Global council of registries???

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.