test - is this list still alive?
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Larry Honig wrote:
> Sorry, I know this is not ontopic, but I have heard *nothing* from this
> list in 3 days (before that there were 50 msg/day). Is it over?
The BoT people had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and made some changes
to the proposal which they presented at the NANOG meeting in San Francisco
Please note that this is no longer a **proposed Board of Trustees**, but that this self-elected group of hijackers is already at work trying to claim a monoploly on all North and South American IP addresses. Who elected them? Under whose authority? And why is there only one persone even remotely associated with an actual ISP on this "Board of Trudtees?????"
At the NANOG meeting there were a few people who hadn't really heard about
ARIN and we urged them to read through the website and the list archives
and then join the list if they still had concerns. I would expect we will
be hearing from some of those folks this week if they still have
And be severely flamed if you happen to disapprove of this proposal. BTW, if you'd like some really serious reading on the subject, look at the way that APNIC and RIPE were formed. They were formed as a **true** collaborative effort by the ISPs who had control of the IP addressing systems. . .with open election of their Boards, ISP control of the system, and a real non-profit status.
But my own personal gut-feel on the ARIN situation is that it's ready to
go if we can just nail down the stuff in the proposal that is still
written in conditional language.
Hehehehe! Like having real non-profit status, open elections of the Board of Trustees, a proposed set of bylaws, a mission, or anything else that **real** non-profit organizations have. How about a proposed budget, any input from the ISPs who will foot the bill for this, or the authority under which these hijackers are operating????
Michael, can you give a list, here in public, of the major ISPs who support this proposal? I am very prepared to provide a list of the ISPs who do not. . .large, and small.
The truth is that this is a poorly crafted, poorly defined organization whose only purpose seems to be to gain control of IP addresses in the Americas. As for it being a non-profit, the IRS looks poorly upon organizations that charge for services but try to claim non-profit status. Unlike APNIC or RIPE, ARIN has no collaborative or educational mission. It is a simple overcharge-for-registry scheme, if the proposal is to be believed.
If this were a real effort for collaboration, why not form them as APNIC and RIPE did? Why have we not seen proposed bylaws that set forth how the Board of Trustees will be elected, and how the organization will be responsible to the industry? Why no open information about accounting, or what their costs will be. This organization will pull more than $3 million from the industry in its first year alone, but offers **NO** accounting of how those funds will be used, why they are necessary, or what the accountability will be to the industry.
The truth is, Michael, that the authors of this proposal have little interest in "nailing down the details," and have rigourously avoided any opportunity to do so.
Don't believe it? Here's a simple test, Micheal. . .get an answer to a simple question: How many exectuives of Network Solutions, Inc., will become executives of ARIN, and how many NSI employees will be transferred to ARIN. And post the results of your query here, in public.
Pardon me if this seems insulting, but the last time we heard such a ringing indorsement of this proposal was by John Postel. . . who almost immediately and mysteriously was named as a new member of the ARIN Board of Trustees. . .
Michael, have you ever (and I will invoke the FTC truth in advertising law here, since this is a public forum) discussed with anyone the possibility of you becoming either a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or its appointed Advisory Council?
Yes, or no?
David P. McClure
Association of Online Professionals