From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Sat Feb 1 01:23:14 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:23:14 +0000 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <19970201062304.AAB14728@LOCALNAME> Jawaid -- You said: >"the majority" is now a justification for any evil act. I don't buy it, and >neither should you. And this has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. and: >if a person decides that a product is no longer of enough >value to justify the amount of money asked for that product, they take >their money elsewhere. >You violate anti-trust if >you charge too little, you violate it if you charge the same as everyone >else, and you violate it if you charge far more than everyone else. You're >held as a criminal if you do so good a job that nobody wants to buy from >anyone else, being the best is held as a great evil. And: >Protected - for what purpose? From whom? For whose use? Against whose >rights? 1/3 of Colorado is "national forest" (so-called "national >resource"). Instead of being used to make people's lives better, there it >sits, as a monument to the election campaign of some politician. > >I don't want the Internet to become a political tool for some grubby >bureaucrat. But running to the government crying "anti-trust, anti-trust!" >will do just that. > And: >I don't believe in "opinions". You either state what you know to be right, >or don't say anything if you don't know. "Opinion" used to mean "this is >what I know is true"; now it's used to mean "The following words have no >meaning, please don't hold me to it, it's only an opinion". > And: >Do what needs to be done - and if it conflicts with the closed fantasy >world that bureaucrats have constructed for themselves - be happy to tear >down their shabby little walls for them. > >Going to them and asking their "permission" only legitimizes them. Should a >slave ask his master's permission before trying to escape? That says "You >have a right to be doing what you're doing." And I was actually caught up in a long carefully thought-out reply when it dawned on me...why? You apparently believe everything you believe is true so there is no point in arguing any point, and this is no longer germain to the purpose of this list. After reading your reply, I am extremely pleased to agree to disagree with you and move on. --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:40 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:40 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... Message-ID: At 4:47 PM 1/31/97, Randy Bush wrote: >karl at cavebear.com: >> If ARIN does not promise coordination with routing, then I would submit >> that ARIN can not complain should some collection of ISPs decide to start >> selling net numbers, uncordinated with ARIN, for which they will advertise >> and exchange routing information. >> >snip> >If ARIN promised routability, people like you would be threatening all hell >right now because we all know that it can not be delivered. Routability on >the internet is based solely on ISP cooperation. Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on global routers. What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter timeframe. Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 02:28:37 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:28:37 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 7:07 PM 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >If an ISP needs to get more address to satisify a customer request and >if its higher ISP (if any) is unwilling or unable to satisfy that >request, then that ISP has exactly one place to go: ARIN. > >And if a business wants its own block, then there is one place to go: >ARIN. > >So I count one place: ARIN. > >There could have been others, but they have all agreed among >themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each >will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks. > >Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the >three registries allocate anywhere in the world. If there weren't significant technical problems with your suggestion, I might actually go for it -- having multiple registries so fits the "flavor" of the Internet. Unfortunately, I still have many of the articles on routing from my 1972 ARPAnet days, and from what I've been able to glean from more recent publications there is damn little science and all too much art to designing routing schemes that work. When you consider that SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review has article after article after article about the current "hot flash" in routing that doesn't pan out, I think that your cry of "conspiricy" is very hollow indeed. Aggregation is a fact of life. Just as many people work very hard to keep Malthus from having the last laugh, there are a large number of very brainy people that are trying to stave off Metcalf's Prediction -- that the Internet will collapse by its sheer weight in the next year or so. Until we have routers which can handle 16,777,214 endpoint addresses in parallel without introducing unacceptable processing delays -- or unacceptable equipment prices -- we are stuck with trying to use what we've got. IPng isn't going to help this. If anything, a 128-bit address space is going to make it *worse*, not better. Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic collapse of the 'Net. Is that what you want>? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sat Feb 1 05:18:39 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:18:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > to talk about how to reduce the cost of running such a registry, and > therefore reduce the fees required to make such a registry work, that's > great. But to talk about a free-for-all is just inviting a chaotic > collapse of the 'Net. > > Is that what you want>? I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says "here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or something like that. My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements because your block is too small.") In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. --karl-- From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 07:31:55 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 07:31:55 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karl, This is a very useful clarification. It brings up several ideas/questions, not necessarily ones that CAN be answered within the scope of this list, but nonetheless valid areas to consider. At 2:18 AM -0800 2/1/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I think I figured out why there is so much steam being generated. > >My notion of "routability" doesn't mean that at the instant ARIN says >"here's a number" that one can go out, apply power, and magically expect >packets from the outside to find their way to the new block. That's not >possible until the block has topological context. I suspect that folks >were thinking that I was proposing some magical, impossible thing or that >the ARIN folks were going to have to configure the assignee's bgp or >something like that. It was coming across that way. > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") Let me make a distinction intially between ISPs and users, and, for discussion only, make the assumption that an "ISP" provides transit service. It does appeal to me, as a first thought, that if an ISP meets the RFC2050 or successor qualifications for allocation, that there is a presupposition of routability. Things that complicate this, however, fall into the transit vs. peering problem. Let's say a new ISP in a major metropolitan area applies to ARIN for a good-sized block -- let's say a /17 -- that it has real business to justify. I think we would all agree this is a large enough block of customers such that it serves the global Internet well to have them globally reachable, and vice versa. But remember that I said this is a metropolitan area provider. If they connect only to their metropolitan exchange, do national providers have an obligation to announce the /17 globally? If so, how does one deal with the potential economic impact that this provider is getting national/international transit services for which it does not pay? > >In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an address >by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated block might need >to carry with it an obligation on the part of that ISP to honor all other >ARIN derived allocations. Subject to the economics of transit, my first reaction is that this is a not completely unreasonable assumption. But the economics of transit may make it infeasible. Now, let's turn to a different case. An end user organization -- let's make it a medical lab providing life-and-death information -- has less than 200 hosts, so it can only justify a /24. Due to its mission, it is extremely concerned with being reachable, and wants to multihome to three or more providers. Let's assume this company has fully clueful routing people. In other words, I have set up what I would consider the ideal justification for a small organization to get provider independent space that needs global advertising. Yet, if I give this organization a PI /24, I set a precedent for assigning such blocks. There is much more demand for /24, and quickly all the routing table growth (including flapping) issues arise again. Many small organizations don't have the knowledge that does the ideal firm, and want PI space or multihoming simply because they heard it was a good idea. Should ARIN grant PI space selectively, perhaps subject to criteria such as: 1) There are specific business needs for multihoming 2) The organization commits to implement multihoming within xxx days of being assigned PI space 3) The organization has staff, or contracted consultants, who have demonstrated BGP expertise 4) The organization commits to renumbering-friendly network design, so if in the future the PI requirement disappears, there is no renumbering pain disincentive to releasing PI space Again, I don't have answers, and suspect that many of these questions are outside scope -- they are more appropriate for PAGAN or other lists dealing with fundamental allocation policy. Your clarification helped. Thanks. > >By-the-way, I wasn't proposing a "free for all", only suggesting that the >possibility exists for the net to devolve into clouds of competing network >numbers. And I did say that I considered that to be a dangerous future. > I think this would be dampened very quickly by any providers wanting to survive. Howard From awolter at seidata.com Sat Feb 1 11:31:32 1997 From: awolter at seidata.com (Adam Wolter) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 11:31:32 -0500 Subject: leave Message-ID: <32F36FE3.5D4F@seidata.com> From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Feb 1 11:39:34 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Was: Re: US CODE: Title 15, ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Let's turn down the heat level just a bit and look at something. One of > the rationales that has been put forward by proponents is that ARIN would > allocate net addresses based on procedures that the backbone people have > agreed to. This is the reason for the "bloat" in the budget: you need > people who understand network architecture to select the "right" block of > numbers to give to a particular applicant to minimize any bad effect on > global routers. Nice theory but it won't work. First of all, there are no procedures that the core network operators have agreed to. They are independent businesses and although they must cooperate in the routing of packets, they have differing network architectures, different kinds of equipment and different policies and procedures. They don't necessarily all agree how IP allocation should be done. The policies that ARIN applies are set within the IETF and more people than just the operators of the defaultless core are involved in setting those standard policies. Nevertheless there is a complex interplay between the registries, the standards working groups, the core operators and other stakeholders. This is why the Board of Trustees needs to be composed of people who understand how things work. Partly to ensure that they can do a proper job within ARIN and partly to ensure that they can communicate and work together with their peers in other registries, with IANA, with the IETF and with the operators in the defaultless core, whether those are transit providers like Sprint or whether they are regional providers like MCS. > What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better > chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any > analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a > much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter > timeframe. No. If you get an IP address block from your upstream provider you are guaranteed 100% to get a routable address block. If you get one from ARIN, it may or may not be routable. This is not likely to change because not all organizations who as for unique IP address blocks intend to use them on the global Internet. And when the core network operators change their policies, they don't wait for anybody's permission; they just do it. So the registries will always lag behind the operators. If there is any single thing that can be done to guarantee the routability of IP address blocks it is to get them from your upstream provider. And if you require a Provider Independent (PI) address block then the single most useful thing you can do to guarantee this is to read and understand the policies and procedures laid out on the ARIN website at http://www.arin.net in the Reading List. Routable PI blocks go to those organizations that can make a credible case to justify their need for them. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From scharf at VIX.COM Sat Feb 1 12:04:23 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 09:04:23 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 02:18:39 PST." Message-ID: <199702011704.JAA23168@bb.home.vix.com> karl at CAVEBEAR.COM said: > My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- > that once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. > that it's exchange points with the rest of the world were determined > -- then there would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that > new block. (By artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept > your advertisements because your block is too small.") > In other words, membership in ARIN, or perhaps even the use of an > address by an ISP of a block carved from a larger ARIN allocated > block might need to carry with it an obligation on the part of that > ISP to honor all other ARIN derived allocations. Taking your lead with removing the steam (thanks). The response to this is that all ARIN can do is a best effort tracking of the ISP's current policies in future allocations. These may need to be offset against other goals in 2050. There is no way ARIN can make any guarantees about future routability, since that is clearly beyond their control. The idea that ISPs must honor as routable forever any blocks ARIN allocates would be a serious issue and be grounds for many people to withdraw support from the proposal. The ISPs view this as their business/technical domain. They believe that if the time comes and they think it is a better answer to filter the TWD (192/8), that it is their business decision to make. No personal opinion expressed, just the statement that many ISPs won't accept these terms. (envision threats of lawyers...) Also, is there any reason to continue to bother the DoJ people with this discussion? If not, people should stop copying them on these mail messages. (Imagine the poor person getting all this technical banter ...) A comment about duplicate IP addresses: It is specious to talk about people who ignore the registry when talking about unique allocation from registries (again this issue of no control.) The question about duplicate IP addresses can only be discussed on "Has there ever been a case where two registry allocations for the same IP address were issued?" We all know people can ignore the registry and pick addresses, we each have our own fantasy on how this would turn out, almost always ugly. Jerry From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Feb 1 13:08:20 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:08:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> A few comments: > Aggregation is a fact of life. Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over 20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. > > Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least > topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing (understandable considering most members are either vendors or providers). In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Running a registry for something as important as allocating IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage vs. larger ones. There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Best Regards, Tim Bass IEEE Member --- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Feb 1 15:37:26 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:26 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: At 1:08 PM 2/01/97, Tim Bass wrote: >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be discussed in academic circles? In this manner, either or both DoJ and FTC can find expert witnesses who have read your article and can validate or deprecate your proposal based on the submission. It can also start research independent of the Internet Society on your plan, and might form the basis of "the new Internet" if it is accepted. I can understand your attitude about IETF, although you will need to remember that IETF is recognized as a "standards provider" as far as the US Government is concerned (via ANSI). --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From hcb at CLARK.NET Sat Feb 1 15:49:10 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:49:10 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Stephen Satchell" at Jan 31, 97 11:28:37 pm Message-ID: Congratulations, Tim! I will try to deal with some sense here, but you are rapidly working up to membership in an elite...the few, the very few, and proud, who have earned themselves one of my mail filters. Your very last comment is what triggered this reaction, after I have tried to look rationally at everything you have said. I hope you reconsider that last comment. At 1:08 PM -0500 2/1/97, Tim Bass wrote: >A few comments: > >> Aggregation is a fact of life. > >Of course aggregation for large networks is necessary. Klinerock and Kamoun >showed this in 1977... not much new information is this opinion, considering >this has been well documented in packet switched networks for over >20 years. This is not about aggregation, my friend. Phone calls >are aggregated, but no one charges for area codes and prefixes; >and it is illegal under current US Laws to create a process where >users cannot switch providers without technical difficulties. Equal Access, etc., do not require that users face no difficulties in switching providers in a given geographical area. The telephone network is generally geographically aggregated. Rightly or wrongly, the Internet is not geographically aggregated. Yes, it may affect a user if they change providers. However, remember that it is a computer, or a set of computers, that connect to ISPs, not a set of "dumb" telephones. Let's take another analogy from the telephone model. For many years, the demarcation point, if it existed at all, was a screw terminal block. As a result of Carterphone and other court-tested decisions, the FCC issued rules that future network interfaces use the Registered Jack (RJ) series of physical interfaces. So we saw RJ11, RJ12, etc., connectors placed into all new installations. Now, Joe User, who has an existing service, wants to connect customer provided equipment. Fine. He is free to do so. But were the telcos required to install an RJ connector at no cost? I think not. I can set up an enterprise today that is "renumbering friendly," and can change providers fairly easily using DNS/DHCP, scripted router config files, etc. Many enterprises firewall their internal address space in any case, and renumbering only affects a small number of externally visible addresses. Are you saying it is an obligation of providers to continue to support users who insist on using aging practices (e.g., static dialup IP address assignments), when alternatives exist? How far back does one reach? I have a 300 BPS modem somewhere, should I demand that content providers compress their web pages such that 300 BPS is enough? > >> >> Blocks do need to be allocated by geography, either physical or at least >> topologically. A central registry makes sense for that. Now if you want > >Yes, geographic addressing can be made into a much more pro-competitive >paradigm than provider based address aggregation. However, the IAB >and the IETF have been vituperously behind provider based addressing >(understandable considering most members are either vendors or > providers). Just how is the IETF excluding non vendor- or provider input? The IETF process, with its extensive use of mailing lists, is FAR more accessible than CCITT/ITU, ANSI, or the other organizations that have produced the telephone environment you cite as a model. > >In my opinion, global internetworking cannot be managed in a pro-competitive >process by the NSF transition style of encouraging private industry >to take over every single aspect of the registration process. We >in the US are taxpayers and have some rights, do we not? Could you explain that last? What are the rights of Michael Dillon, to pick an active non-US participant? My employer, whom I am not representing here, is a Canadian firm. Does it have no rights then because a significant amount of its income is not earned in the US and is not taxable there? Look at your two previous sentences. The first speaks of global internetworking, while the second speaks of US taxpayer rights. What do the two have in common? >Running a registry for something as important as allocating >IP address space should be, in my opinion, paid for by US taxpayer funds, >Congress. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy and >I do not believe for one minute the FTC nor Justice will support >a process in the Internet paradigm that favors large businesses >over smaller ones or one that puts smaller providers at a disadvantage >vs. larger ones. Right. Looked at the health care industry recently? The FTC and Justice seem to be quire tolerant of an environment that is forcing small businesses -- i.e., privately practicing physicians, small hospitals, etc. -- out of business, or into managed care organizations as employees. Of course, that industry just deals with human lives, and is not something as critical as IP connectivity that the government MUST control. > > >There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing >IP has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. >The InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this >anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > >I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a >pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, >please do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, >however, share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC >if requested. You can prove, I am sure, that a pro-competitive IP routing paradigm _can_ be created. I can prove I can create a paradigm by which I play starting offensive left tackle in the NFL. Creating a paradigm, however, is meaningless unless it is tested. I suggest you look again at health care, and see how the courts increasingly are throwing out "junk science" expert witnesses. Courts are requiring that expert testimony, to be fully credible, must be consistent with consensus in the learned profession involved, that peer review is relevant, etc. So if you don't want to publish the paradigm for peer review, fine. Have fun. Share it as much as you want with DOJ and the FTC. Why, while you are at it, share it with the Trilateral Commission, Rush Limbaugh, the Illuminati, Howard Stern, the National Inquirer, and David Letterman. But until you are willing to discuss things in an open matter, I suspect a fair number of people who actually feel good about making global internetworking happen, in a real world, would appreciate it if you would take your paradigms and peddle them elsewhere. We have work to do. If the IETF, IAB, and the rest of the Zionist Occupation Government are so evil, they won't listen to you, why waste your valuable time with them? Excuse me now. I must get into my black helicopter and go off to a golf date with Jimmy Hoffa. Howard Berkowitz, who feels better now. > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Sat Feb 1 16:56:00 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:56:00 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702012146.QAA29211@lists.internic.net> > > Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies > > because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this > > whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and > > started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole > > thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing > > that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP > > addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on > > the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond > > recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually > > start signing up. > > No doubt that there has been a lot of hyperbole. I'm in agreement > with you that ARIN will almost certainly be a valuable, well run, > organization that serves us all. Some of the original concerns about > costs were probably caused by unfortunate and inadvertant failure to > put into the initial drafts a few words that would have allayed the > fears of those who have seen NSI in action in the domain name area. > > One of the most compelling of the demonstrations about fee projections > was when someone posted an analysis saying "had we been charging, > here's what the revenue would have been last year". It was a very > reasonable amount and it certainly put my fears to rest. > > (By-the-way, there were serious questions that arose well before AOP > started its efforts.) TKS for pointing out that there were concerns before AOP started its efforts. What AOP did was read the initial proposal which was available and state its opinions to our membership. We also stated recommended actions as per what was read. I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated...But I will state that it is a good thing that some of these questions were raised karl.... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 20:54:36 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:54:36 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201205432.006a1d00@lint.cisco.com> At 02:21 PM 1/31/97 -0500, David Schwartz wrote: > > So you can be reasonable assured that a block allocated by ARIN, >Internic, APNIC, or RIPE that is routable today will remain routable for >awhile. > This a completely misleading statement. There is simply no way to be assured that a prefix which is routed today will be routable tomorrow. Caveat emptor. This has no bearing in how ARIN allocates addresses, since it can not determine what may, or may not, be routable. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:14:23 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:14:23 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. - paul At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >timeframe. > >Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. > From aop at cris.com Sat Feb 1 22:12:00 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:12:00 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert to our members. We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. And this is okay with you? While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. Not to mention the anti-trust implications. This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. If that's a disservice to our members, I truly hope we continue disserving them for many, many years to come. As for it being a "scare tactic", perhaps the fact that this proposal doesn't scare you is because you won't have to foot the bill for it. On another note, please see the section on membership in ARIN. In the future, under this proposal you seem to feel is so peachy-keen, unless you have forked over $1,000 you are welcome to sit down and shut up -- you have no voice in ARIN. We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's our job. Respectfully, David P. McClure Executive Director Association of Online Professionals ---------- > From: Scott Bradner > To: the_innkeeper at sols.net > Subject: arin > Date: Saturday, February 01, 1997 5:28 PM > > > > I will not apologize if that made a few folks irritated > > by spreading falsehoods & using scare tactics? > > I think you did a diservice to your organization > discussions based on the facts of the proposal would have > been more useful > > Scott From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:19:31 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:19:31 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201221929.006a5950@lint.cisco.com> Giving an end-system an arbitrary length prefix just to ensure 'routability' is a recipe for disaster, if that's what you're recommending. I suggest that ARIN play no role in this regard; there is simply no way that they can effectively ensure routability, and something that might be routable today, may not be routable tomorrow (and vice versa). This is not practical. - paul At 02:18 AM 2/1/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >My use of the term "routability" was ment in the prospective sense -- that >once a block was actually given topological significance -- i.e. that it's >exchange points with the rest of the world were determined -- then there >would be no artificial limits on the acceptance of that new block. (By >artificial I mean things like "ISP X won't accept your advertisements >because your block is too small.") > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sat Feb 1 22:48:52 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 22:48:52 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Mr. McClure, Since I did not see the original message from Scott Bradner to this individual come across the list (of course, I may have missed it, since I've been traveling for the past couple of weeks), it would imply that you forwarded a private note to a public forum, which shows a great deal of unprofessionalism. Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. They certainly have more-than-adequate historical, technical and practical experience to do so, and your snide comments below come off as insulting, to say the least. Nonetheless, without calling one another silly names, I believe that your note is a fine example of how you do not completely grasp the complexities of running a registry, the technical significance of the registries' impact, nor the professional and personal commitments these folks have made to the Internet community. One might suggest that your continued persistence to forward messages without significant contributions, to include viable alternatives, would allow others on this list to dismiss you as a troublemaker, not a problem solver. - paul At 10:12 PM 2/1/97 -0500, Dave McClure wrote: > >We are faced with a situation in which a small number of self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. > From davesbox at poboxes.com Sat Feb 1 23:05:28 1997 From: davesbox at poboxes.com (David Tschoepe) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 Subject: Removal from list Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? Thanks, David From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Feb 1 20:40:56 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:40:56 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970201204052.006de268@lint.cisco.com> Yes, and the registries have been quite clear that address space allocated by them is in no way to be considered 'routable'. No magic here (tm). - pal At 01:26 PM 1/31/97 -0500, John Curran wrote: >At 11:36 1/31/97, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >>OK, I hereby assign you the address 1.2.3.4. Good luck getting >>someone to give you routing. > >Karl, > > One side point: there is nothing to my knowledge that insures > that ARIN (or any other organization) is allocated "routable" > address space. Certainly, the policies of the various Internet > providers need to be considered when performing allocations, > but there no authority which can dictate "thou shall route this" > to the Internet provider community. > >/John > > > > From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:15:58 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:15:58 -0800 Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: At 7:12 PM -0800 2/01/97, Dave McClure wrote: >While I deeply respect the knowledge represented on this listserv, >I'd point out that no one here appears to have experience in >management, or in the formation or operation of a real non-profit. > >As someone who does have such experience, I have to say that >the current proposal will certainly face class-action lawsuits >from those who actually have to foot the bill for this organization. >Not to mention the anti-trust implications. Hey, Dave, I'm offended by your statement. I'm no new-comer to not-for-profits, nor to the standards community either. Name me ONE OTHER PERSON who has proposed any kind of budget numbers to forecast the expense side of ARIN. Where are *your* numbers, sir? When did you post them to public review? As for the anti-trust implications, I suggest you go back and review your law with regard to anti-trust and the establishment of manufacturer's standards. There is case law which is on all fours with ARIN -- I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to find and understand that law. (Hint: look for a case involving interchangable parts -- and don't forget to blow the dust off the book when you take it off the shelf.) --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sun Feb 2 00:01:27 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:01:27 -0800 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201221421.006a4db0@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at all. My pair-o-pennies(tm). At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. > >- paul > >At 11:28 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >> >>What that says is that a block allocation from ARIN has a much better >>chance of being "routable" than an arbitrary allocation without any >>analysis. In short, while the ARIN can't guarantee routing, it gives you a >>much clearer chance of getting a routable block in a much shorter >>timeframe. >> >>Kim, perhaps this points needs amplification in the next version of the >>proposal, plus a good-sized block of text in the rationale. >> --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 00:19:25 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:19:25 -0500 Subject: Implied warranty of routability? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202001922.00683e84@lint.cisco.com> Hand-waving. The concept that an allocated prefix may be unroutable has nothing to do with ARIN, APNIC, or the RIPE-NCC. The reality of the concept stands alone. A registry cannot, in no way, embody this particular principle, but it can certainly remind it's customers of the fact. - paul At 09:01 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: >While the *idea* may be stated in RFC 2050, the concept that the ARIN is a >preferred embodiment of the idea is *not*. I checked. > >This is part of the rationale for ARIN, after all. As such, stating the >fact and recapping the concept in a rationale document is not redundant at >all. > >My pair-o-pennies(tm). > > >At 7:14 PM -0800 2/01/97, Paul Ferguson wrote: >>This is already stated in RFC2050; no need to be redundant. >> >>- paul >> From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 00:34:37 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 21:34:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 01:29:02 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:29:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 1, 97 09:34:37 pm Message-ID: <199702020629.BAA08148@moses.internic.net> > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 01:31:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 97 22:31 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <3.0.32.19970201224849.006b7fec@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 01:36:15 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:36:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <199702020636.WAA06562@zocalo.net> > I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are > employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally Telage, yes. My understanding was that Ms. Hubbard is leaving the employ of NSI and entering that of ARIN at such time as it's sufficiently established to carry a payroll. I assume that's still the case, Kim? I don't find having one NBI representative on the BoT objectionable. I agree two could be construed as an imbalance. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 01:37:50 1997 From: themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:37:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Feb 1, 97 12:37:26 pm Message-ID: <199702020637.BAA21143@linux.silkroad.com> Steve sincerely asks: > > Why not publish a peer-reviewed article in _Computer Communition Review_ > (ACM SIGCOMM) so that your pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be > discussed in academic circles? The simple answer: Publishing in ACM or IEEE Journals take a minimum of one year which does not help the matter at hand, in my opinion. > It can also start research independent of the Internet Society ... Based on my observation of the structure of the IETF, I do not think it is prudent to publish ideas that are not subject to an un-democratic process. These is just Tim, plain ole EE' engineer speaking, but I do not trust organizations dominated by commercial interests to be fair with independent ideas. My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every small business can connect to any level network access point they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. I am not convinced this is the goal of all buinesses with dominate roles within IETF. In addition, it is highly likely that I am not the only person in the US to have this opinion;the US Department of Justice and the FTC spend millions of US Taxpayer Dollars to enforce and promote competitive business practices. The orgs would not exist if businesses did not have the 'tendency' to engage in anti-competitive practices. The Internet Services industry is no exception. Back to your question of 'why not publish'.... If and when DoJ becomes involved, I will be more than happy to submit to any investigation a technically feasible, scalable, inter domain routing paradigm for IPv4. However, if DoJ and the Antitrust division does not get involved, I will not reveal any carefully guarded technical solutions under any circumstances. None of my previous working papers are related. This paradigm came to mind and paper only after reviewing over 50 references on the subject and writing a historical, misconceptions paper. To be perfectly clear, i am not 'the only engineer' in the US who can conceive and design a scalable aggregation schema. My goal is to stop a direction which is anti-competitive and to promote the move toward a pro-competitive, scalable inter-domain routing protocol. This may sound kinda overly romantic, but sorry, it is my old-fashioned nature (an i apologize for being so old-fashioned).... I will perform this duty as an engineer and a US citizen without the motive of profit nor designs to be any false Internet hero if called upon. However, I will not do it for IETF nor the IAB as long as the process and is dominated by people with serious conflicts of interests. Best Regards, Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 01:43:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 22:43:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote: > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- I think that the question of these two BoT members needs to be publicly addressed on this list. Many of us expect that Kim Hubbard will fill the executive director position in ARIN which is a management role, i.e. she would be an employee. If this is so then one would normally expect her to hold an ex-officio position on the BoT, i.e. be a non-voting member. This might ordinarily be a simple matter of clarification, however Scott Bradner, another proposed BoT member did say something about the BoT using consensus to make its decisions and I have yet to see it explained how this can be reconciled with a non-voting member. But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a conflict here. And since Network Solutions Inc. has not announced any intention to cease offering domain name registry services after the NSF agreement ends, I am assuming that they will continue to operate as part of the commercial global domain name registry system. I'm not sure how best to resolve this conflict. Obviously, Mr. Telage could withdraw from accepting the position, but if there is some good reason why the CEO of Network Solutions must be involved in ARIN then perhaps a way could be found to recognize that involvement without placing him in a voting position on the Board of Trustees. I am afraid that if the public, especially the Internet Service Provider community, does not perceive ARIN as being a clean break from Network Solutions Inc., it will lead to unecessary political wrangling and take energy away from the job that ARIN should be focussing on. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 02:01:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:01:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 1, 97 10:43:15 pm Message-ID: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From woody at ZOCALO.NET Sun Feb 2 02:44:47 1997 From: woody at ZOCALO.NET (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:44:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <199702020744.XAA07529@zocalo.net> > My agenda is to have a globally scalable Internet where every > small business can connect to any level network access point > they choose, without constraints and anti-competitive processes. Um, would this be a "flat earth" theory? :-) Down with the hierarchy! Up with MAC addresses! -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sun Feb 2 06:09:43 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:09:43 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC108C.FAD59B20@cnc019055.concentric.net> Message-ID: Dave McClure wrote: > Cc: "'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET'" Sigh. More "'weirdly quoted'" junk in the headers. And you still have every paragraph as a single very long line. Please fix your mailer to conform to accepted norms. > Scott, please allow me to respond to your e-mail to Steve May. While > Steve serves (and very well) on the AOP Board of Directors, I am > responsible for communication to our members, and I authored the alert > to our members. I submit that you did your members a disservice by failing to explain that naipr was a mailing list and that they should research the issues and read the mailing list for some time before posting. Many AOP members who sent comments to the list had no idea that it was a mailing list. (I have this first hand, from correspondence with such people.) That they did insufficient research before posting to the list is their own fault, but that they did not know it was a mailing list is tracable directly to the AOP "Alert". > We are faced with a situation in which a small number of > self-appointed Internauts -- most of whom do not appear to be major > ISPs, and who represent only an insignificant percentage of the people > involved in public Internet Services -- are attempting to force > a proposal which would hijack and hand absolute control of North > American IP addresses to an unknown, intractable organization which > will has no authority to begin with, will have no responsibility to > the Internet industry and will not be monitored by anyone. No, we are not faced with a situation like that at all. >From where I sat in the ire/pagan bof at the San Jose IETF, it appeared that there was consensus that starting a non-profit IP address registry was a reasonable idea. I haven't noticed any "major ISPs" that think ARIN is a big conspiracy. Even Karl Denninger appears to support the concept (though perhaps not all the details). As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus. > This is a deeply flawed proposal that **must** have significant public > discussion. And it must have the consensus of the industry, not one > relatively hidden listserv run by Network Solutions. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. > It's interesting to note that you, like many other critics of our > alert, did not respond to the issues we raised but rather attacked the > messenger. Please take a moment to actually read what we wrote, which > responded directly to the posted ARIN proposal. I read it. It had some good points, but was mostly scare mongering, and demonstrated a lack of understanding both of the ARIN proposal and of how IP address allocation works in the Internet. Responding point by point to such a thing would be a waste of time, but most of the points have been addressed in this forum. > We'll keep informing our members when such proposals arise. That's > our job. I agree that informing your members about such proposals is a legitimate and useful function of the AOP. I wish you had done a better job of it. --apb (Alan Barrett) From scharf at VIX.COM Sun Feb 2 06:16:18 1997 From: scharf at VIX.COM (Jerry Scharf) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:16:18 -0800 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Feb 1997 13:08:20 EST." <199702011808.NAA17798@linux.silkroad.com> Message-ID: <199702021116.DAA06744@bb.home.vix.com> themeek at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM said: > There can be little doubt, however, the current method of routing IP > has be causal to creating a non-competitive process, de-facto. The > InterNIC with support from IETF are proposing to make this > anti-competitive paradigm de-jure. > I can prove to the Antitrust Division of DoJ and the FTC that a > pro-competitive IP routing paradigm can be created. However, please > do not expect me to publish this paradigm in IETF. I will, however, > share the technical details with DOJ or the FTC if requested. Tim, I don't my accountant how to cook, why do you want to tell the DoJ how to build a better routing protocol. If you've got anything to share, you should share it with the technical community. If you put together a paper and a verifiable simulation that is accepted by the academic community, you'll be a star. I welcome any significant forward leaps in our technology. Now put up or shut up. Jerry From asp at PARTAN.COM Sun Feb 2 12:14:50 1997 From: asp at PARTAN.COM (Andrew Partan) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Revised ARIN Proposal In-Reply-To: <199701242018.PAA08484@jazz.internic.net> from "Kim Hubbard" at Jan 24, 97 03:18:37 pm Message-ID: <199702021714.MAA06415@home.partan.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 378 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970202/da302a46/attachment.pl From tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net Sun Feb 2 12:46:19 1997 From: tdeem2 at alpha.comsource.net (Timothy Deem) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:46:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970201200528.00875840@smtp.miraclestar.com> Message-ID: I'd like that as well... Thanks On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, David Tschoepe wrote: > Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 20:05:28 -0800 > From: David Tschoepe > To: naipr at lists.internic.net > Subject: Removal from list > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? > > > Thanks, > > David > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sun Feb 2 13:14:50 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:14:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> Mr. Berkowitz, You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, clustering, and classless interdomain routing. However, I do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it helps: --------------------------------------------------------------- Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently implemened with provider based aggregation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Back to the 'other issue': If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running a registry only. It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Questions: Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR members routin non-NAIPR members globally? This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of the old 'pyramid scheme'. Tim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 13:32:29 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Removal from list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy Deem wrote: > I'd like that as well... > > Could someone email me instructions for removing myself from this list? I remember seeing that the list was moved from listserv to majordomo. If that is the case you should be able to get off by sending unsubscribe naipr to the address majordomo at arin.net If that doesn't work, try unsubscribe naipr your at email.address Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From hcb at CLARK.NET Sun Feb 2 14:19:17 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:19:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> References: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Feb 1, 97 03:49:10 pm Message-ID: At 1:14 PM -0500 2/2/97, Tim Bass wrote: >Mr. Berkowitz, > >You and others seem to confuse the terms hierarchical, aggregation, >clustering, and classless interdomain routing. They are related terms, that I understand quite well, thank you, both operationally and in terms of theoretical routing. But, now that you mention it, you and other seem to confuse the terms operational network, investment protection, numerous court decisions and DoJ opinions on standards-setting by industry groups, etc. You also seem to confuse the function of this list with that of NIMROD, IDR, BIG-INTERNET, and even PAGAN. Oh...I'm so sorry...those lists, that deal with the subjects you raise, are controlled by the Illuminati Engineering Task Force, and must be suspect. > However, I >do not mind stating the obvious for you, my friend, if it >helps: My friend? I think again of the advice of my mother, to pick my friends and enemies carefully. As opposed to some newbies here, you DO have an engineering knowledge of some of the problems involved. You simply prefer to substitute rhetoric for peer review and product demonstrations. Again reaching a different industry where I also have professional knowledge, health care, there is a technical term for people who promulgate "cure all" nostrums without being willing to submit them for independent verification. Such people even appeal to the legal system to allow them unrestrained access. The technical term for such person is a "quack." In the context of routing, Sir, I find you a quack. The duck analogy is especially apt, since a duck, when challenged, typically emits loud noises, ruffles its feathers, presents its rear, may excrete certain bodily products in the direction of the challenger, and runs or flies off. To depend on your "paradigms" as relevant to the immediate situation is as appropriate as attempting to deal with a cholera epidemic by inserting corks in the orifices under stress. I actually believe it would be appropriate to start a very serious planning function to look at allocation and routability issues in perhaps a time frame 24 months off. But we don't have that luxury now. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Classless interdomain routing is a subset of clustering techniques >called aggregation. Aggregation techniques are subsets of >clustering techniques which are subsets of building a hierarchy. > >Classless interdomain routing is not the only method to build >a hierarchy routing structure. It is one possible technique >out of a large set of solutions. However, it does happen >to be on of the more anti-competitive paradigms, as currently >implemened with provider based aggregation. >--------------------------------------------------------------- Dayum! Those big words keep a'comin' back to haunt us, Cletus...currently implemented. Hey, Uncle Bert, you think ol' Tim there wants all current implementations to shut down while he has them lawyers check out his paradigm? Wanna bet a pair of dimes on the industry consensus on an Internet shutdown so we don't let them damn Yankees in ARIN get their ill-gotten gains? Yeah, I know they are in Virginia, but it's Northern Virginia. Mostly Yankee. > >Back to the 'other issue': > >If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) >to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should >say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's >position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running >a registry only. I have made no pretenses that I felt the initial proposal, and the way in which it emphasized fees over structure, was seriously flawed. The entire CIDR issue has been thoroughly available for some time. I'm afraid I have seen no systematic comments from you about short-term CIDR alternatives and the practical need for renumbering. I suppose it's that I am a Tool of Vendors that I never received a substantive comment from you on any Internet-Draft I worked on to give short-term addressing guidance. Your postings to lists tend to be orthogonal to the discussion underway, and make frequent allusions to Secret Suppressed Knowledge. > >It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... >Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... >Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > >which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? Or maybe IBM should respond...I just discovered that netview uses port 1666...a shameful attempt to conceal the Satanic origins of some protocol mechanisms. Yep...I know I have problems with some routing tables too. Not just those in default free routers, but I have all kinds of trouble putting together the one that is supposed to hold my Craftsman router. Can't find all the pieces, just as some arguments here seem somehow incomplete. > >It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions >of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom >created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the >surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. >Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals >cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and >will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. > >Questions: > >Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space >will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR >will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR >members routin non-NAIPR members globally? Yes. Protection. You see, Don Scott and Donna Kim will, if you don't pay up, send Rudy the Routebanger to all default-free router sites, and, as he holds the staff at bay, Charlie the Configurator will break into the routers and delete all BGP advertisements from the Free People Who Won't Pay The Organization. I always thought Scott Bradner looked like Marlon Brando...a bit, anyway. Don Scott, may I kiss your ring when I next see you, as a token of my regard? Hmmm...I suppose if I have not met your expectations when I do that, Rudy the Routebanger may give me an early token release. Or maybe Kim and Scott are reincarnations of Bonnie and Clyde? Nahh...they have a better organized conspiracy than that. > >This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. >Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current >paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried >position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? > >These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large >salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, >which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of >the old 'pyramid scheme'. All right! Mr. Bass, my friend, don't you want to retire? Don't you want a Rolls Royce? Let me tell you about a business opportunity. No, I can't tell you the details unless you come to the meeting. But I can absolutely, promise you it's not Amway. Has anyone else noticed that NAIPR and Amway both have five letters, one of which is in common...and that letter is doubled in Amway? Coincidence? You decide. Howard, who is beginning to have too much fun with this to filter out Tim. Perhaps we can move this off the list and to the Comedy Channel, where advertising fees will fund everyone dumping their routers and getting new ones. From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 15:30:46 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:30:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <199702021814.NAA23364@linux.silkroad.com> from "Tim Bass" at Feb 2, 97 01:14:50 pm Message-ID: <199702022030.PAA08642@moses.internic.net> > > Back to the 'other issue': > > If the issue is routing, and NAIRP is 'charging' (registering) > to use or advertise IP routing, then I think NAIPR should > say so, publically. However, publically at least, Ms. Hubbard's > position appear to be that the charges (fees) are for running > a registry only. > > It is difficult to react to a moving target. Registry Fees ... > Fees to Control the Size of Routing Tables .... Registry Fees ... > Routing Issues ... Resource Requirements to Run a Registry... > which one is it, Ms. Hubbard? Mr. Postal? Mr. Bradner? This has been stated enough times that I assumed you would have understood by now that the fees are to fund the registry only. And the name is Postel - not Postal. > > It appears that one thing is certain, there will be millions > of dollars under NAIPR to pay the salaries of those whom > created the organization and moved to collect fees. On the > surface, it appears the issues are more deep than antitrust. > Creating an organization, implying businesses and individuals > cannot use the Internet if they do not 'join and pay fees' and > will not have global access goes beyond anti-competitiveness. Nowhere is it implied that businesses and individuals cannot use the Internet if they do not join and pay fees. Please reread the proposal, Mr. Bass. > > Questions: > > Does one purchase 'protection' to insure IP address space > will be routed? If an organization does not pay NAIPR > will Mr. Postal (IANA) provide address space? Will NAIPR > members routin non-NAIPR members globally? ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of addresses. > > This is the paradigm it appears is being tacitly created. > Ms. Hubbard, with all due respects, proposed the current > paradigm years ago and now puts herself in a salaried > position to manage affairs. Is this ethical? Ms. Hubbard didn't propose anything. And I'm already in a salaried position and managing the affairs of IP allocation for this region under the authority of the IANA. > > These 'self appointed' NAIPR administers will be paid large > salaries and given a 'position' for creating this organization, > which, in my opinion, may be viewed as cyberspace spin of > the old 'pyramid scheme'. Well, if you mean that ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using than yes you could say its the same scheme. Kim Hubbard > > Tim > > > > > > From kmeuleman at innet.be Sun Feb 2 21:58:53 1997 From: kmeuleman at innet.be (Meuleman-Rubbrecht) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:58:53 +-100 Subject: JOIN Message-ID: <01BC1154.48FA0080@marina.metech.be> JOIN From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:50:33 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:50:33 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5D1B5B20@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Taking Donald Telage out of this equation as a person, I have two questions about the NSI/ARIN relationship. (I'm focusing on the process used to create ARIN rather than the people involved). 1) Why is NSI funding ARIN? First, let me point out that if ARIN moves immediately to implement its fee structure, cash flow will be of less concern than the structure and integrity of the organization. And it seems to me that it is very awkward for a single private company to hold such primary financial power over ARIN. 2) My understanding is that by its contract NSI has turned over to NSF 30 percent of the funds raised by the domain name registry fees, and that this fund is currently about $12 million (and will be much more than that, once NSI begins to collect the fees that it has not collected to date). This NSF fund is purported to be money to be used for the good of the Internet, and according to the Washington Post there is some confusion as to how best use these funds. Why do we not apply to NSF that some or all of these funds be used to help start ARIN? This would eliminate the NSI/ARIN financial ties, and could likewise be used to reduce or eliminate the steep dues ARIN is proposed to charge. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 9:01 PM To: Michael Dillon Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. Since the > cooperative agreement between the NSF and Network Solutions Inc. runs for > another year after the proposed creation date for ARIN, there is clearly a > conflict here. Michael - could you please explain this conflict? NSI will be financing ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they are no longer financially involved. Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a domain registry would cause a conflict. Kim From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:35:03 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:35:03 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. Dave McClure ---------- From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: naipr at arin.net Subject: Re: AOP Notification > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a note to Kim. The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no sarcastic remarks:-). randy From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:05:41 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:05:41 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Kim: Just for the record, I for one am delighted at the prospect that you would bring your experience and expertise to ARIN. And in spite of my feelings about some of the specifics, I do deeply appreciate the work you have done in drafting a proposal for us to hash out. May I make a couple of suggestions? Much of our concern about the ARIN proposal revolves around two factors: The selection of the board of trustees, and the fact that many critical elements of the organization (mission, goals and accountability) have gotten short shrift. Some possible solutions: !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This will get the organization up and running, and clearly show that the Trustees have no hidden agendas and that they are appropriate to their positions. Members of the initial Board could be elected then to longer terms if they have served well and if they wish to continue. 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a stronger role in supporting ARIN. 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a single listserv are behind ARIN. 4) Immediately begin work on preliminary mission statement, goals, structure, bylaws and budget for ARIN, so that these critical issues may be open to discussion. 5) Reconsider the $1,000 dues for annual membership in ARIN. If the intent is to have broad-based participation by the industry, then this level is far too steep. And if the intent is not to open membership to that broad a base, consider setting up rules to have membership based on representation of constituencies within the Internet community (e.g., representatives from the Internet Society, IETF and organizations involved in the industry). The funding model would work for either scenario with only minor modifications. The less time we spend on he said/you said discussions of personalities, conspiracy theories, niggling details of IP address technicalities (isn't that what IETF is for?), the stronger the ARIN proposal will be. The second draft is considerably better than the first in its explanation of some of the details, but this is still not a document that can be adopted at face value. Dave McClure ---------- From: Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 8:29 PM To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; aop at cris.com; the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Karl, If it makes you feel any less concerned....the intention is that once ARIN is operational, there will be only one NSI employee on the board, as I will be an employee of ARIN. Of course, you are free to infer something out of that fact also, since there is probably nothing I could say to stop those of you who feel that NSI has some hidden agenda regarding ARIN. However, I will, for the record, one more time, state that ARIN will be an independently run organization with no connection to NSI. Kim > > > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. > > I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. > > It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would > trust their judgement. > > (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- > rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and > become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might > foreshadow.) > > --karl-- > > > From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 14:15:42 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:15:42 -0500 Subject: ARIN BoT Message-ID: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Karl, the integrity and service of the proposed BoT members is not the issue, in my mind. The issue isn't even who chose them and why. The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without building support from within that community. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. We must have an initial BoT to get ARIN organized, but we also need to allow the Internet community to have a voice in their selection. Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the organization up and running, and then resign. This initial BoT would not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are these people and who picked them" discussion. Dave McClure ---------- From: Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl at CAVEBEAR.COM] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 1997 4:34 PM To: 'NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Cc: Dave McClure; 'The Innkeeper' Subject: Re: AOP Notification > Also, your assertion that while the members of the initial > Board of Trustees do not directly represent the ISP community, > I would assert that they are wholly competent & knowledgeable > to represent the interests of the Internet community at-large. I personally know two of the proposed BoT members. It is my opinion that they are honest, capable, and competent. I would trust their judgement. (As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members are employees of NSI -- this has nothing to do with them personally -- rather, one might infer that this is more than a random coincidence and become concerned about what other non-random coincidences that this might foreshadow.) --karl-- From aop at cris.com Sun Feb 2 15:40:04 1997 From: aop at cris.com (Dave McClure) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:40:04 -0500 Subject: AOP Notification Message-ID: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Alan, thanks for your comments and input. May a take a moment of your time to clarify an issue or two? The initial ARIN proposal suggested that persons comment to the e-mail address provided, which we reported to our members. When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a clarification to our members. We also believe that the formation of a non-profit to manage IP address registry is an excellent idea that AOP supports. And have said so. The issue is not the concept but its proposed implementation. >>As soon as the community thinks that ARIN is not doing the right thing and is beyond hope of being fixed, the community will form the AntiNIC. ARIN knows this, and so presumably will do the right thing. Everybody also knows that the AntiNIC will not be successful unless *it* has the support of community consensus.<< You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of self-perpetuating Trustees. Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members of ARIN. Suppose this proposal is adopted within the next 10 weeks, as has been suggested, and the Trustees then elect to raise fees or otherwise act imprudently. Not saying they will, but we need to address these issues in order to craft a good proposal. Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You would be faced with trying to build a new organization to fix the problems we've created. And to do so in the face of an entrenched organization that already has been given the authority to do as it pleases -- by us. This is an imperfect proposal that *is* getting public discussion, and that will have the consensus of the industry (or it will not succeed). This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single listserv of about 300 people. That's better than none, but what is the mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. Helping to clarify the proposal and remove any bugs would be useful. Your conspiracy theories are not useful. Conspiracy theories? I don't think I've ever tried to place Ms. Hubbard on the grassy knoll in Dallas . Fixing the bugs is exactly what we are trying to do. Let's begin by figuring out how ARIN can be made accountable to the people it would seek to serve. And by getting very specific information about what the actual costs are to maintain the registry today. And to determine how to build consensus beyond this listserv. Dave McClure From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 16:25:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 13:25 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: <01BC1124.58D23FC0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position = > to become the chief executive of ARIN?=20 > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, = > Inc. ... I believe this mailing list has been archived. It might help you to read up a bit before trying to post. from "Dave McClure" at Feb 2, 97 02:35:03 pm Message-ID: <199702022146.QAA09030@moses.internic.net> > > Randy, I would also ask some clarification of your remarks. > > Do I understand that the CEO of NSI is planning to resign that position to become the chief executive of ARIN? No. The CEO of NSI is not resigning to become the CEO of ARIN. Randy meant that I will be the CEO of ARIN. > > The initial funding for ARIN -- is this coming from Network Solutions, Inc. (and if so, how is it impacted by NSI's recent discussion of their financial situation? If the money is instead to be drawn from the contractual amount that NSI was required to set aside for use to benefit the Internet (and ARIN would be an excellent use for such funds, IMHO), then it is not NSI's money. > The funding is coming from NSI not the 30%. Kim > Dave McClure > > ---------- > From: Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 1997 1:31 AM > To: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM > Cc: naipr at arin.net > Subject: Re: AOP Notification > > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. > > I would wager that anyone else offering to replace NSI's O(2^6) bucks might > get a board seat while their bucks are being burned. NSI stands to gain > nothing from this other than community thanks for generosity (and instead > reaps hate mail, threats, ...). ARIN should not be unduely prejudiced to > take the startup funding from NSI. If you know of a different entity > willing to make a large tax dedcutable gift without a BofT seat, drop a > note to Kim. > > The other person of whom you seem to speak will not be an NSI employee, but > rather the chief executive of ARIN. Is it not your experience that it is > common to have the chief executive on the board? And certainly you don't > think it unwise of ARIN to steal from NSI the person who probably knows > more about allocating IP space than anyone else on the planet. > > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). > > randy > > > From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 16:47:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:47:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702020701.CAA08264@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > But an even more important conflict, IMHO, exists with Donald Telage's > > position on the BoT. Since one of the reasons for creating ARIN is to > > separate the two NIC functions of domain name registration and IP address > > allocation, I feel that it is not wise to appoint the CEO of the world's > > largest commercial domain name registry to the BoT of ARIN. > Michael - could you please explain this conflict? So many people get domain name registry services confused with IP allocation services that I think making a clean break between the two is a very good idea. However, having the CEO of the world's largest domain name registry provider on the Board of Trustees effectively means that there is no clean break and will be interpreted so by the media and by the public and by the potential members of ARIN. > NSI will be financing > ARIN until it is capable of fully funding itself. It is certainly > understandable that they would want a seat on the BoT until they > are no longer financially involved. This makes perfect sense. If this is the case it would be best if it was clearly explained up front. Would this mean that Donald Telage would hold one of the Board seats that expires after the first year? Similarily with your own position. If you will be an ex-officio Board of Trustees member then it is best to state this up front so that everybody has a clear picture of how things will be structured. > Again, I don't understand why you feel the fact that NSI is a > domain registry would cause a conflict. I've just seen so many commentators confuse the two issues, time and time again.... However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:01:00 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:01:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN BoT In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.56DAB580@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > The issue is that they have been proposed without input from the people > within the Internet community they would seek to serve, and without > building support from within that community. This is so ridiculous I can't understand how you could make such a statement. If I ask a bunch of friends "What do you say we go out bowling tonight?" would I expect to be attacked for not consulting them before proposing such a thing? Of course not. The act of making the proposal public is, in itself, an act of consultation. The proposal was placed on a web (a service that all Internet providers have access to) and a mailing list was created for discussion (again, a service that all Internet providers have access to). The website and mailing list were announced on ISP mailing lists on which well over half of North America's ISP's participate. This is consultation. As far as building support goes, this is not a product marketing issue here. We want to see Internet providers participate in the planning and design of ARIN and not merely passively voting aye or nay for some ivory tower proposal. That's what *IS* happening on this mailing list and yes, it does get messy sometimes, but that's the real world. The secret is that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If your ideas are good, say them on the list or mail them privately to one of the board members and there is a good chance they will consider them seriously. At the end of that process, the support will come naturally. > Solution: Have the initial BoT serve for only one year to get the > organization up and running, and then resign. I don't think that the term of office for most BoT members is in question as long as a reasonable mechanism is in place for choosing their successors. This initial BoT would > not be "grandfathered", but would have the right to run for BoT > positions (with the advantage that they will have proven their abilities > as trustees). This simple change could eliminate the entire "who are > these people and who picked them" discussion. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 17:28:44 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 17:28:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 01:47:48 pm Message-ID: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> > > However, I'm curious as to why it is necessary to get seed funding from > Network Solutions in the first place. If ARIN is solidly supported by its > potential membership, then it seems to me that there would be adequate > funding available from them to get things going. And if it is not solidly > supported by its potential membership then there is a major problem that > needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Seed funding from some > other organization, whether Network Solutions or the NSF's Intellectual > Infrastructure Fund, is not going to help much. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > > > Michael, It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone before we can open the doors. If we did, though, how much would you be willing to ante up? Kim From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:26:10 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:26:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.5F6E72E0@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control of > North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be under > the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of > self-perpetuating Trustees. Nope. Control of North American IP addresses has always rested with the network operators who run the core mesh of the Internet. If this group gets disgusted with ARIN, they can and will form an AntiNIC and ARIN will become irrelevant dregs of history. At this point in time, the reason that the registries (RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC) appear to have some control is because they are basically fair and basically do a good job of IP allocations so the network operators are quite content to accept them as the final decision point for IP allocations. > Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will elect > new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory Council. The > Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board of Trustees. > That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input from the members > of ARIN. You simply have not been doing your research. Before writing such an inaccurate statement you could have very easily checked out the proposal at http://www.arin.net where you would have discovered that your statement is just plain wrong: It is expected that the initial Advisory Council will develop procedures to fill vacancies on the Council. These procedures, as envisioned, would allow ARIN's membership to elect future Advisory Council members. > Who would you complain to? No one, since ARIN is accountable to no one > but its own Board of Trustees. How would you protest? Refuse to pay > the fees? You'd only lose the ability to get IP addresses. You are stretching it pretty thin here. You can only pile up so many "if"'s before you have nothing left but air and vapor. ARIN will not exist in a vacuum. The BoT will be subject to the laws governing non-rpofit organizations. They will be subject to the disapproval of their fee-paying members. And they have to operate within the context of the Internet community which contains several other power centers such as the IETF, ISOC, the network operators. There is no point pretending that ARIN could become another OPEC cartel because it just can't happen. > This is an imperfect proposal that is being discussed on a single > listserv of about 300 people. No. It's been discussed on several other mailing lists as well. The people that are on this list are the self-selected group that is interested enough to be involved in the niggly details of getting ARIN off the ground. Let's not criticise those people who have decided that their views are adequately represented by others on this list so that they need not join in themselves. > That's better than none, but what is the > mechanism to approve this proposal? A vote by this listserv? While > there are many knowledgeable people of high integrity here, they hardly > constitute a consensus. And I have yet to see any proposal for a vote > on this proposal by any of the standards bodies extant to the Internet. This does not concern the standards bodies so there is no point in having them here other than as interested individuals. As far as making the final decision, I'm surprised that as a director of the AOP you do not understand how this type of decision is usually made by informed consensus. In addition, the very nature of a non-profit corporation means that a small group of people sign the incorporation documents and form the group of founding members and board of directors. P.S. Since you seem to have little understanding of how the Internet works, may I suggest that you review the material in the reading list at http://www.arin.net as well as the discussion list archives available at the same URL. You will find a lot of tutorial information in these sites that will help you to make more informed comments in the future. Right now I'm not sure why you are even interested in this list since ARIN is likely to have zero effect on the BBS sysops who constitute the AOP's membership. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:42:39 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:42:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <01BC1124.541B4760@61004d0003dc.concentric.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote: > !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then > re-elect a Board to continue the organization. This would cause a lack of continuity which is worse than having a self-selected board. And the ARIN board is not truly self-selected since the potential members could have the composition of the board changed if they felt strongly enough about it. For instance if the core network operators decided that they wanted another operator like Curtis Villamizar instead of a researcher like Scott Bradner, then it is in the realm of possibility. > 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.) > to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any > stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a > stronger role in supporting ARIN. I don't believe any of the BoT candidate have an InterNIC stigma other than the CEO of Network Solutions. And I don't think it is realistic to have a patchwork board composed of nominees. And you forgot the CIX and the ISP/C in your list. Even then, the CIX and ISP/C do not represent all ISP's so it's no more fair than the current proposed board. > 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties > that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build > consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a > single listserv are behind ARIN. No doubt there will be a number of people at the next NANOG meeting discussing the proposals face-to-face. But you should know that doing this sort of thing at a "congress" is also unfair to those who cannot afford the time or the money to attend. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 17:52:33 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:52:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022228.RAA09086@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > before we can open the doors. It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a loan to be repaid by ARIN. Or is there something else? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:06:25 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:06:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You brought up some very, very good points -- about transit and about dual homing -- I guess what I'm getting at is this: I think of ARIN not just as something that passes out address blocks -- I consider that those who get the blocks ought to have some reciprocial obligation to ARIN itself and to the other folks who got blocks. To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing information for ARIN grants. I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider independent class C. Yes, if there are enought of these it has the potential to substantially remove the benefits of aggregation. Yet, as we've seen with the AOL mess, people are starting to depend on this stuff and as a consequence, I can see that the number of folks wanting (and being able to justify) a direct, small block directly from ARIN, could increase. So, what I'm saying is that we could consider that everyone else who got an ARIN block has an obligation to at least be reasonable in dealing with these small ARIN blocks. It's too early to say what "reasonable" is. I do feel that it certainly should not be an automatic barricade on blocks less than some size. (I.e. I think that "reasonable" involves some human though processes.) This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some reciprocial obligations...". --karl-- From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:18:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:18:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Feb 2, 97 02:52:33 pm Message-ID: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> > > On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > > It's going to take upfront money to make ARIN operational. I don't > > think it's a good idea to go around asking for donations from everyone > > before we can open the doors. > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > Or is there something else? Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), phone system, etc. Kim > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > From kimh at internic.net Sun Feb 2 18:22:24 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 18:22:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: from "Karl Auerbach" at Feb 2, 97 03:06:25 pm Message-ID: <199702022322.SAA09342@moses.internic.net> > > This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > reciprocial obligations...". > > --karl-- > > > > > Karl, ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC. Kim From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 18:26:17 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 18:26:17 -0500 Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> At 03:06 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >I know that this is a very deep swamp with lots of hungry crocodiles. If >Ford, for example, were to obtain an ARIN block, I wouldn't expect it to >willingly provide transit to General Motors (again assuming that it gets >an ARIN block.) This gets heavily into the dark forest of policy routing. > No, this gets into basic economics and has little to do with ARIN. If (your example) GM gets has direct connectivity to Ford, and pays Ford to provide transit, then this is a private contractual issue. It does not rely on whether GM has been allocated their address space from ARIN or from Ford or anyone else for that matter. > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some >reciprocial obligations...". > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's the issue here? - paul From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 18:30:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 15:30 PST Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. References: Message-ID: I share your concerns. I also share your questioning if this is the place to solve them. Smells a bit NANOGish to me. > To my mind this obligation isn't so much a list of specific do's and > don'ts (although over time those might evolve), but rather as a general > mutual obligation to try to honor the grants. By this, I mean that a > member is obligated to be reasonable (I know this is vague) about routing > information for ARIN grants. While suspect it may not be wise to burden ARIN with this mandate, it has enough problems already, could something be done to communicate this need to the culture as a whole? Observe that this is current accepted practice for reasonably aggregated routing. But, as has been so well demonstrated on this list, what is an accepted part of the culture today seems not to be understood by the massive influx of new folk. We should probably be less surprised than I, for one, am. > What I'm fumbling with (and fumbling it is) is the example that you > brought up -- the medical group that justifies a dual-homed, provider > independent class C. What if NSI or ARIN will not allocate less than a /19, and they keep qualifications for space about the same as they are now? I.e. the medical group has no alternative but to take its /24 from one of its providers. The question becomes whether their other providers will accept that /24 from the medial group and propagate it. And will any of their peers listen to a /24? Before folk who do not run default-free routers today go ballistic, note that this issue is current today, sans ARIN and independent of the InterNIC. If someone bludgeons NSI into giving them a /24 out of 208 or wherever Kim's allocating this week, it is becoming less and less routable as more and more of us unstall filters. So if the InterNIC allows the medical group to bludgeon them out of a /24, they are really not doing the medical group a favor, in fact, it is a disfavor. I suggest that ARIN consider not doing so. But, as you suggest, much of this is NANOG and IEPG fodder, as it is an inter-pprovider matter, and neither InterNIC nor ARIN can dictate to the providers. randy From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 18:41:36 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 15:41:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > As an aside, I am somewhat concerned that two of the proposed BoT members > > are employees of NSI > > I do not understand your concern. Maybe this is another misunderstanding. > So I am confused by your expression of concern. Please deconfuse me (no > sarcastic remarks:-). I'll try, and without sarcasm and with an intention to be constructive. One of my purposes in pointing these things out is that I think that if these issues are answered now, when things are still flexible and when the reasons for a choice are still fresh and not-forgotten, ARIN will be in a better position to answer similar questions later. The AOL situation with the lawsuits has got me really concerned that it's worthwhile to endure a painful debate now in order to get some stability later; the users out there are getting feisty. > An NSI management person is on the board because NSI is putting a lot of > money in. My experience has been that, while a startup is using someone's > cash, that entity usually has a seat on the board. Yes, that is a valid point. (Assuming, of course, that it is clearly NSI's money and not money from the 30% being witheld from domain name fees.) This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition of "properly"? There is a lot of room here for suspicious minds (or some of us who have had unfortunate experiences in real-life business) to have concern. This is really hard to write about without inadvertent shadows on the individuals involved. I want to assure them that doing so is not my intent or desire. Let's look at the specific case of the CEO of NSI being on the BoT of ARIN. As CEO it's his legal obligation to care for the interests of NSI and it's shareholders. Each BoT member has a legal obligation towards ARIN and its constitutients. At times these will come into conflict, often in subtle ways. It's going to be a tough line to walk, and is only going to be made more difficult when there is a presumption at the outset that the NSI CEO is there to "ensure that NSI's money is properly spent". --karl-- From randy at PSG.COM Sun Feb 2 19:05:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 16:05 PST Subject: AOP Notification References: Message-ID: > This does raise the ancillary question -- If the NSI representation is > to ensure that the money is spent "properly", then what is the definition > of "properly"? I suspect to see that ARIN does a good enough job that NSI does not have to worry about address allocation showing up on their doorstep again. And I am not kidding. With some structural changes that are happening, domain names may be an interesting business. But addresses are not. Address allocation is the kind of pain in the butt that belongs in a non=profit stewardship, hence ARIN. So I suspect that NSI just wants to see that the handover is clean and successful. I hope that he may want to help see ARIN off on a sound business footing. He is a successful COO of an orgainzation that has ARIN-like duties. So one hopes he will provide some business guidance. But, in truth, I have no idea what Donald Telage's goals and concerns are, as I have not spoken with him. So we're all guessing here. If you know anybody else with a megabuck or so to spare for a good cause, I suspect that NSI would not be jealous. randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Feb 2 19:11:15 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:11:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: AOP Notification In-Reply-To: <199702022318.SAA09331@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > > It depends on what the up-front costs are. Do you refer to a portion of > > your salary, the website, the mailing list, some postage costs, some legal > > fees, some phone calls? All of these are certainly essential to creating > > ARIN but they don't amount to a lot of money and could be handled as a > > loan to be repaid by ARIN. > > > > Or is there something else? > > Oh, one or two additional items. Such as connectivity, equipment, > office space, additional staff (sorry I can't run ARIN alone), > phone system, etc. Why can't this stuff wait until ARIN is incorporated and the members hand over their checks? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Sun Feb 2 19:21:34 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 16:21:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2. In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970202182614.00715474@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: > >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in > >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some > >reciprocial obligations...". > > ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by > stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's > the issue here? The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net. ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a condition.] It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own choices without regard for anyone else." But that game can be played by others as well, including ARIN. An ISP that says "we reserve the ultimate right to determine which traffic we will carry" should not complain if ARIN says to it "if you don't want to play by our rules, you don't get an address block." This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership (and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs, not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be granting the tax exemptions.) This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild west" attitude of every ISP for itself. --karl-- From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Feb 2 19:47:10 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 19:47:10 -0500 Subject: Let's just go around in circles, shall we? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970202194704.00710950@lint.cisco.com> At 04:21 PM 2/2/97 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by >> stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's >> the issue here? > >The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN >only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing >information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or >larger parts of the net. > ARIN cannot look into a crystal ball & predict whether a given prefix is routable in the Internet, and frankly, should *not* be in the business of predictions. This is simply not practical, and attempting to assume that one could actually do this is not in touch with reality. >ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so, >impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or >capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating >that, at least at the