffe::/16 has a limited lifetime. The dates for the termination of allocation from the prefix and the expiration of the prefix will be determined at a future date. The RIRs will not participate in these determinations. f) 6bone address space will be returned to the RIR when no longer in use, when reclaimed due to non-compliance with 6bone or RIR policies, or when 3ffe: space is finally withdrawn. g) Registration of 6bone address space within the ip6.int zone is not covered by this policy, and is at option of 6bone member; h) Registration of 6bone sites, maintainers, persons and address space within the existing consolidated 6bone registry is not covered by this policy, and is at option of 6bone and its current policies. 3.3 Transfer of existing 6bone members a) Responsibility for existing 6bone members in respect of services described here will be transferred from 6bone to the respective RIR, at the option of those members individually, on entering into the appropriate agreement with the RIR; b) On joining the RIR, 6bone address registration records for the member concerned will be transferred from 6bone registry to the respective RIR database,; c) On joining the RIR, 6bone members may establish ip6.arpa delegation records in accordance with applicable RIR procedures; d) Legacy holders will use RIR administrative procedures for management of their records; e) There will be a sunset (2 years?) on existing 6bone members not transferring to RIR administrative procedures, after which their address allocation will be revoked. -end From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Aug 23 10:41:03 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:41:03 -0500 Subject: Fw: Is ARIN funding Merit and NANOG ? Message-ID: <054001c24ab3$1b4b3430$8c56fea9@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: ; ; ; "John Curran" ; ; ; Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; "Richard J. Sexton" ; "Richard Henderson" ; "Kristy McKee" ; ; "Joop Teernstra" ; "Joe Baptista" ; "Joanna Lane" ; ; ; ; ; "Bruce Young" ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:15 AM Subject: Re: Is ARIN funding Merit and NANOG ? > What goods and/or services does ARIN pay ICANN for ? > > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/PPM.html > ICANN: The Case for Reform: | Presentation > > ICANN President and CEO Stuart Lynn outlined the proposal for the evolution and reformation of ICANN. > > General comments: > > a.. The question was asked how does one differentiate between technical and operational in regard to the ICANN mission. This > discussion was deferred to the informal feedback session > b.. Ray Plzak announced that the RIRs were going to release 50% of the funds being held in escrow for ICANN support > c.. In response to a question, it was stated that ARIN's contribution was $242,020 > ATTENDEE ORGANIZATION > April, Benjamin Global Crossing > Apted, Lyric NTT/Verio / ARIN Advisory Council > Arano, Takashi ASO AC > Argiro, Dana Road Runner > Armstrong, Thomas Cable & Wireless > Avila, Linda Internet Texoma, Inc. > Azinger, Marla Electric Lightwave > Bacher, Jan ShawneeLink Corporation > Barger, Dave SBC Internet Services > Benjes, Paul GlobalCrossing > Bennett, Doug SaskTel > Berg, Cyndi Exodus, a Cable & Wireless Service > Binsfield, Kevin MidAtlantic Colo > Blunk, Larry Merit Network, Inc. > Bogan, Wayne Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC > Bradner, Scott ARIN Board of Trustees > Broido, Andre CAIDA/SDSC/UCSD > Brown, John M Chagres Technologies, Inc / ARIN Advisory Council > Cassidy, Jere EarthLink > Chambers, Zach EarthLink > Chan, Connie APNIC > Christell, Todd SpringNet / City Utilities > Claffy, Kimberly CAIDA/SDSC/UCSD > Clark, Robert Zen Navigation > Conley, Tim Road Runner > Conrad, David ARIN Board of Trustees > Crain, John L. ICANN > Curran, John ARIN Board of Trustees > Da Silva, Ron AOL Time Warner / ARIN Advisory Council > Darte, Bill Washington University in St. Louis / ARIN Advisory Council > Decker, Eric ASO AC > Desterdick, Mark Verizon > Devane, James Mpower Communications > Diller, Dave Cogent Communications > Dudek, Aaron Sprint > Dul, Andrew Internap Network Services > Echeberria, Raul LACNIC > Edgar, Gloria SaskTel > Fink, Robert Energy Sciences Network > Fitzgerald, Sam Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC > Forster, Reggie XO Communications > George, Sanford Los Nettos / ARIN Advisory Council > Glaser, Hartmut Richard LACNIC > Hale, Michael Cox Communications, Inc (Corporate) > Harris, Susan Merit Network > Hinman, Tanya Cable & Wireless > Howard, Lee WorldCom/ARIN Board of Trustees > Huberman, David Individual > Ito, Kosuke IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan > Jakominich Jr., Gene Broadview Networks > Johnson, Scott National Aeronautics and Space Administration > Kent, Stephen BBN Technologies > Kessens, David Nokia > Kosters, Mark VeriSign / ARIN Advisory Council > Kulpinski, Jill Exodus Communications > Lamar, Scott Charter Communications > Lamerson, Fran EDS > Langley, Shelly Qwest Communications > Lee, Louis Equinix, Inc. > Leibzon, William BizNet Communications Inc > Lord, Anne APNIC > Lynn, M. Stuart ICANN > Mader, Sabine RIPE NCC > Manning, Bill ep.net, llc / ARIN Board of Trustees > Marcus, Scott ARIN Board of Trustees > Martin, Dawn WorldCom/UUNet / ARIN Advisory Council > Martin, Kevin pair Networks, Inc / ARIN Advisory Council > McCreary, Sean Packet Clearing House > McFadden, Mark Commercial Internet eXchange > McKenzie, Alex Shaw Communications > Mead, Chuck exodus a cable & wireless service > Messano, Oscar LACNIC > Michaelson, George APNIC > Mohsin, Syed Mpower Communications > Moll, Deb Sprint > Molloy, Dennis Hanson Molloy > Narten, Thomas IBM > Paci, Noah Road Runner > Palmer, Judy SBC Internet Service > Paper, David America Online, Inc. > Park, Insik Infonet Services Corporation > Patara, Ricardo LACNIC > Pawlik, Axel RIPE NCC > Peterson, Alec CenterGate Research Group / ARIN Advisory Council > Petrovich, Heather Roadrunner > Poch, David TELUS Communications > Redisch, Jason Virtela Communications > Rendek, Paul RIPE NCC > Roberts, Lea Stanford University / ARIN Advisory Council > Robles, Oscar NIC.MX > Roseman, Barbara ARIN Advisory Council > Rudnick, Micki EDS > Ruth, Greg Genuity > Schiraldi, Mike VeriSign > Soulia, Cindy Genuity > Spears, Angel EarthLink > Sweeting, John Teleglobe / ARIN Advisory Council > Taylor, Stacy ICG NetAhead, Inc. > Thierman, Chris TELUS Communications > Tracy, Kathryn Pacific Bell Internet > Turner, Jennifer Global Crossing > Valdez, German NIC-Mexico > Ward, Avis EarthLink > Webb, Nancy National Aeronautics and Space Administration > Werner, Linda Satellite Communication System, Inc. > Whitmore, Ralph InterWorld Communications, Inc. > Whitmore, Ralph InterWorld Communications > Williams, Matthew Cox Communications, Inc (Corporate) > Wilson, Paul APNIC > Winkler, Robert APNIC > Wittbrodt, CJ Packet Design (Groovy Networks) / ARIN Advisory Council > Woodcock, Bill Packet Clearing House > Yang, Vivian APNIC > Zeibari, Greg Comcast Cable > > > ====================================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Curran" > Subject: Re: Is ARIN funding Merit and NANOG ? > > > Jim, > > ARIN does not fund either NANOG or Merit. At the ARIN Members Meeting > in April 2001, the members recommended that the Board of Trustees > provide funding support to Merit for the operation and maintenance of > the RADB. This was deemed consistent with ARIN's charter and would > benefit not only ARIN members but the Internet as a whole. The > back-to-back NANOG and ARIN meetings to be held later this year are > funded by each organization respectively. The purpose of doing this is > to provide an opportunity for more individuals to participate in the > public policy process. You are course welcome to attend either one or > both of these meetings. > > John Curran > Chairman > ARIN Board of Trustees > > =============================== > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:24 PM > Subject: Is ARIN funding Merit and NANOG ? > > > > http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/index.html > > http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html > > "2. Review level of support for outside organizations such as > > ICANN, ISOC, and Merit." > > ================================ > > http://www.nanog.org > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg02870.html > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg02860.html > > > > Is ARIN funding Merit and NANOG ? > > > > > > Jim Fleming > > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... > > http://www.ican.org/what's_new!!!.htm > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > > > > > > From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Aug 29 10:59:12 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Nominate Candidates for the ARIN Board, ARIN AC, and ASO AC Message-ID: ARIN is currently seeking nominations for the following positions as originally announced on July 24 and July 29, 2002: * One seat on the ASO AC from the ARIN region. Nominations may be submitted by anyone. * Two seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees. You must be an ARIN member in good standing to submit a nomination or self-nominate. A petition process is available to non-members. * Six seats on the ARIN Advisory Council. You must be an ARIN member in good standing to submit a nomination or self-nominate. A petition process is available to non-members. The call for nominations closes at 23:59 ET, September 30, 2002. ARIN has established a new permanent section of its website to provide election information. The main page of this section is accessible from our home page through the "ARIN 2002 Election Information" link and directly via the URL: http://www.arin.net/elections/index.html. Nomination forms can be found off this page. Regards, ARIN Member Services