From rob at MARLOWE.NET  Sat Apr 26 12:13:50 1997
From: rob at MARLOWE.NET (Rob Marlowe)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:13:50 -0400
Subject: Please send comments...
Message-ID: <16044139401646@marlowe.net>

>I find it inconsistent that people send me private comments
>about how the public ARIN discussion should operate and
>they do not make those comments in public when they
>obviously would help move the discussion forward.

Probably because anyone who disagrees with what is being proposed is
immediately flamed.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Marlowe, System Administrator                          rob at sanctum.com|
| Marlowe & Associates (813)845-0893                                        |
| P.O. Box 1058 New Port Richey, Fl 34656-1058        http://www.sanctum.com|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+



From sob at ACADEM.COM  Sun Apr 13 12:57:31 1997
From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:57:31 CDT
Subject: ARIN Discussion from Feb NANOG Notes on line
Message-ID: <199704131657.LAA05640@academ.com>

Check http://www.academ.com/nanog/feb1997/ARIN.html.

-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: sob at academ.com
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.


From JimFleming at unety.net  Wed Apr 16 16:40:52 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:40:52 -0500
Subject: FNCAC Notes
Message-ID: <01BC4A7C.915B2140@webster.unety.net>


The FNCAC <http://www.fnc.gov> met this past
Monday and Network Solutions was given a chance
to disclose their response to the IAHC proposal.

Some of that response, potentially impacts ARIN
and plans people are making to move IP allocations
into the hands of people that can be more responsive
to the Internet community.

Here is a copy of the actual response.
	http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom/0136.html

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://Register.A.Mall



From jtk at titania.net  Wed Apr 16 19:35:38 1997
From: jtk at titania.net (Joseph T. Klein)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 18:35:38 CDT
Subject: FNCAC Notes 
Message-ID: <Chameleon.861233770.jtk@monet.titania.net>

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 18:26:00 CDT
From: "Joseph T. Klein"  <jtk at titania.net>
Subject: Re: FNCAC Notes 
To: "'naipr at arin.net'"  <naipr at arin.net>, Jim Fleming  <JimFleming at unety.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <01BC4A7C.915B2140 at webster.unety.net> 
Message-ID: <Mail.861233721.16615.jtk at monet.titania.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


--- On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:40:52 -0500  Jim Fleming <JimFleming at unety.net> wrote:
> Here is a copy of the actual response.
> 	http://www.ar.com/lists/newdom/0136.html

Clearly some are threatened by the IAHC proposals. I would suggest
that IANA and (the now defunct) IAHC have clearly establish a line
of succession that, since it is recognized by 2 United Nations
agencies, must be recognized by the Federal Governerment under Treaty
and hence under article 14 of the US Constitution.

The Geni is out of the bottle, neither the DOD or the NSF can stuff
it back in.
--
From:   Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net
E-mail: jtk at titania.net  Sent:   18:26:00 CST/CDT 04/16/97

If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction
and march collectively into the future.
                      -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future



From msimmons at dcsnet.net  Wed Apr 23 04:00:00 1997
From: msimmons at dcsnet.net (Michael Simmons)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:00:00 -0800
Subject: ARIN info?
Message-ID: <25.3.41@dcsnet.net>

Where can I get more information on ARIN?


======================================================================


From jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET  Wed Apr 23 07:34:26 1997
From: jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET (Jamie Rishaw)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ARIN info?
In-Reply-To: <25.3.41@dcsnet.net> from Michael Simmons at "Apr 23, 97 00:00:00 am"
Message-ID: <199704231134.HAA08905@dilbert.iagnet.net>

http://www.arin.net/

> Where can I get more information on ARIN?
> 
> 
> ======================================================================
> 


-- 
jamie g.k. rishaw  <jamie@@iagnet.net>         Internet Access Group
Chance favors the prepared mind.       __     [http://www.iagnet.net]
DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566      \/      800:800.637.4IAGx5455


From michael at MEMRA.COM  Mon Apr 28 01:15:35 1997
From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970427221148.10613W-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

 
Here is an excerpt from the just-released Cook Report that mentions ARIN. 
Note, that these are Gordon Cook's recommendations and I don't know how
many people he has consulted about them, so please do not fly off the
handle and start accusing people. I'm posting this here because I'd like
to see some THOUGHTFUL public comment. On to the quote...

   (4)  ARIN needs to be formed immediately. (5) ARIN RIPE and APNIC need
   to act swiftly to form the global Council of IP Registries, and (6) 
   this Council needs to appropriate for itself the IANA functions and to
   found them in a legal charter.

If you want more info on the Cook Report, you can find it at
http://cookreport.com/

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com



From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 10:32:17 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:32:17 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970427221148.10613W-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
Message-ID: <3364B4F1.54C9@wahl.com>

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the just-released Cook Report that mentions ARIN.
> Note, that these are Gordon Cook's recommendations and I don't know how
> many people he has consulted about them, so please do not fly off the
> handle and start accusing people. I'm posting this here because I'd like
> to see some THOUGHTFUL public comment. On to the quote...
> 
>    (4)  ARIN needs to be formed immediately. (5) ARIN RIPE and APNIC need
>    to act swiftly to form the global Council of IP Registries, and (6)
>    this Council needs to appropriate for itself the IANA functions and to
>    found them in a legal charter.
> 
> If you want more info on the Cook Report, you can find it at
> http://cookreport.com/
> 
> Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
> Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
> http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com


Arin does not need to be formed immediately.  Determining what 
entity/entities will be responsible for the allocation of a finite 
resource such as IP addresses should not be done with haste by a few 
industry participants on a listserv.

The numbering issue should be addressed by an Internet industry council 
that has been established through a process ensuring public 
accountability for any action.  One example of a successful council for 
dealing with numbering issues is the North American Numbering Council 
(NANC), which deals with telephone numbering issues.  The NANC was 
established with the oversight of the FCC and is subject to public 
notice and comment procedures with regard to major action involving 
substantial questions of telephone industry numbering policy.

Some will argue that a U.S. council such as the NANC will not work for 
the Internet because the Internet is a global medium. However, the 
telephone system was global a long time before the Internet 
emerged, and the NANC does very well in handling the numbering issues 
for North America.

The U.S. Internet industry does not have to do things the way they are 
done in Europe with regard to registries.  The industry does need to 
make sure that the numbering issues are dealt with correctly, and are 
fairly representative of a broad cross-section of the industry. 

Thus, the industry should focus on the establishment of a council such 
as the NANC for IP numbering issues, and not leave it up to the creation 
of a monopoly such as ARIN to administer a valuable and finite resource. 

This council should be created as the North American Internet Numbering 
Coucil (NAINC), which should be subject to the same notice and comment 
procedures as the NANC.  In addition, if an entity such as ARIN, or any 
other entity/entities are necessary to handle the allocation of IP 
blocks, they should be appointed by this publicly accountable NAINC, 
only after careful review and policy formulation regarding IP assignment 
standards, cost issues, etc.


Rudolph J. Geist
Counsel to the
United States Internet Providers Association (USIPA)
www.usipa.org


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 14:11:54 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53B4.AF2CD1A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 09:15:14 am
Message-ID: <199704281811.AA231941116@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:

> Here is a minimal "round table" for starters,
> in alphabetic order...
> 
> 	AlterNIC
> 	APNIC
> 	eDNS
> 	IAHC
> 	InterNIC
> 	name.space
> 	RIPE
> 

Why don't we just include groups that do IP address assignments (ie APNIC,
ARIN, RIPE & IANA, later to any other regional IP registries (ie, Africa,
Carribean, & Soth America).  I don't see any reason that the other
organizations you name should be involved.  No matter how often you try and
connect IP address assignments and DNS name structure, no one else wants
them linked.


--->  Phil





From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 14:17:18 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:17:18 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53D6.800EEDA0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 9:11 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ 
@ > Here is a minimal "round table" for starters,
@ > in alphabetic order...
@ > 
@ > 	AlterNIC
@ > 	APNIC
@ > 	eDNS
@ > 	IAHC
@ > 	InterNIC
@ > 	name.space
@ > 	RIPE
@ > 
@ 
@ Why don't we just include groups that do IP address assignments (ie APNIC,
@ ARIN, RIPE & IANA, later to any other regional IP registries (ie, Africa,
@ Carribean, & Soth America).  I don't see any reason that the other
@ organizations you name should be involved.  No matter how often you try and
@ connect IP address assignments and DNS name structure, no one else wants
@ them linked.
@ 
@ 
@ --->  Phil
@ 
@ 
@ 
@ 
@ 

The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
they are linked via that tie...

The Registry Industry is a business, they are linked
via that...

Once this industry matures, you might be able to
pull them apart...there are pros and cons to doing that...

====

Example:

In many States, drivers licenses and license plates
for cars are handled by the same "agency". Why ???
It makes for better efficiency and service to the
consumers and similar expertise is involved in the
car licensing business...

Sure car licenses could be in one agency, drivers
licenses in another and car titles in a third. The
question is why ?

=====

In the case of ARIN, it boils down to people's desire
to continue to fund "control freaks" to handle part
of the business of Internet resource allocation rather
than allow the function to be distributed.

In my opinion, the general public is not properly
served by the ARIN scam which would be like saying
anyone can get a driver's license but car licenses
will be tightly controlled and still part of the "good old
geek" network...

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 15:08:25 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:08:25 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:17:18 CDT."
             <01BC53D6.800EEDA0@webster.unety.net> 
References: <01BC53D6.800EEDA0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <199704281908.PAA15672@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:17:18 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
> The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
> they are linked via that tie...
> 
> The Registry Industry is a business, they are linked
> via that...

Hmm.. so what you are saying is that since dog grooming is a business,
and copper ore mining is a business, that the two are linked? ;)

> ====
> 
> Example:
> 
> In many States, drivers licenses and license plates
> for cars are handled by the same "agency". Why ???
> It makes for better efficiency and service to the
> consumers and similar expertise is involved in the
> car licensing business...

Ahh..  but similar expertise is  *also* required for handling of deeds
and titles to  real estate, and  for dog licenses.  Therefor the local
county courthouse should take over car and driver licenses as well.

> In my opinion, the general public is not properly
> served by the ARIN scam which would be like saying
> anyone can get a driver's license but car licenses
> will be tightly controlled and still part of the "good old
> geek" network...

You have a level of indirection error here. Yes, anybody can
get a driver's license (more or less).  However, what is being
tightly controlled here is *NOT* the obtaining of car liscenses
themselves, it's the franchise to run your own business to
issue car liscenses.

Anybody can have a dollar bill.  But the right to print more
dollar bills is strictly controlled.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Engineer
				Virginia Tech


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970428/a446a24b/attachment.bin

From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 15:13:25 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53D6.800EEDA0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 01:17:18 pm
Message-ID: <199704281913.AA251294807@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
> they are linked via that tie...
> 

Thats one of the many places we disagree.  Businesses are not fair.  They
tend to compete and want to increase their business.  There is a long
history of independent, tecnically competent indiviudals and organizations
performing regulatory type assignments.  IP address allocation should be
done that way.  (For example, most corporations have board members that are
not employees of the company, to help balance the board.)  Trying to have
people with a financial interest control the allocation goes against this
principle and goes against the principles of openness and fairness which
have brought the Internet to where it is.

> The Registry Industry is a business, they are linked
> via that...
> 
> Once this industry matures, you might be able to
> pull them apart...there are pros and cons to doing that...
> 

Once again, I (and many many others)don't believe that it is wise to link
them to begin with.  I know you have proposed an elaborate scheme to try
and make your registry scheme work which involves significantly increasing
costs to the consumer, but I don't agree with it and don't support it.

> ====
> 
> Example:
> 
> In many States, drivers licenses and license plates
> for cars are handled by the same "agency". Why ???
> It makes for better efficiency and service to the
> consumers and similar expertise is involved in the
> car licensing business...
> 
> Sure car licenses could be in one agency, drivers
> licenses in another and car titles in a third. The
> question is why ?
> 

The functions you quote above require no congnative abilities.  When you
come into get a drivers license or register a car the clerk doesn't have to
make any decisions as the whether you  are going to get the license
renewed.  You are trying to claim that all registration activities should
be handled by the same people, even though they have vastly different
criteria  when evaluating and granting in those activities.

You will not that you can't do numerous other government registration
activities where you get your drivers license?  Why can't you register your
child for a social security number there?  

Another question is why can't I submit applications for building permits
where I submit application for land devlopement?  They are close to the same
thing and are both applications.  Well one is evaluated by an expert in
building codes, wiring, plumbing, etc, while the other is evaluated by
engineers who understand road construction, drainage requirements, traffic
flow patterns, etc.


> =====
> 
> In the case of ARIN, it boils down to people's desire
> to continue to fund "control freaks" to handle part
> of the business of Internet resource allocation rather
> than allow the function to be distributed.
> 

Your characterization of people who do not want the IPv4 address space
traded like a commodity is your own to make, but it is not universally
shared.  

> In my opinion, the general public is not properly
> served by the ARIN scam which would be like saying
> anyone can get a driver's license but car licenses
> will be tightly controlled and still part of the "good old
> geek" network...

If there was a limit to the number of possible car licenses and no further
cars could be manufactured when they ran out, then they should be
regulated.  When the highway department puts in HOV lanes (CIDR blocks)to
enncourage car pooling is that the good old boys network at work?  When
they do flow metering to slow down onramps to the highway to avoid traffic
jams is that some evil plot?

Please provide any documented cases where the "good old geek" network has
refused an address allocation request for any other than technical reasons
or have been arbitrary or capricious or unfair.  And no, people whining
because the NIC's require actual thought in the design of a network or
implementing slow start do not count.

> 
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> http://www.Unir.Corp
> 
> Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall
> 
> 

--->  Phil





From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 15:25:32 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:25:32 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53E0.0817F9E0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
<snip>

@ Please provide any documented cases where the "good old geek" network has
@ refused an address allocation request for any other than technical reasons
@ or have been arbitrary or capricious or unfair.  And no, people whining
@ because the NIC's require actual thought in the design of a network or
@ implementing slow start do not count.
@ 

Why do people always ask for the "NO" cases...

What about the "YES" cases....???
What about the cases where companies are
given a "pass" because someone "knows" someone
or because the "right" consultant is hired...


--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 15:50:13 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53E0.0817F9E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 02:25:32 pm
Message-ID: <199704281950.AA263567014@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> @ Please provide any documented cases where the "good old geek" network has
> @ refused an address allocation request for any other than technical reasons
> @ or have been arbitrary or capricious or unfair.  And no, people whining
> @ because the NIC's require actual thought in the design of a network or
> @ implementing slow start do not count.
> @ 
> 
> Why do people always ask for the "NO" cases...
> 
> What about the "YES" cases....???
> What about the cases where companies are
> given a "pass" because someone "knows" someone
> or because the "right" consultant is hired...
> 
> 

Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
*shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
because someone knows someone.)

(BTW the reason people ask for the no cases is because they logically
disprove a theory.  Yes cases can be helpful but they can't really prove a
theory.  But I was starting to speak of logic here, I digress.)


--->  Phil


From waz at ENTERACT.COM  Mon Apr 28 15:59:35 1997
From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Tracy Snell)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:59:35 GMT
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53E0.0817F9E0@webster.unety.net>
References: <01BC53E0.0817F9E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33690154.250063133@smtp.enteract.com>


On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:25:32 -0500, you wrote:

>On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
><snip>
>Why do people always ask for the "NO" cases...
>
>What about the "YES" cases....???
>What about the cases where companies are
>given a "pass" because someone "knows" someone
>or because the "right" consultant is hired...

Why don't you ever answer questions? 

All you ever post is lots of paranoid, schizophrenic fantasies.


-- 
Tracy Snell
EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity
www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com
(312) 248-8511


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 15:55:17 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:55:17 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53E4.30A37980@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:50 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ > <snip>
@ > 
@ > @ Please provide any documented cases where the "good old geek" network has
@ > @ refused an address allocation request for any other than technical reasons
@ > @ or have been arbitrary or capricious or unfair.  And no, people whining
@ > @ because the NIC's require actual thought in the design of a network or
@ > @ implementing slow start do not count.
@ > @ 
@ > 
@ > Why do people always ask for the "NO" cases...
@ > 
@ > What about the "YES" cases....???
@ > What about the cases where companies are
@ > given a "pass" because someone "knows" someone
@ > or because the "right" consultant is hired...
@ > 
@ > 
@ 
@ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
@ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
@ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
@ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
@ because someone knows someone.)
@ 

would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 16:25:56 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53E4.30A37980@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 02:55:17 pm
Message-ID: <199704282025.AA274739159@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> @ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
> @ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
> @ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
> @ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
> @ because someone knows someone.)
> @ 
> 
> would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???
> 

Do you know anything of both Internet history and IP?  In its early life I
only had 8 bit network numbers and 24 bit host addresses, then we got
classes (A/B/C/D/E) and the we got subnets, and then we got supernets
(CIDR).  MIT and all the other universities and companies who were part of
early IP research have class A's because thats all there were when they
joined the game.  To be clear, all of the assignments were *fair*.
Criteria change over time.  MIT did not get 18/8 because Jeff Schiller is
Jon Postels nephew or some such nonsense.  They happened to be the 18th
network to join the arpanet (more or less).

I can't build a building to 1970 standards because the building next door
was built in 1970.  In the late 80's and early 90's people got /16 networks
relatively easy.  Did they know people or was it a good old boys network
because they require significantly more justification now?

Lets have some facts based in truth and not conspiracy whispers.

--->  Phil



From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 16:26:10 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:26:10 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53E8.80C455C0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
@ > they are linked via that tie...
@ > 
@ 
@ Thats one of the many places we disagree.  Businesses are not fair.  They
@ tend to compete and want to increase their business.  There is a long
@ history of independent, tecnically competent indiviudals and organizations
@ performing regulatory type assignments.  IP address allocation should be
@ done that way.  (For example, most corporations have board members that are
@ not employees of the company, to help balance the board.)  Trying to have
@ people with a financial interest control the allocation goes against this
@ principle and goes against the principles of openness and fairness which
@ have brought the Internet to where it is.
@ 

Is this the system that has MIT sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?

Is this the system that has Stanford sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?

Is this the system that has BBN with 3/256ths of the address space ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 16:27:28 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:27:28 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53E8.AF8CF560@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:25 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > @ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
@ > @ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
@ > @ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
@ > @ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
@ > @ because someone knows someone.)
@ > @ 
@ > 
@ > would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???
@ > 
@ 
@ Do you know anything of both Internet history and IP?  In its early life I
@ only had 8 bit network numbers and 24 bit host addresses, then we got
@ classes (A/B/C/D/E) and the we got subnets, and then we got supernets
@ (CIDR).  MIT and all the other universities and companies who were part of
@ early IP research have class A's because thats all there were when they
@ joined the game.  To be clear, all of the assignments were *fair*.
@ Criteria change over time.  MIT did not get 18/8 because Jeff Schiller is
@ Jon Postels nephew or some such nonsense.  They happened to be the 18th
@ network to join the arpanet (more or less).
@ 
@ I can't build a building to 1970 standards because the building next door
@ was built in 1970.  In the late 80's and early 90's people got /16 networks
@ relatively easy.  Did they know people or was it a good old boys network
@ because they require significantly more justification now?
@ 
@ Lets have some facts based in truth and not conspiracy whispers.
@ 
@ --->  Phil
@ 
@ 
@ 

Can you explain the @Home allocation ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 16:36:12 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53E8.80C455C0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 03:26:10 pm
Message-ID: <199704282036.AA278249774@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
> @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> @ > 
> @ > The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
> @ > they are linked via that tie...
> @ > 
> @ 
> @ Thats one of the many places we disagree.  Businesses are not fair.  They
> @ tend to compete and want to increase their business.  There is a long
> @ history of independent, tecnically competent indiviudals and organizations
> @ performing regulatory type assignments.  IP address allocation should be
> @ done that way.  (For example, most corporations have board members that are
> @ not employees of the company, to help balance the board.)  Trying to have
> @ people with a financial interest control the allocation goes against this
> @ principle and goes against the principles of openness and fairness which
> @ have brought the Internet to where it is.
> @ 
> 
> Is this the system that has MIT sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
> 
> Is this the system that has Stanford sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
> 
> Is this the system that has BBN with 3/256ths of the address space ?
> 

First let me refer you to my post of a few minutes ago about IP
developmental history.  

That being said, I want to ask you a clear simple question which I
foolishly hope that you will actually answer:

Do you (and your plan) actively support evaluating current IP address
allocations and taking away earlier assignments?

That is the only implication of your statements.  Otherwise please stop
taking allocations that happend 20-25 years ago and trying to present them
as part of your reasons why the current system is flawed.


--->  Phil


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 16:47:14 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53E8.AF8CF560@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 03:27:28 pm
Message-ID: <199704282047.AA281460436@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:25 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
> @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> @ > 
> @ > @ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
> @ > @ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
> @ > @ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
> @ > @ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
> @ > @ because someone knows someone.)
> @ > @ 
> @ > 
> @ > would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???
> @ > 
> @ 
> @ Do you know anything of both Internet history and IP?  In its early life I
> @ only had 8 bit network numbers and 24 bit host addresses, then we got
> @ classes (A/B/C/D/E) and the we got subnets, and then we got supernets
> @ (CIDR).  MIT and all the other universities and companies who were part of
> @ early IP research have class A's because thats all there were when they
> @ joined the game.  To be clear, all of the assignments were *fair*.
> @ Criteria change over time.  MIT did not get 18/8 because Jeff Schiller is
> @ Jon Postels nephew or some such nonsense.  They happened to be the 18th
> @ network to join the arpanet (more or less).
> @ 
> @ I can't build a building to 1970 standards because the building next door
> @ was built in 1970.  In the late 80's and early 90's people got /16 networks
> @ relatively easy.  Did they know people or was it a good old boys network
> @ because they require significantly more justification now?
> @ 
> @ Lets have some facts based in truth and not conspiracy whispers.
> @ 
> @ --->  Phil
> @ 
> @ 
> @ 
> 
> Can you explain the @Home allocation ?
> 

Not that I did the evaluation or anything, but the way I understand it was
they presented extensive details both engineering and financial (only to
prove they had the backing to implement their technical plan) for a system
to provide IP access to millions of homes throught their cable partners,
but even then they only recieved a /14 when they requested something
larger.  It was taken from part of the class A space so they could request
more space as needed and still have a contiguous block, much the same as is
done for every other ISP.

I trust that the people evaluating the application did a fair jobs at
evaluating their request.  

Just to be clear, I also support a model that allows outside audit of the
allocation process which is why I support ARIN.  I don't believe that the
process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not
technical applications) because the information requested may be considered
proprietary by many organizations.  

--->  Phil


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 16:47:27 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:47:27 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53EB.7A38E420@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:36 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
@ > @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > @ > 
@ > @ > The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
@ > @ > they are linked via that tie...
@ > @ > 
@ > @ 
@ > @ Thats one of the many places we disagree.  Businesses are not fair.  They
@ > @ tend to compete and want to increase their business.  There is a long
@ > @ history of independent, tecnically competent indiviudals and organizations
@ > @ performing regulatory type assignments.  IP address allocation should be
@ > @ done that way.  (For example, most corporations have board members that are
@ > @ not employees of the company, to help balance the board.)  Trying to have
@ > @ people with a financial interest control the allocation goes against this
@ > @ principle and goes against the principles of openness and fairness which
@ > @ have brought the Internet to where it is.
@ > @ 
@ > 
@ > Is this the system that has MIT sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
@ > 
@ > Is this the system that has Stanford sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
@ > 
@ > Is this the system that has BBN with 3/256ths of the address space ?
@ > 
@ 
@ First let me refer you to my post of a few minutes ago about IP
@ developmental history.  
@ 
@ That being said, I want to ask you a clear simple question which I
@ foolishly hope that you will actually answer:
@ 
@ Do you (and your plan) actively support evaluating current IP address
@ allocations and taking away earlier assignments?
@ 

My plan calls for these allocations to be "converted"
not taken away.

For example, let's say people generally agree that the
routing tables can handle another 3,000 routes for /18s
allocated to ISPs. Let's say the NSF gives MIT $3,000,000
of the Internet Infrastructure Fund to develop a system
that evaluates which ISPs should get those allocations
based on some "objective criteria" and not based on who
took who to lunch.

Would MIT be able to carve those allocations out of
the /8 space it has and set up a system to help educate
ISPs and to make the allocations to the ISPs ?
Maybe MIT would require that the ISPs attend a one-week
workshop to train their people ? Could MIT host such a
work-shop ?

Would the Internet be better served by having better
educated ISPs ?
And, would ISPs be upset if they obtained their /18
block from the "MIT Registry" ?

@ That is the only implication of your statements.  Otherwise please stop
@ taking allocations that happend 20-25 years ago and trying to present them
@ as part of your reasons why the current system is flawed.
@ 

The entire IPv4 address space must be evaluated
as one space. The same rules should apply to the
entire space as much as possible.

BTW, have you ever computed what a small percentage
of the space that ISPs actually have ?
Have you computed the costs to ISPs (businesses)
for all of the InterNIC run-arounds they have endured ?
Who is going to pay for those costs ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 17:01:54 1997
From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:01:54 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:55:17 CDT."
             <01BC53E4.30A37980@webster.unety.net> 
References: <01BC53E4.30A37980@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <199704282102.RAA23912@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:55:17 CDT, Jim Fleming said:
> would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???

Check out the allocation date for that network.  At the time it happened,
it *did* make sense to do it, and there was no policy to revoke an allocation.

Remember how big the net was at that time, and what percent of the net
MIT composed, and the fact that probably *NOBODY* foresaw the sort of
growth we've seen in the last 5 years or so.

Now, can you cite a case that dates *after* the first hints that we'd
need CIDR in order to avoid a routing table explosion?

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Engineer
				Virginia Tech


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970428/9bfa2997/attachment.bin

From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 17:23:29 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:23:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53EB.7A38E420@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 03:47:27 pm
Message-ID: <199704282123.AA294332612@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> My plan calls for these allocations to be "converted"
> not taken away.
> 

Who decides who gets converted?  How do you decide it?  How to you know how
much address space MIT (in this example) is actually using?  Who does this
audit?  To carve out your 3000 /18's below you will leave MIT with exactly
-769654784 IP addresses to use.  I guess they will have to go take all of
Stanfords, BBN's and DEC's just to make up the diference.

> For example, let's say people generally agree that the
> routing tables can handle another 3,000 routes for /18s
> allocated to ISPs. Let's say the NSF gives MIT $3,000,000
> of the Internet Infrastructure Fund to develop a system
> that evaluates which ISPs should get those allocations
> based on some "objective criteria" and not based on who
> took who to lunch.
> 
> Would MIT be able to carve those allocations out of
> the /8 space it has and set up a system to help educate
> ISPs and to make the allocations to the ISPs ?

Absolutely not.  (Amazing how math actually works out)

> 
> Would the Internet be better served by having better
> educated ISPs ?

Why should anyone pay to educate ISP's?  They are businesses.  They need to
educate themselves and pay for their training.  Hey, I would prefer that my
auto mechanic was better trained and I would be better served by them
becuase of it, but should the government pay for it?  No.  Should tax
dollors pay for it?  No.

> 
> The entire IPv4 address space must be evaluated
> as one space. The same rules should apply to the
> entire space as much as possible.

I disagree.  I think any allocations made within a given time frame should
be exactly similar but we can't change history nor can we forsee the
future.  IPv6 may catch on quickly and all of the scrimping of IPv4 space
will have been useless becuase it isn't needed except for legacy systems.
We need to do the best we can go forward.

I think it would be a wonderful move for organizations with unused IP space
to donate it back to the address pool (see RFC 1917 of which I am the
author) but I can't see forcing people to do it.  And for the record BBN
has been excellent in this regard and has returned several /8's already.

> 
> BTW, have you ever computed what a small percentage
> of the space that ISPs actually have ?

Your point?  

> Have you computed the costs to ISPs (businesses)
> for all of the InterNIC run-arounds they have endured ?
> Who is going to pay for those costs ?

Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the government
run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?  

Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the parts supply
run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?

The point being, there is a cost for doing business.  If you can't handle
it then you go out of business.  Once again I don't believe that the
government should fund the inadequacy of an ISP.

--->  Phil


From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 18:12:32 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:12:32 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <199704282047.AA281460436@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <336520D0.1636@wahl.com>

Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> 
> Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> >
> > On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:25 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
> > @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> > @ >
> > @ > @ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
> > @ > @ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
> > @ > @ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
> > @ > @ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
> > @ > @ because someone knows someone.)
> > @ > @
> > @ >
> > @ > would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???
> > @ >
> > @
> > @ Do you know anything of both Internet history and IP?  In its early life I
> > @ only had 8 bit network numbers and 24 bit host addresses, then we got
> > @ classes (A/B/C/D/E) and the we got subnets, and then we got supernets
> > @ (CIDR).  MIT and all the other universities and companies who were part of
> > @ early IP research have class A's because thats all there were when they
> > @ joined the game.  To be clear, all of the assignments were *fair*.
> > @ Criteria change over time.  MIT did not get 18/8 because Jeff Schiller is
> > @ Jon Postels nephew or some such nonsense.  They happened to be the 18th
> > @ network to join the arpanet (more or less).
> > @
> > @ I can't build a building to 1970 standards because the building next door
> > @ was built in 1970.  In the late 80's and early 90's people got /16 networks
> > @ relatively easy.  Did they know people or was it a good old boys network
> > @ because they require significantly more justification now?
> > @
> > @ Lets have some facts based in truth and not conspiracy whispers.
> > @
> > @ --->  Phil
> > @
> > @
> > @
> >
> > Can you explain the @Home allocation ?
> >
> 
> Not that I did the evaluation or anything, but the way I understand it was
> they presented extensive details both engineering and financial (only to
> prove they had the backing to implement their technical plan) for a system
> to provide IP access to millions of homes throught their cable partners,
> but even then they only recieved a /14 when they requested something
> larger.  It was taken from part of the class A space so they could request
> more space as needed and still have a contiguous block, much the same as is
> done for every other ISP.
> 
> I trust that the people evaluating the application did a fair jobs at
> evaluating their request.
> 
> Just to be clear, I also support a model that allows outside audit of the
> allocation process which is why I support ARIN.  I don't believe that the
> process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not
> technical applications) because the information requested may be considered
> proprietary by many organizations.
> 
> --->  Phil


It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any 
information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address 
blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio 
spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of 
another monolpoly (Internic).

This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry 
are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP 
allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and 
unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other 
than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 18:25:05 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:25:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <336520D0.1636@wahl.com> from "Rudolph J. Geist" at Apr 28, 97 06:12:32 pm
Message-ID: <199704282225.AA013976308@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Rudolph J. Geist supposedly said:
> Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> > Just to be clear, I also support a model that allows outside audit of the
> > allocation process which is why I support ARIN.  I don't believe that the
> > process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not
> > technical applications) because the information requested may be considered
> > proprietary by many organizations.
> > 
> > --->  Phil
> 
> 
> It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any 
> information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address 
> blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio 
> spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of 
> another monolpoly (Internic).
> 

There are numerous other situations which information is kept in
confidence from the general public.  We need to encourage companies to
provide accurate technical plans, including expected growth.  Much of this
information could include items like new construction, introduction into
new business areas, etc. which could cause companies considerable financial
distress if leaked early.  Given the choice of having:

1.  The technical details private and regularly audited by an outside firm
(much like corporations have their finaincial statements audited) and
getting accurate information; or

2.  Having every evaluation open to public review and companies providing
inaccurate information or sueing the registration body when something gets
leaked.

I would definitely support option 1.

> This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry 
> are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP 
> allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and 
> unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other 
> than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
> 

Can you provide information regarding your last statement?  Who has been
descriminated against?  Bear in mind that companies who apply for space
regularly have a much better chance of submitting a complete application
with all of the needed details than someone doing it for the first time.
The IP address allocations are codified as an RFC (I forget the number off
the top of my head, RFC2050 maybe?), so once again who has not been treated
fairly?  I don't ask this as a rhetorical question, I really want to know
specifics.  


--->  Phil









From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 18:46:30 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:46:30 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC53FC.1BA82680@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 12:23 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > My plan calls for these allocations to be "converted"
@ > not taken away.
@ > 
@ 
@ Who decides who gets converted?  How do you decide it?  How to you know how
@ much address space MIT (in this example) is actually using?  Who does this
@ audit?  To carve out your 3000 /18's below you will leave MIT with exactly
@ -769654784 IP addresses to use.  I guess they will have to go take all of
@ Stanfords, BBN's and DEC's just to make up the diference.
@ 

All of the allocations would not come from
the MIT registry. I guess that was not obvious.

If there are 50 InterNIC clones created then each
clone would only have to make 60 of the /18 allocations
to the ISPs. That should not be a difficult side-line
to add to one of the operational TLD registries that
are starting to appear.

@ > For example, let's say people generally agree that the
@ > routing tables can handle another 3,000 routes for /18s
@ > allocated to ISPs. Let's say the NSF gives MIT $3,000,000
@ > of the Internet Infrastructure Fund to develop a system
@ > that evaluates which ISPs should get those allocations
@ > based on some "objective criteria" and not based on who
@ > took who to lunch.
@ > 
@ > Would MIT be able to carve those allocations out of
@ > the /8 space it has and set up a system to help educate
@ > ISPs and to make the allocations to the ISPs ?
@ 
@ Absolutely not.  (Amazing how math actually works out)
@ 
@ > 
@ > Would the Internet be better served by having better
@ > educated ISPs ?
@ 
@ Why should anyone pay to educate ISP's?  They are businesses.  They need to
@ educate themselves and pay for their training.  Hey, I would prefer that my
@ auto mechanic was better trained and I would be better served by them
@ becuase of it, but should the government pay for it?  No.  Should tax
@ dollors pay for it?  No.
@ 

OK...thanks for your viewpoint...
I wonder if the reverse is true ???

@ > 
@ > The entire IPv4 address space must be evaluated
@ > as one space. The same rules should apply to the
@ > entire space as much as possible.
@ 
@ I disagree.  I think any allocations made within a given time frame should
@ be exactly similar but we can't change history nor can we forsee the
@ future.  IPv6 may catch on quickly and all of the scrimping of IPv4 space
@ will have been useless becuase it isn't needed except for legacy systems.
@ We need to do the best we can go forward.
@ 

I think that we need to agree to disagree.
IPv6 does not solve the routing problem
and IPv4 is going to be here a long time.
There are solutions that recognize this.

@ I think it would be a wonderful move for organizations with unused IP space
@ to donate it back to the address pool (see RFC 1917 of which I am the
@ author) but I can't see forcing people to do it.  And for the record BBN
@ has been excellent in this regard and has returned several /8's already.
@ 

Just not MIT...

@ > 
@ > BTW, have you ever computed what a small percentage
@ > of the space that ISPs actually have ?
@ 
@ Your point?  
@ 

The point is that ISPs seem to be accused of
exhausting the IPv4 address space. This is just
not the case.

@ > Have you computed the costs to ISPs (businesses)
@ > for all of the InterNIC run-arounds they have endured ?
@ > Who is going to pay for those costs ?
@ 
@ Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the government
@ run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?  
@ 
@ Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the parts supply
@ run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?
@ 
@ The point being, there is a cost for doing business.  If you can't handle
@ it then you go out of business.  Once again I don't believe that the
@ government should fund the inadequacy of an ISP.
@ 

I wonder if you feel the reverse is true...?

Thanks for your comments. To summarize,
I suspect you do not mind if all of the businesses
that are trying to survive, just move forward and
get on with the tasks in front of them.

If this includes the creation of many new companies
in the Registry Industry to handle all aspects of
Internet Resource allocation, I assume that you
will not mind. After all, you more or less said they
are on their own and will get no help from you.

I wonder if the reverse is true...?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From michael at MEMRA.COM  Mon Apr 28 18:57:10 1997
From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <336520D0.1636@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970428154338.17222h-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:

> It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any 
> information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address 
> blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio 
> spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of 
> another monolpoly (Internic).

First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will
be run by its members and eventually funded by its members.

Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a
shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly
disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its
downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers
how they would feel if their network information was publicly available
to their competitors.

> This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry 
> are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP 
> allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and 
> unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other 
> than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.

This kind of statement does nothing to advance the interests of ISP's
whether they are members of your organization or not.

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com



From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 19:26:31 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC53FC.1BA82680@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 05:46:30 pm
Message-ID: <199704282326.AA031489995@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> 
> All of the allocations would not come from
> the MIT registry. I guess that was not obvious.

Your statement of:
> @ > Would MIT be able to carve those allocations out of
> @ > the /8 space it has and set up a system to help educate
> @ > ISPs and to make the allocations to the ISPs ?
> @ 

was what confused me.

> 
> If there are 50 InterNIC clones created then each
> clone would only have to make 60 of the /18 allocations
> to the ISPs. That should not be a difficult side-line
> to add to one of the operational TLD registries that
> are starting to appear.
> 

But why?  This is a function that can easily be handled by a central
entity.  I don't believe in making busy work to help launch a new
industry.  The Internet has naturally created numerous business
opportunities, why artficially create another one?

> @ > 
> @ > Would the Internet be better served by having better
> @ > educated ISPs ?
> @ 
> @ Why should anyone pay to educate ISP's?  They are businesses.  They need to
> @ educate themselves and pay for their training.  Hey, I would prefer that my
> @ auto mechanic was better trained and I would be better served by them
> @ becuase of it, but should the government pay for it?  No.  Should tax
> @ dollors pay for it?  No.
> @ 
> 
> OK...thanks for your viewpoint...
> I wonder if the reverse is true ???

I can't figure out the reverse of my statement?  Of course I will benefit
if my ISP is well informed and trained, but that is a business decision of
the ISP.  If one ISP hires more competent engineers who design a better
infrastructure then they probably pay for the better service, but
conversely have higher reliablity and hopefully generate better profits
because of it.  I don't think the government should try and subsidize
ISP's.  Hiring cheaper help is a business decision and may allow ISP's to
have higher profits, but it may not.  Thats a free market and thats what
the ISP market should be.


> 
> @ > 
> @ > The entire IPv4 address space must be evaluated
> @ > as one space. The same rules should apply to the
> @ > entire space as much as possible.
> @ 
> @ I disagree.  I think any allocations made within a given time frame should
> @ be exactly similar but we can't change history nor can we forsee the
> @ future.  IPv6 may catch on quickly and all of the scrimping of IPv4 space
> @ will have been useless becuase it isn't needed except for legacy systems.
> @ We need to do the best we can go forward.
> @ 
> 
> I think that we need to agree to disagree.
> IPv6 does not solve the routing problem
> and IPv4 is going to be here a long time.
> There are solutions that recognize this.

IPv6 will not solve the routing problem, but will solve the address
conservation problem.  The problem we face now is a doubly constrained
situation (scarcity of addresses and routing prefixes) both of which
optimize at two different extremes(For assignment efficiency we would only
have /32 routes and every IPv4 address would be used, while for routing
efficieny we want to topologically group addresses on bit boundaries into a
31 level tree.).  In IPv6 we can effectively ignore address scarcity which
makes the problem easier to solve.

> @ > 
> @ > BTW, have you ever computed what a small percentage
> @ > of the space that ISPs actually have ?
> @ 
> @ Your point?  
> @ 
> 
> The point is that ISPs seem to be accused of
> exhausting the IPv4 address space. This is just
> not the case.
> 

True, ISP's only have a small percentage of the total space, but they are
the fastest growing users of address space so it is certainly an area to
watch.  

> @ > Have you computed the costs to ISPs (businesses)
> @ > for all of the InterNIC run-arounds they have endured ?
> @ > Who is going to pay for those costs ?
> @ 
> @ Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the government
> @ run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?  
> @ 
> @ Have you computed the costs to businesses for all of the parts supply
> @ run-arounds they have endured?  Who is going to pay for those costs?
> @ 
> @ The point being, there is a cost for doing business.  If you can't handle
> @ it then you go out of business.  Once again I don't believe that the
> @ government should fund the inadequacy of an ISP.
> @ 
> 
> I wonder if you feel the reverse is true...?

Once again I don't understand what you mean by the reverse.  I run a
private consulting company and bill by the hour.  I spend countless hours
that I could be billing waiting in Doctors offices when I go in for a
checkup, in the Division of Motor Vehicles when I renew my drivers license,
in the state offices when I get my business license, filling out government
paper work etc.  I can't bill any of those hours to anyone, but they are a
price I pay for living(in some cases) or choosing to do business(in other
cases).  

> 
> Thanks for your comments. To summarize,
> I suspect you do not mind if all of the businesses
> that are trying to survive, just move forward and
> get on with the tasks in front of them.

Of course.  I work hard to make my business survive.

> 
> If this includes the creation of many new companies
> in the Registry Industry to handle all aspects of
> Internet Resource allocation, I assume that you
> will not mind. After all, you more or less said they
> are on their own and will get no help from you.

This is where we once again disagree.  I do not believe that an industry is
needed for these services and since I believe that such an industry will
only do two things:  endanger the stability of the Interent infrastructure
and drive up costs, I will oppose the creation of such a false industry
since it does not create any gain except for a few while delivering no
better service to the public.  In my mind it is no more than an attempt to
tax the Internet to line the pockets of a few.

--->  Phil


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 19:42:20 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:42:20 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC5403.E895D5A0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 2:26 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
<snip>
@ > 
@ > If this includes the creation of many new companies
@ > in the Registry Industry to handle all aspects of
@ > Internet Resource allocation, I assume that you
@ > will not mind. After all, you more or less said they
@ > are on their own and will get no help from you.
@ 
@ This is where we once again disagree.  I do not believe that an industry is
@ needed for these services and since I believe that such an industry will
@ only do two things:  endanger the stability of the Interent infrastructure
@ and drive up costs, I will oppose the creation of such a false industry
@ since it does not create any gain except for a few while delivering no
@ better service to the public.  In my mind it is no more than an attempt to
@ tax the Internet to line the pockets of a few.
@ 


By your logic there is no need for ARIN.

Why would people create a "false" company
which exists primarily to collect dues and other
fees to pay a couple of people to jet set around
the world on exotic vacations and unlimited
expense accounts ?

The ISOC already does that, does the Internet
need another boondoggle organization ?

Why not just allow the IP allocation duties to
get picked up across the distributed Registry
Industry that is already growing ? Centralized
solutions leave the door open for corruption and
clearly have not resulted in any special solutions.
The same people are behind ARIN. Why will
the solutions be any different ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 19:59:08 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:59:08 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC5406.40EF68E0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:57 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote:
@ On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
@ 
@ > It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any 
@ > information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address 
@ > blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio 
@ > spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of 
@ > another monolpoly (Internic).
@ 
@ First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will
@ be run by its members and eventually funded by its members.
@ 
@ Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a
@ shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly
@ disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its
@ downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers
@ how they would feel if their network information was publicly available
@ to their competitors.
@ 

What about the flip-side....?????

Is everyone supposed to give this information to
ARIN and then find out that someone from Erols
or another "East Coast" ISP or the ISP/C is off
discussing this information on the ISP mailing lists ?

Yeah...that is what people want...
line up here....take your ARIN pill....and watch
your information be broadcast at the next sushi party...

@ > This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry 
@ > are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP 
@ > allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and 
@ > unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other 
@ > than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
@ 
@ This kind of statement does nothing to advance the interests of ISP's
@ whether they are members of your organization or not.
@ 
@ Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
@ Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
@ http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com
@ 

Your statements and your continual lobbying
of selected ISPs and InterNIC insiders does
nothing to advance the Internet.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 20:42:18 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:42:18 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <199704282225.AA013976308@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <336543EA.1B72@wahl.com>

Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> 
> Rudolph J. Geist supposedly said:
> > Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> > > Just to be clear, I also support a model that allows outside audit of the
> > > allocation process which is why I support ARIN.  I don't believe that the
> > > process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not
> > > technical applications) because the information requested may be considered
> > > proprietary by many organizations.
> > >
> > > --->  Phil
> >
> >
> > It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any
> > information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address
> > blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio
> > spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of
> > another monolpoly (Internic).
> >
> 
> There are numerous other situations which information is kept in
> confidence from the general public.  We need to encourage companies to
> provide accurate technical plans, including expected growth.  Much of this
> information could include items like new construction, introduction into
> new business areas, etc. which could cause companies considerable financial
> distress if leaked early.  Given the choice of having:
> 
> 1.  The technical details private and regularly audited by an outside firm
> (much like corporations have their finaincial statements audited) and
> getting accurate information; or
> 
> 2.  Having every evaluation open to public review and companies providing
> inaccurate information or sueing the registration body when something gets
> leaked.
> 
> I would definitely support option 1.
> 
> > This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry
> > are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP
> > allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and
> > unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other
> > than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
> >
> 
> Can you provide information regarding your last statement?  Who has been
> descriminated against?  Bear in mind that companies who apply for space
> regularly have a much better chance of submitting a complete application
> with all of the needed details than someone doing it for the first time.
> The IP address allocations are codified as an RFC (I forget the number off
> the top of my head, RFC2050 maybe?), so once again who has not been treated
> fairly?  I don't ask this as a rhetorical question, I really want to know
> specifics.
> 
> --->  Phil

Just ask any small or mid-sized company that has requested address space 
in the past 9 months, no matter how much money is behind the company, or 
what kind of business plans they have.  They all get the same runaround 
from Internic.  Internic states that a company may only obtain address 
space if it has a history of efficiently utilizing IPs.  But how the 
heck can you have a history if you can't get any from Internic?  The 
response to this question is not that these ISPS should get it from 
their upstream provider - and be subject to later renumbering - or the 
loss of the IPs during a merger or buy-out, or any other such case.


From pferguso at CISCO.COM  Mon Apr 28 20:49:07 1997
From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:49:07 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <336543EA.1B72@wahl.com>
References: <199704282225.AA013976308@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970428204907.0073706c@lint.cisco.com>

I'm sorry, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

And the consensus clearly indicates that the former is preferable,
and quite obviously, contrary to what it is that you obviously
expect (the latter).

Please read RFC2050, which under went quite a lengthy and spirited
discussion period on the ietf mailing list during last call. If every
organization had addresses which could not be aggregated, the network
would have imploded long ago. Be realistic, not idealistic.

*sigh*

- paul

At 08:42 PM 04/28/97 -0400, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:

>
>Just ask any small or mid-sized company that has requested address space 
>in the past 9 months, no matter how much money is behind the company, or 
>what kind of business plans they have.  They all get the same runaround 
>from Internic.  Internic states that a company may only obtain address 
>space if it has a history of efficiently utilizing IPs.  But how the 
>heck can you have a history if you can't get any from Internic?  The 
>response to this question is not that these ISPS should get it from 
>their upstream provider - and be subject to later renumbering - or the 
>loss of the IPs during a merger or buy-out, or any other such case.
>
>


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 21:03:46 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC5403.E895D5A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 06:42:20 pm
Message-ID: <199704290103.AA058865829@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 2:26 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
> @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> <snip>
> @ > 
> @ > If this includes the creation of many new companies
> @ > in the Registry Industry to handle all aspects of
> @ > Internet Resource allocation, I assume that you
> @ > will not mind. After all, you more or less said they
> @ > are on their own and will get no help from you.
> @ 
> @ This is where we once again disagree.  I do not believe that an industry is
> @ needed for these services and since I believe that such an industry will
> @ only do two things:  endanger the stability of the Interent infrastructure
> @ and drive up costs, I will oppose the creation of such a false industry
> @ since it does not create any gain except for a few while delivering no
> @ better service to the public.  In my mind it is no more than an attempt to
> @ tax the Internet to line the pockets of a few.
> @ 
> 
> 
> By your logic there is no need for ARIN.
> 
> Why would people create a "false" company
> which exists primarily to collect dues and other
> fees to pay a couple of people to jet set around
> the world on exotic vacations and unlimited
> expense accounts ?
> 

To create stability in IP address assignments.  Fragmenting such a task
does not create a better system.  I don't believe IP addresses are a
commodity to be sold, so the traditional free market concepts of
competition are not applicable.  (ie competition to lower prices and
increase service.)  I know you believe that the registries exist only to
provide free vacations to people but I have attended numerous conferences
over the years and the IETF & NANOG bring together some of the hardest
working people who work their butts off for the length of the conference.
Every other conference I have gone too most people goof off during the
evenings (not to mention many who skip out on the conference themselves.)
Managing issues on the *global* Internet sometimes requires face to face
meetings and that amzingly enough requires travel to other parts of the
globe sometime.  ARIN at least proposes to have their books open and is
member driven.  I guess you don't believe that the members would regulate
anything that was not within normal contraints.


> Why not just allow the IP allocation duties to
> get picked up across the distributed Registry
> Industry that is already growing ? Centralized

I hear the new home construction business is growing, why not just let them
handle it?  Why should the "distributed Registry Industry" (most of whom
will be out of business in a few years at most) have any special privilege
to this function?


> solutions leave the door open for corruption and
> clearly have not resulted in any special solutions.

Once again what corruption?  Likewise, where has the current system broken
down or been bad.  This list is about solutions (as interesting as the
flame wars can get at times (or as boring)) and specific problem area turn
into areas to focus on for improvement.

> The same people are behind ARIN. Why will
> the solutions be any different ?
> 

ARIN is being spun off to be run by the members.  I suppose from your
statements you believe there will be some behind the scenes control that
isn't obvious so things can't change.  I disagree.


--->  Phil


From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 21:07:15 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:07:15 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970428185021.14220v-100000@unix2.netaxs.com>
Message-ID: <336549C3.38F4@wahl.com>

Gordon Cook wrote:
> 
> Rudoplh Geist wrote:
> 
> It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any
> information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address
> blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio
> spectrum), should be held proprietary
> 
> <flame>
> 
> Cook:  who is holding what proprietary?  Nothing and no one in arin.
> 
> Geist:  by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of
> another monolpoly (Internic).
> 
> Cook:  arin is not a monopoly outgrowth of anything but one of 3 world
> wide IP registriess.
> 
> Geist:  This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet
> industry
> are so concerned about the ARIN proposal,
> 
> Cook: people with a clue about the internet are concerned that we don't
> have ARIN yet.
> 
> Geist:  and the exisiting IP
> allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and
> unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other
> than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
> 
> Cook speaking from here to the end:
> 
> you live in the DC area?  drive over to NSI and let Kim hubbard explain
> the appropriate RFCs to you.  Don't make statements such as you have that
> are not defensible without taking a Jim Fleming leave of reality!
> 
> "it is really suspicious....." you write.  This is your debut as legal
> council for a respectable industry trade association????  get a clue and
> come back to us when you have one.  </flame>
> 
> Rudolph,
> 
> If you are going to be providing legal advice for a new association of the
> biggest ISPs you really better do your home work before you get into the
> mud pit and join Fleming in slinging his groundless sludge.  Fleming is a
> fool and has zero respect from any one in this industry who counts.  But
> lets forget he very forgettable fleming..... get the facts Sir, and show
> you have the facts and understand in detail the developments of the
> internet over the last 15 years before you start spouting off.
> 
> You have the "big" ISPs as members of your association, yet you told me
> earlier today that ANS has refused to join and that MCI, Sprint and UUNET
> and BBN are thingking about it.   I would suggest that your opinions shown
> here today in the above and in your idea that we need a telco based north
> american numbering plan rather than ARIN would serve to inform folk like
> Mke O'dell, john curran and Vint cerf that they should stay far away from
> your association.  Of yeah, how could I forget, according to Fleming, Cerf
> the father of the Internet, is now an enemy of all good and righteous
> people.
> 
> Do excuse my sarcasm.  Now lessee about  the members you have...... AGIS.
> how nice.  the pariah of the industry for its new role in playing home to
> spammers and it long attitudee of disdaining any form of cooperation.
> cable and wireless.....new to the industry  and may excused for not
> getting up to speed.  and erols.  Now justin newton DOES have a clue.  I'd
> like to hear what he has to say about your analysis.
> 
> If your association is to have any respect from the rest of the industry
> I'd say that your absurd remarks disqualify you from any role in that
> association.
> 
> ************************************************************************> 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             On line speech of critics under
> attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
> ************************************************************************
Cook:

You seriously misread and misunderstand my advocacy.  USIPA does not 
view the ARIN proposal as evil - and I don't agree with Fleming.

USIPA is of the position that this debate needs to be made more public, 
so that more people in the Internet industry have some clue what 
decisions are being made by such a small group of Industry 
representatives - for the future of the entire industry.

You laugh off with your little sarcasm the suggestion that a council be 
established such as that of the NANC - and at the same time you boast 
your varied and vast experience as an Internet industry expert.

Did you ever realize why every single one of the 5,000 plus IXCs and 
LECs in this country have databases of hundreds of millions of 
functioning telephone numbers?  And they don't have to fight with Kim 
Hubbard to get addresses.  (For your information, I have attempted to 
reach Kim on multiple occasions to discuss this issue - but she is 
either out of town and not returning phone calls, or just does not 
return phone calls.  I have talked with John Postel previously whom I 
convinced once to give one small ISP some address space after a 
nightmare fight with Internic over "guidelines."  John even admitted to 
me that the "guidelines" are screwed up when he gave the order to give 
up the addresses to the small ISP.)

Now, the small group who are representing the industry are proposing to 
extend this dominance over to ARIN, with the same people involved.

USIPA's members apologize to you for their concern - especially those 
who have no IP allocations and are forced to rely on upstream providers. 
They really did not mean to upset you.

USIPA's members also apologize for a proposal to put together a group of 
people from the industry, such as those whom you mention in your petty 
criticism of me, that represent a broad cross-section of the Internet 
industry, and who are subject to public notice and comment on their 
proposals for the good of the Internet industry into the 21st Century.

It suprises me that some are so iconicic to think that only what they 
preach is what should be reality, with absolutely no deviations. 

Think about it.


From michael at MEMRA.COM  Mon Apr 28 20:59:08 1997
From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC5406.40EF68E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970428175041.17222q-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:

> Yeah...that is what people want...
> line up here....take your ARIN pill....and watch
> your information be broadcast at the next sushi party...

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm definitely
a "chow mein" person and have only ever eaten sushi twice in my life.
My favorite fish is a nice baked salmon.

> Your statements and your continual lobbying
> of selected ISPs and InterNIC insiders does
> nothing to advance the Internet.

*chuckle* 
Now that's an AMAZING statement to come from the keyboard of
Jim Fleming, the Internet's best-known and least-loved lobbyist.

PS. For the record, I don't believe that any network architecture or
business plan information that is submitted to ARIN should be revealed to
anyone other than the network engineers that make the allocations.
In other words, the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council members
should *NOT* have access to this information. This is generally know as
a "need to know" policy in that information is only divulged to those 
people who have a legitimate need to know regardless of their rank.

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com



From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 21:15:35 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:15:35 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970428154338.17222h-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
Message-ID: <33654BB7.28FD@wahl.com>

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
> 
> > It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any
> > information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address
> > blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio
> > spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of
> > another monolpoly (Internic).
> 
> First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will
> be run by its members and eventually funded by its members.
> 
> Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a
> shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly
> disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its
> downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers
> how they would feel if their network information was publicly available
> to their competitors.
> 
> > This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry
> > are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP
> > allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and
> > unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other
> > than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
> 
> This kind of statement does nothing to advance the interests of ISP's
> whether they are members of your organization or not.
> 
> Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
> Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
> http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com


The point is not that all their information should be made available.  
The point is that there are certain portions of an ISPs application that 
should be subject to attack by other ISPs before that ISP gets numbers. 
Do you not agree that before an ISP gets space, it should have to prove 
certain technical characteristics.  And do you not agree that it is 
arbitrary and capricious if say, a very large allocation somehow goes to 
an ISP with no technical plan.  And do you not agree that there is a 
substantial possibility of this happening behind a single closed door 
organization.  Now, don't you agree that if there was a check on this in 
the form of peer review (i.e, some proprietary information is required 
to be made available to justify technical qualification and need to 
receive IPs,) there would be less likelihood of impropoer allocations.


From rgeist at wahl.com  Mon Apr 28 21:19:53 1997
From: rgeist at wahl.com (Rudolph J. Geist)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:19:53 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <01BC5406.40EF68E0@webster.unety.net>
Message-ID: <33654CB9.4EA9@wahl.com>

Jim Fleming wrote:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:57 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote:
> @ On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:
> @
> @ > It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any
> @ > information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address
> @ > blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio
> @ > spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of
> @ > another monolpoly (Internic).
> @
> @ First, ARIN is not a monopoly, it is a non-profit organization that will
> @ be run by its members and eventually funded by its members.
> @
> @ Second, did you consult with the members of the USIPA before making such a
> @ shocking statement? For instance, would Erol's be willing to publicly
> @ disclose all the details of its network connections including all of its
> @ downstream customer networks? Have you asked those downstream customers
> @ how they would feel if their network information was publicly available
> @ to their competitors.
> @
> 
> What about the flip-side....?????
> 
> Is everyone supposed to give this information to
> ARIN and then find out that someone from Erols
> or another "East Coast" ISP or the ISP/C is off
> discussing this information on the ISP mailing lists ?
> 
> Yeah...that is what people want...
> line up here....take your ARIN pill....and watch
> your information be broadcast at the next sushi party...
> 
> @ > This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry
> @ > are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP
> @ > allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and
> @ > unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other
> @ > than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.
> @
> @ This kind of statement does nothing to advance the interests of ISP's
> @ whether they are members of your organization or not.
> @
> @ Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
> @ Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
> @ http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com
> @
> 
> Your statements and your continual lobbying
> of selected ISPs and InterNIC insiders does
> nothing to advance the Internet.
> 
> --
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> http://www.Unir.Corp
> 
> Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall

Cook:

Being new to this listserv, I now clearly see what you mean about 
Fleming.


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 21:31:31 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
Message-ID: <199704290131.AA067717494@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Rudolph J. Geist supposedly said:
> 
 
> > Can you provide information regarding your last statement?  Who has been
> > descriminated against?  Bear in mind that companies who apply for space
> > regularly have a much better chance of submitting a complete application
> > with all of the needed details than someone doing it for the first time.
> > The IP address allocations are codified as an RFC (I forget the number off
> > the top of my head, RFC2050 maybe?), so once again who has not been treated
> > fairly?  I don't ask this as a rhetorical question, I really want to know
> > specifics.
> > 
> > --->  Phil
> 
> Just ask any small or mid-sized company that has requested address space 
> in the past 9 months, no matter how much money is behind the company, or 
> what kind of business plans they have.  They all get the same runaround 
> from Internic.  Internic states that a company may only obtain address 
> space if it has a history of efficiently utilizing IPs.  But how the 
> heck can you have a history if you can't get any from Internic?  The 
> response to this question is not that these ISPS should get it from 
> their upstream provider - and be subject to later renumbering - or the 
> loss of the IPs during a merger or buy-out, or any other such case.
> 
 
As much as it is disliked, provider based aggregation is what keeps the net
operating right now and is the current accepted policy.  I am talking about
unfairly applying the rules between two companies.  (BTW the ARIN proposal
does call for a slight easing of the restriction.)
 
Whether its a bad or a good thing, people who were involved earlier in the
Internet have some advantages over new players.  Its a sad but true fact.
The reasons that drive it are technical in nature, not capricious or
discriminiatory as some would claim.  I would have loved to have bought
Microsoft stock in 1986 at a few dollars a share, but if I want to buy it
now I have to pay 115 (or whatever it closed at today).  The analagy is
rough since IP address space isn't sold but given away if it is being
efficiently used.  
 
--->  Phil


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 21:43:22 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <33654BB7.28FD@wahl.com> from "Rudolph J. Geist" at Apr 28, 97 09:15:35 pm
Message-ID: <199704290143.AA070808205@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Rudolph J. Geist supposedly said:
> 
> 
> The point is not that all their information should be made available.  
> The point is that there are certain portions of an ISPs application that 
> should be subject to attack by other ISPs before that ISP gets numbers. 

Absolutely not.  Busineess competition should not in *any* way be possible
in the review process.

> Do you not agree that before an ISP gets space, it should have to prove 
> certain technical characteristics.  And do you not agree that it is 
> arbitrary and capricious if say, a very large allocation somehow goes to 
> an ISP with no technical plan.  And do you not agree that there is a 

Of course such a scenrio is capricious and should never be allowed to happen.

> substantial possibility of this happening behind a single closed door 
> organization.  Now, don't you agree that if there was a check on this in 
> the form of peer review (i.e, some proprietary information is required 
> to be made available to justify technical qualification and need to 
> receive IPs,) there would be less likelihood of impropoer allocations.
> 

Possibly, but it also opens the door for countless other bads to weight
the good that might come of it.  The real solution is to have a competnent
technical staff that has its own internal checks and balances, where
multiple people review decisions.  This coupled with regular outside
independent audits and a well defined appeal policy should produce the same
good results without the host of bad ones.


--->  Phil


From perry at PIERMONT.COM  Mon Apr 28 21:47:48 1997
From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:47:48 -0400
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:15:35 EDT."
             <33654BB7.28FD@wahl.com> 
Message-ID: <199704290147.VAA03729@jekyll.piermont.com>


"Rudolph J. Geist" writes:
> The point is not that all their information should be made available.  
> The point is that there are certain portions of an ISPs application that 
> should be subject to attack by other ISPs before that ISP gets numbers. 

You try to do that without making someone's marketing plans available
to the general public in time to give their competitors an advantage.

Perry


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 21:49:53 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:49:53 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC5415.BA1647C0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 4:03 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
<snip>
@ 
@ > The same people are behind ARIN. Why will
@ > the solutions be any different ?
@ > 
@ 
@ ARIN is being spun off to be run by the members.  I suppose from your
@ statements you believe there will be some behind the scenes control that
@ isn't obvious so things can't change.  I disagree.
@ 

The ATTEMPTED creation of ARIN has already been
a "behind the scenes" activity. Very little of the real
facts have been aired in public.

Why do you think the day to day operation will be different ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Mon Apr 28 21:58:53 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC5415.BA1647C0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 08:49:53 pm
Message-ID: <199704290158.AA074939136@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 4:03 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
> <snip>
> @ 
> @ > The same people are behind ARIN. Why will
> @ > the solutions be any different ?
> @ > 
> @ 
> @ ARIN is being spun off to be run by the members.  I suppose from your
> @ statements you believe there will be some behind the scenes control that
> @ isn't obvious so things can't change.  I disagree.
> @ 
> 
> The ATTEMPTED creation of ARIN has already been
> a "behind the scenes" activity. Very little of the real
> facts have been aired in public.
> 

I believe that the creating of ARIN has followed a reasonable and open
path.  As open as say the cretion of the eDNS.  Public mailing lists were
used, a web site created, the proposal presented and revised based on
public comment.  You can point to the initial discussions as to whether it
might or might not be a good idea and say "see that was done behind closed
doors" but it doesn't make sense to open the process of deciding on whether
to try and create ARIN.  As soon as the people currently doing the job
though ARIn was the way to go it was thrown wide open.

> Why do you think the day to day operation will be different ?
> 

For the reasons stated above.


--->  Phil


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 21:58:42 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:58:42 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC5416.F5316500@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 4:58 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
@ > 
@ > On Monday, April 28, 1997 4:03 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
@ > <snip>
@ > @ 
@ > @ > The same people are behind ARIN. Why will
@ > @ > the solutions be any different ?
@ > @ > 
@ > @ 
@ > @ ARIN is being spun off to be run by the members.  I suppose from your
@ > @ statements you believe there will be some behind the scenes control that
@ > @ isn't obvious so things can't change.  I disagree.
@ > @ 
@ > 
@ > The ATTEMPTED creation of ARIN has already been
@ > a "behind the scenes" activity. Very little of the real
@ > facts have been aired in public.
@ > 
@ 
@ I believe that the creating of ARIN has followed a reasonable and open
@ path.  As open as say the cretion of the eDNS.  Public mailing lists were
@ used, a web site created, the proposal presented and revised based on
@ public comment.  You can point to the initial discussions as to whether it
@ might or might not be a good idea and say "see that was done behind closed
@ doors" but it doesn't make sense to open the process of deciding on whether
@ to try and create ARIN.  As soon as the people currently doing the job
@ though ARIn was the way to go it was thrown wide open.
@ 
@ > Why do you think the day to day operation will be different ?
@ > 
@ 
@ For the reasons stated above.
@ 
@ 
@ --->  Phil
@ 
@ 

What about the deals with the NSF ?
What about the April 1st deadlines ?
What about the DOD dealings ?
What about the large ISPs invited to meet in D.C. ?

Why do you think ARIN was proposed ?
Do you believe that web site ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM  Mon Apr 28 22:37:44 1997
From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:37:44 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <199704282123.AA294332612@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
References: <01BC53EB.7A38E420@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at
 Apr 28, 97 03:47:27 pm
Message-ID: <l03020903af8b0efc261b@[207.180.8.61]>

At 4:23 PM -0500 4/28/97, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
>
>Who decides who gets converted?  How do you decide it?  How to you know how
>much address space MIT (in this example) is actually using?  Who does this
>audit?  To carve out your 3000 /18's below you will leave MIT with exactly
>-769654784 IP addresses to use.  I guess they will have to go take all of
>Stanfords, BBN's and DEC's just to make up the diference.

MIT should know how much address space they are using.  In a perfect world,
some of the early players would return a majority of the "free space" back
to the pool.  As for who decides:

The owners do, under the audit of ARIN or whatever.

---
Stephen Satchell,{Satchell Evaluations, Motorola ISG}
http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info
Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions.




From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 22:23:23 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:23:23 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries???
Message-ID: <01BC541A.67F19620@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 12:59 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote:
@ On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ 
@ > Yeah...that is what people want...
@ > line up here....take your ARIN pill....and watch
@ > your information be broadcast at the next sushi party...
@ 
@ You must have me confused with someone else. I'm definitely
@ a "chow mein" person and have only ever eaten sushi twice in my life.
@ My favorite fish is a nice baked salmon.
@ 
@ > Your statements and your continual lobbying
@ > of selected ISPs and InterNIC insiders does
@ > nothing to advance the Internet.
@ 
@ *chuckle* 
@ Now that's an AMAZING statement to come from the keyboard of
@ Jim Fleming, the Internet's best-known and least-loved lobbyist.
@ 

Michael, Michael...

"best-known" ? - hardly...you do not even know me...

"least-loved" ? - how can you say that when we work
so well together ? Keep in mind that if someone is 100%
predictable, they are ineffective...can you imagine what
would happen if we ever agreed on anything ?...right, you
would have to switch to the opposite view...and you do....

:-)

@ PS. For the record, I don't believe that any network architecture or
@ business plan information that is submitted to ARIN should be revealed to
@ anyone other than the network engineers that make the allocations.
@ In other words, the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council members
@ should *NOT* have access to this information. This is generally know as
@ a "need to know" policy in that information is only divulged to those 
@ people who have a legitimate need to know regardless of their rank.
@ 
@ Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
@ Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
@ http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com
@ 

For the record, I do not think it matters what you
think. People are people and they are going to
clearly do what they think is best for the Internet.
Unfortunately, some people think that they can
define what is best by what they want to do...
fortunately, getting many people involved will
shut that stuff down cold...that is why ARIN is not
going anywhere...people quickly saw through the
agendas, which of course were not on the web site...

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From michael at MEMRA.COM  Mon Apr 28 22:37:51 1997
From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <33654BB7.28FD@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970428192219.17222y-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:

> The point is that there are certain portions of an ISPs application that 
> should be subject to attack by other ISPs before that ISP gets numbers. 

First of all, ISPs are not the only ones who apply to the registries for
address space. Secondly, what you are suggesting is tantamount to a cartel
?n which existing ISPs decide who gets to join the club. 

Sorry, but this will *NEVER* happen. ARIN will be applying a set of
policies based on RFC2050 just like RIPE, APNIC and the other 2 new
registries will be doing. The policies themselves will be discussed and
decided upon in open public discussion just as they always have been.
However, the information required to make the decisions is too sensitive
commercially that it simply cannot be divulged, not even to people within
ARIN who don't need it to specifically do their jobs.

> Do you not agree that before an ISP gets space, it should have to prove 
> certain technical characteristics.  

Yes. And that's why ARIN will have skilled network engineers on staff
who will sign non-disclosure agreements and who will examine the
applications to make sure they meet the public requirements. In fact,
this is exactly how it is done now.

> And do you not agree that it is 
> arbitrary and capricious if say, a very large allocation somehow goes to 
> an ISP with no technical plan.  And do you not agree that there is a 
> substantial possibility of this happening behind a single closed door 
> organization.

Not likely. While the applications will be confidential, the resulting IP
allocations will be full public knowledge. It would be hard to hide any
arbitrary and capricious behavior.

> Now, don't you agree that if there was a check on this in 
> the form of peer review (i.e, some proprietary information is required 
> to be made available to justify technical qualification and need to 
> receive IPs,) there would be less likelihood of impropoer allocations.

No. I think peer review would only politicize the issue and destroy the
IP registry.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why Erol's has a lawyer involved in what
is primarily a network engineering issue. ARIN would probably make a lot
more sense to you if you understood how the Internet infrastructure
operates. Have you read through all the documents in the Recommended
Reading section at http://www.arin.net yet?

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com




From davidc at APNIC.NET  Mon Apr 28 22:44:36 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:44:36 +0900
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:59:08 EST."
             <01BC5406.40EF68E0@webster.unety.net> 
Message-ID: <199704290244.LAA25981@moonsky.jp.apnic.net>

Excuse me Jimmy,

>Is everyone supposed to give this information to
>ARIN and then find out that someone from Erols
>or another "East Coast" ISP or the ISP/C is off
>discussing this information on the ISP mailing lists ?
>
>Yeah...that is what people want...
>line up here....take your ARIN pill....and watch
>your information be broadcast at the next sushi party...

If I might interrupt your fantasies for a bit, can you cite *ANY*
instance where information provided in confidence to any of the
regional registries was "broadcast" at any "sushi party" or anywhere
else?

Didn't think so.  Spreading your bullshit again -- don't you get
bored?

The regional registries take their confidentiality requirements *very*
seriously as we are well aware that we are dealing with information
organizations feel is of a private and confidential nature.

Given your frantasy of a "registry industry" and 10s or 100s of
registries, what do you think the chances are that a similar level of
confidentiality can be maintained? (not that I expect an answer)

Regards,
-drc


From davidc at APNIC.NET  Mon Apr 28 23:29:32 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:29:32 +0900
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:58:42 EST."
             <01BC5416.F5316500@webster.unety.net> 
Message-ID: <199704290329.MAA26258@moonsky.jp.apnic.net>

[eDNS removed as it is irrelevant.  Actually, naipr is as well given
this is rapidly devolving into Jim's conspiracy fantasies again, but...]

Jimmy,

You seem to have the inside track on all the various nefarious plots
the tri-lateral commission (Ever notice there are 3 regional
registries?  Coincidence?  You be the judge.) has hatched in their
quest for global domination ... err... Internet resource control
(damn, how do I fit black helicopters in here?).  Presumably the
little voices in your head have explained it all to you.  Why don't
you fill us all in?  I'm sure, given you're extensive track record of
well reasoned and rational analysis everyone will agree with you.  No,
really.

Thanks,
-drc
--------
>What about the deals with the NSF ?
>What about the April 1st deadlines ?
>What about the DOD dealings ?
>What about the large ISPs invited to meet in D.C. ?
>
>Why do you think ARIN was proposed ?
>Do you believe that web site ?
>
>--
>Jim Fleming
>Unir Corporation
>http://www.Unir.Corp
>
>Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall
>
>


From JimFleming at unety.net  Mon Apr 28 23:33:07 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:33:07 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
Message-ID: <01BC5424.25F80BA0@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 9:44 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote:
@ Excuse me Jimmy,
@ 
<snip>
@ 
@ Given your frantasy of a "registry industry" and 10s or 100s of
@ registries, what do you think the chances are that a similar level of
@ confidentiality can be maintained? (not that I expect an answer)
@ 

When you distribute any industry over a large
number of people or companies, you allow
everyone to have more choices. People will
select based on people they know and trust.
They will also select based on existing business
relationships with companies.

When there is only one organization, people
have no choice. If you are going to have only
one, it might as well be the government because
at least they can be held accountable via the
various checks and balances in the system.

I prefer to have the IP allocation function
distributed over many registries. It certainly
does not take a rocket scientist to make
these allocations. Any of the new TLD registries
that are now starting to come into their own
should be able to help provide these services
if they want to add that to their menu.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From davidc at APNIC.NET  Mon Apr 28 23:55:49 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:55:49 +0900
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:33:07 EST."
             <01BC5424.25F80BA0@webster.unety.net> 
Message-ID: <199704290355.MAA22772@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>

Jimmy,

Let's try again:

>When you distribute any industry over a large number of people or
>companies, you allow everyone to have more choices. People will select
>based on people they know and trust.  They will also select based on
>existing business relationships with companies.
<blah blah blah>

That's all very nice and all that, however the question I asked was:

>@ Given your fantasy of a "registry industry" and 10s or 100s of
>@ registries, what do you think the chances are that a similar level of
>@ confidentiality can be maintained? (not that I expect an answer)

Care to answer a question someone asks?

Didn't think so.  At least you're consistent...

Regards,
-drc



From JimFleming at unety.net  Tue Apr 29 00:02:39 1997
From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 23:02:39 -0500
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
Message-ID: <01BC5428.45BD7340@webster.unety.net>

On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:55 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote:
@ Jimmy,
@ 
@ Let's try again:
@ 
@ >When you distribute any industry over a large number of people or
@ >companies, you allow everyone to have more choices. People will select
@ >based on people they know and trust.  They will also select based on
@ >existing business relationships with companies.
@ <blah blah blah>
@ 
@ That's all very nice and all that, however the question I asked was:
@ 
@ >@ Given your fantasy of a "registry industry" and 10s or 100s of
@ >@ registries, what do you think the chances are that a similar level of
@ >@ confidentiality can be maintained? (not that I expect an answer)
@ 
@ Care to answer a question someone asks?
@ 
@ Didn't think so.  At least you're consistent...
@ 

What do I think the chances are that a "similar"
level of confidentiality can be maintained...?

1. I do not think that confidentiality is maintained.

2. There is no need to discuss "levels" of confidentiality.

3. As for chances, I assume you imply luck is involved.

Given #1, #2, and #3 the answer is 0% chance.

My comment above was meant to indicate that I
think that there is a 100% chance chance that
standard business practices and standard business
confidentiality levels will be maintained IF standard
business evolution is allowed and not these socialistic,
one-party system, solutions, that place all of the power
in a few people's hands.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall



From michael at MEMRA.COM  Tue Apr 29 00:00:56 1997
From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <336549C3.38F4@wahl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970428204309.17222G-100000@sidhe.memra.com>

On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Rudolph J. Geist wrote:

> You laugh off with your little sarcasm the suggestion that a council be 
> established such as that of the NANC 

ARIN is closer to the NANC model than you might think. For instance, it
includes a Mexican on the Board of Trustees and it will be open to all
ISP's in Canada, the USA, Mexico and the Caribbean countries to join if
they wish.

> Did you ever realize why every single one of the 5,000 plus IXCs and 
> LECs in this country have databases of hundreds of millions of 
> functioning telephone numbers?  And they don't have to fight with Kim 
> Hubbard to get addresses.

That's because they are all allocated area codes geographically based on
population growth projections and are then free to allocate NPA-NXX
geographically within their areas. However, IP routing is not based on
geography so the simplistic NPA-NXX routing system will not work.

> (For your information, I have attempted to reach Kim on multiple
> occasions to discuss this issue - but she is either out of town and not
> returning phone calls, or just does not return phone calls.

Kim Hubbard is not the person to contact to get IP allocations. There are
other people at the NIC that you can talk to. And even Kim is not free to
do as she pleases. She is applying a set of global policies that the
global Internet community has agreed on for the allocation of the globally
shared IPv4 address space. If you don't like the rules, then it has to be
taken up in a global forum.

> I have talked with John Postel previously whom I 
> convinced once to give one small ISP some address space after a 
> nightmare fight with Internic over "guidelines."  John even admitted to 
> me that the "guidelines" are screwed up when he gave the order to give 
> up the addresses to the small ISP.)

That's nice. But was the small ISP actually able to use these addresses on
the global Internet, i.e. would the core network providers route these
addresses? And if the guidelines are screwed up, why aren't you lobbying
in Washington to get ARIN created so we can start to work on fixing these
guidelines and policies. Until ARIN is pulled out of limbo, there is
nothing any of us can do.

> Now, the small group who are representing the industry are proposing to 
> extend this dominance over to ARIN, with the same people involved.

Dominance? Are you aware of how a 501(c)6 operates? ARIN will have a Board
of Trustees. Currently there is no such thing. ARIN will have an Advisory
Council elected by the members. Currently there is no such thing. ARIN
will have members who will have the final say as to how things are done
and membership is open to all users of IP addresses. Currently there is no
such thing. ARIN will have legal requirements for disclosure, financial
and otherwise due to IRS regulations and "sunshine" laws. Cuurently, the
NIC is run by a privately owned company and we have no disclosure.

I'm surprised that as a lawyer, you haven't considered the legal
ramifications here.

> USIPA's members also apologize for a proposal to put together a group of 
> people from the industry, such as those whom you mention in your petty 
> criticism of me, that represent a broad cross-section of the Internet 
> industry, and who are subject to public notice and comment on their 
> proposals for the good of the Internet industry into the 21st Century.

This is precisely what ARIN is. 


Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com



From davidc at APNIC.NET  Tue Apr 29 00:27:31 1997
From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:27:31 +0900
Subject: Global council of registries??? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 1997 23:02:39 EST."
             <01BC5428.45BD7340@webster.unety.net> 
Message-ID: <199704290427.NAA23020@palmtree.jp.apnic.net>

Jimmy,

Thank you for at least attempting to answer a direct question.

>What do I think the chances are that a "similar"
>level of confidentiality can be maintained...?
>
>1. I do not think that confidentiality is maintained.

Care to cite *ANY* cases where confidentiality of information provided
to a regional registry was breached?  If not, you're just spreading
you FUD yet again.

>2. There is no need to discuss "levels" of confidentiality.

Right.  Registries are supposed to just believe people when they say
"I need a class A".

>3. As for chances, I assume you imply luck is involved.

No you don't.  Stop being an idiot and making pointless argumentative
statements like the above.

>and not these socialistic,
>one-party system, solutions, that place all of the power
>in a few people's hands.

When you get a chance (no, no luck involved), you might want to check
the ARIN web page <http://www.arin.net> and see how ARIN is
structured.

Regards,
-drc



From kimh at internic.net  Tue Apr 29 09:59:19 1997
From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:59:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <336549C3.38F4@wahl.com> from "Rudolph J. Geist" at Apr 28, 97 09:07:15 pm
Message-ID: <199704291359.JAA04483@jazz.internic.net>

>
Mr. Geist,
 
> Did you ever realize why every single one of the 5,000 plus IXCs and 
> LECs in this country have databases of hundreds of millions of 
> functioning telephone numbers?  And they don't have to fight with Kim 
> Hubbard to get addresses.  (For your information, I have attempted to 
> reach Kim on multiple occasions to discuss this issue - but she is 
> either out of town and not returning phone calls, or just does not 
> return phone calls.  I have talked with John Postel previously whom I 
> convinced once to give one small ISP some address space after a 
> nightmare fight with Internic over "guidelines."  John even admitted to 
> me that the "guidelines" are screwed up when he gave the order to give 
> up the addresses to the small ISP.)

You have never had to "fight" with me because we've never spoken.  You
attempted to contact me while I was at a NANOG meeting and by the
time I returned the issue had been resolved so there was no reason to
return your call.

> 
> Now, the small group who are representing the industry are proposing to 
> extend this dominance over to ARIN, with the same people involved.

Dominance?  Hardly.  You contacted my staff trying to bully them into
allocating address space without offering justification - only threats
of lawsuits.  Who was trying to dominate who?


Kim Hubbard




From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Tue Apr 29 13:44:24 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <01BC5416.F5316500@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Apr 28, 97 08:58:42 pm
Message-ID: <199704291744.AA031525867@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> What about the deals with the NSF ?
> What about the April 1st deadlines ?
> What about the DOD dealings ?
> What about the large ISPs invited to meet in D.C. ?

I won't comment on conspiracy theories, other than to say I don't believe
them.  If you want anyone to believe even a little of what you say them try
and present some facts that mean something other than your innuendo.

The April 1 deadline was a goal that obviously didn't get met.  ARIN was
very effectively held up by a flood of lies and misstatements by people who
either didn't take the time to learn the truth or were deliberately
spreading them.  Now it has been shaken loose and I expect to see movement
in the near future.

> 
> Why do you think ARIN was proposed ?

Check the WEB site.

> Do you believe that web site ?

Yes.

--->  Phil


From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU  Tue Apr 29 13:53:30 1997
From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:53:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries???
In-Reply-To: <l03020903af8b0efc261b@[207.180.8.61]> from "Stephen Satchell" at Apr 28, 97 09:37:44 pm
Message-ID: <199704291753.AA033896414@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

Stephen Satchell supposedly said:
> 
> At 4:23 PM -0500 4/28/97, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> >
> >Who decides who gets converted?  How do you decide it?  How to you know how
> >much address space MIT (in this example) is actually using?  Who does this
> >audit?  To carve out your 3000 /18's below you will leave MIT with exactly
> >-769654784 IP addresses to use.  I guess they will have to go take all of
> >Stanfords, BBN's and DEC's just to make up the diference.
> 
> MIT should know how much address space they are using.  In a perfect world,
> some of the early players would return a majority of the "free space" back
> to the pool.  As for who decides:
> 

Many early players have returned address space.  Large blocks in fact have
been returned.  

> The owners do, under the audit of ARIN or whatever.
> 

You want ARIN to be the IP address police?  My feeling about address
assignment is very similar to building permits.  You have to go through the
approval process and meet the current regulations, but one your building
permit is granted then the government shouldn't be able to require you to
rewire your house every few years as the wiring code change.

--->  Phil



From cook at NETAXS.COM  Tue Apr 29 13:55:35 1997
From: cook at NETAXS.COM (Gordon Cook)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Global council of registries??? (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970429135400.16506N-100000@unix2.netaxs.com>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Cook <cook at netaxs.com>
To: naipr at arin.net
Subject: Re: Global council of registries??? (fwd)

If what  follows did get distributed to naipr at arin.net, please accept my
apologies.  I have been watching for it and haven't seen it.  Although i
must say that michael dillon is far more civil in his discourse than I  -
and  I commend himfor his civility - I want my commments  to rudolph geist
to be on public record.  In my opinion the man has completely discredited
himself as someone with any claim to speak for a serious ISP trade
association.  kim hubbards comment this morning i believe further
substantiates my point of view.

************************************************************************
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             On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Cook <cook at netaxs.com>
To: "Rudolph J. Geist" <rgeist at wahl.com>
Cc: naipr at arin.net
Subject: Re: Global council of registries???

Question for Paul Ferguson. Internic has not changed its stated rules in
the last 12 months for getting allocations directly from it has it? They
have guide lines spelled out in an RFC. 2050 or some other? They follow
the guidelines which were arrived at on the CIDRD list....very much in
public.

Did Genuity get address space directly from Kim H. I think they did. Am I
wrong? How about Verio? Or Exodus?

Rudy to Phil nesser: Just ask any small or mid-sized company that has
requested address space in the past 9 months, no matter how much money is
behind the company, or what kind of business plans they have.  They all
get the same runaround from Internic.  Internic states that a company may
only obtain address space if it has a history of efficiently utilizing
IPs. 

Cook: Wrong. They can get less than a prefix 19. When they go back for
more blocks they must show efficient utilization./

Rudy:  But how the heck can you have a history if you can't get any from
Internic? 

Cook: wrong they can.

Rudy:  The response to this question is not that these ISPS should get it
from their upstream provider - and be subject to later renumbering - or
the loss of the IPs during a merger or buy-out, or any other such case.

Cook: yes for maybe two years renumbering is a fact of life. The response
had been unless you can justify a prefix 19 get it from your upstream. Oh
you want it from us anyway. Well heres a 22. Good luck on finding a
provider who will route it. AGIS one of your charter members has been a
more brutal enforcer of IP number non portatbility thatn any other.   Ask
Karl Denninger.

Cook: You better learn something about BGP routing Rudy. Hole punched in
CIDR blocs increase the size of routing announcements at the defaultless
core of the net. On Friday there was a burp of some 30,000 routes onto the
core. A flap started and took over two hours to stablize after the
originating network was disconnected. That has never happened before. The
larger the number of routes in the defaultless core the more difficult
this stuff is to recover from. The engineers like Paul Ferguson do know
what they hell they are talking about. You have a helluva lot to learn
besides flemings conspiracy theories before you shold expect people to
take you or your association seriously. Go on inet-access and ask there
whether the ISPs are upset because they get ip number from their
upstreams. You will find them far better educated to reality that you.
As paul told you there *ARE* some physical realities involved in scaling
the net. There have been compromises made but they have been made in the
open and not behind closed doors....   Get a few clues...then call kim....
I bet she'll sit down with you. As for jon postell I'd like to hear that
story directly from him.

Rudoplh: USIPA is of the position that this debate needs to be made more
public, so that more people in the Internet industry have some clue what
decisions are being made by such a small group of Industry representatives
- for the future of the entire industry.

Cook who is usipa?   Who sets policy? Are you its official spokesman?
This debate has been made in the public..... Starting even before the ARIN
bof at the san jose ietf.   And carried on in public mail lists since
then. Where were you?

Rudolph:  You laugh off with your little sarcasm the suggestion that a
council be established such as that of the NANC - and at the same time you
boast your varied and vast experience as an Internet industry expert.
Did you ever realize why every single one of the 5,000 plus IXCs and
LECs in this country have databases of hundreds of millions of
functioning telephone numbers?  And they don't have to fight with Kim
Hubbard to get addresses.

Cook: An extremely ignorant statement for you to make. Do you understand
the different between the PSTN and the internet? Between a connection
oriented and connectionless network? Do you understand that the telephone
industry grew to its size over a period of the past century? That the
telcos had lenty of time to install switches that could support lots of
numbers with none of the routing / router problems that the internet has
had during this period where it has grown percentagewise in five years
about what he telephne industry has grwon in the past 50. There are sound
technical reasons why the ISP has to go to Kim and your damned fool USIPA
won't be able to do a damned thing about a single one of these reasons.
Educate yourself and then come back and talk.

Rudolph:  Now, the small group who are representing the industry are
proposing to extend this dominance over to ARIN, with the same people
involved.

Cook: they are proposing to make ARIN totally responsible to the ISPs it
serves.

Rudolph:  USIPA's members apologize to you for their concern - especially
those who have no IP allocations and are forced to rely on upstream
providers. They really did not mean to upset you.

Cook..... A fact of life for most isps for the past 2 years and one that
they are no longer bitching about....what you seem to think was done in
smoke filled rooms has been done quite in public over the last three
years.....where in the hell were you? Go on Inet access and preach your
stuff...lets see what kind of a reception you get there? You have
certainly blown every shred of credibility you may have had here.

I am leaving for a consulting assignment tomorrow and will likely be off
net until Friday. So in the mean time have fun chasing your conspiracies.



************************************************************************
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             On line speech of critics under
attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
************************************************************************






From randy at PSG.COM  Tue Apr 29 14:00:00 1997
From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 11:00 PDT
Subject: Global council of registries???
References: <l03020903af8b0efc261b@[207.180.8.61]>
	<199704291753.AA033896414@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <m0wMHCH-0007zWC@rip.psg.com>

> You want ARIN to be the IP address police?  My feeling about address
> assignment is very similar to building permits.  You have to go through the
> approval process and meet the current regulations, but one your building
> permit is granted then the government shouldn't be able to require you to
> rewire your house every few years as the wiring code change.

In general I agree.  But I would note that, if a wiring practice is found
to be extremely dangerous to the public, the Fire Department (not the city
planning department) may mandate change.  The case in point is CIDR, which
was not an act of the registries but rather the IETF and other operator
venues and the ISPs whose routers were endangered.  I suspect that the
registries found CIDR to be a pain in the butt from their point of view.

We have met the net.police, and them is us.

randy


From j