NAIPR Message

LET'S JUST GO AROUND



JK>On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Jeff Binkley wrote:

JK>> Which brings us back to the whole purpose/benefit of this proposal.
JK>> Why  should they be forced to pay for something they don't have to
JK>> pay for  today, only to have no/limited perceived benefit ?  This
JK>> whole thing  reminds me of the government trying to levy taxes.
JK>> I've watched much of  the discussion going on here and many of the
JK>> supporters tend not to be  ISPs or folks who would be directly
JK>> finacnially impacted by this  proposal.  From my unofficial
JK>> counting the supporters tend to be:  NSI,  hardware vendors,
JK>> academic affiliated individuals and a few other  interested
JK>> parties.  The opposition/concered parties tend mostly to be  the
JK>> ISPs and network providers.  This is akin to the "not in my
JK>> backyard" syndrome of where to build prisons and the like.  We all 
agree
JK>>   they are needed but don't build them next to where I live.  With
JK>> ARIN is  seems we agree there needs to be some control over address
JK>> space (albeit  we would probably disagree on how much control and
JK>> what the real purpose  of the control was for) but the supports are
JK>> saying make the ISPs pay  for it, while the ISPs are saying wait a
JK>> minute.  They weren't even the  ones asking for it from what I can
JK>> see.  Paul's point is there will even  be limietd benefit for them,
JK>> even if they go along with it.  So why  should they start coughing
JK>> up money for something which has this little  potential for them ?

JK>I think you are confusing the ISPs who *will* pay the fees, and the
JK>downstream ISPs who will bear only the incremental costs.  I feel
JK>fairly confident that the concensus among ISPs who do get address
JK>space directly from InterNIC now is that ARIN is a good idea.  I'm
JK>sorry if the small ISPs and BBSs don't understand all the issues, but
JK>to hold up the proposal because the downstream ISPs won't take the
JK>time to educate themselves is akin to GM holding up the development
JK>of a new engine because the average shade-tree mechanic doesn't
JK>understand the computer controls of the current engine.
JK>I will state that I work for an ISP, we get our IP allocations from
JK>InterNIC presently, and we support the general idea of the ARIN
JK>proposal, even if there are some minor details we would like cleaned
JK>up.  If the medium to large ISPs were opposed to this, I think you
JK>would see evidence of it here.  Hell, even mcs.net agrees with parts
JK>of it.  :)  (No offense Karl).


I am not confused at all.  I was only responding to Paul's comments.  As 
for assuming that large ISPs are ok with this because they aren't 
providing any input here would be a big mistake.  My onlu point here was 
that most of the folks who are vocally supporting the funding piece of 
the proposal aren't the ones who will be footing the bill.

Jeff Binkley
ASA Network Computing

CMPQwk 1.42 9999