Answer to Michael Dillon

[Dave McClure]

Michael, first of all thanks for your thoughtful response to our concerns.  While I do not agree with all of your points, they are well taken.

Let's begin with the questions of stewardship.  I would submit that stewardship for the IP address space allocation in the Western hemisphere should rest with the users of that space, following the APNIC and RIPE models, and that ARIN should be a coordinating agency between those entities.  The issue is one of control, and of trust.  I'll come back to the trust issue.

I agree that universities and research institutes should have a voice in ARIN, as should all users of the system.  I understand that  InterNIC issued about 300 allocations last year -- were 2/3 of them to universities and research institutes, as is reflected in the current ARIN Board?

As for the appointment of the Executive Director and the ED of IANA as ex officio members, I would agree that that makes sense.  But, of course, it leaves the question of whether IANA will continue at all, since the decisions will now be made by ARIN.  And why was this decision made secretly?  This is not a major point of contention, except that it continues the tradition of secret meetings and decisions by a self-appointed cabal.  We actually might have supported such a decision, had it ever been open for discussion.  But so far, not much of ARIN besides its fee schedule and the announcement of trustees has been open for discussion.

It is the opinion of AOP's tax attorneys that ARIN, as presently outlined, would not be likely to qualify as a non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(6) of the US Tax Code.  That code reads for that section:

"Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual."

Actually, an ARIN organization might more properly fit under Section 501(c)(3), which reads:

"Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

But understand that the rule are very strict.  It is not a matter of having strict rules about handling money.  It is about having a mission that is aimed at educational purposes.  While the ARIN proposal takes a minor swipe at a half-baked educational mission in the FAQ as posted:

"16. What educational services will ARIN supply to the Internet community? 

ARIN will be an organization responsible for maintaining a public trust. As part of its charter, ARIN is tasked with managing and conserving IPv4 address space. To help with this task it is necessary to educate the Internet community regarding efficient utilization of address space. This education is expected to take several forms, such as, policy and procedure training, website documents detailing efficient utilization guidelines and/or pointers to other documents, continued modifications to allocation guideline RFCs and any other form the membership determines. This education will in the long run benefit all Internet users by extending the longevity of the IPv4 address space. Contrary to recent postings, at no time, does ARIN plan to offer consulting services "

It is unlikely that a free market will need, in the long term, to be taught the importance of IPv4 addresses.  And this still begs the question. . .isnt this what IANA does today?

ARIN is proposed as an organization that will charge a fee (see schedule in proposal) for a service (registering IP addresses).  Fee-for-service is not a non-profit function. As I pointed out to Kim Hubbard several times, there are some basics of frming a non-profit -- bylaws, mission statement, etc. -- that could make much of the opposition in this newsgroup disappear.  

But, of course, no one involved with ARIN is actually listening.

As for the bylaws, Michael, they are critical.  You would excuse the trustees, who will be compensated for their work for ARIN, for not having the time to properly develop bylaws.  I would submit that if we do not have the luxury of personally knowing all those involved, we must rely on the formal contract to assure that we can trust ARIN.  That contract is spelled out in the bylaws.  Without proper bylaws that commit ARIN to some things -- open elections, accountability to the industry, etc. -- this is a sloppy job at best and a hijacking at worst.

Frankly, if the trustees do not have the time to do this right, why are they trustees?  And why should we automatically trust them to "do it right" in managing ARIN?

Michael, the level of vituperative attacks on this listserv are not because people are afraid to voice their support for ARIN.  It is because virtually everyone involved in ARIN is engaging in secret meetings, evasion of the facts, avoidance of answers and other actions that make them seem untrustworthy.  There are seven members of the ARIN Board of Trustees.  Who besides Kim Hubbard -- who is not posting regularly (Note:  I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to take the rap for the whole Board, either) -- has even bothered to post here?  

This is the Board you asuume will fix all rights, and will be sensitive to the needs of ARIN members.  How many even bother to post here?

ARIN, in its most recent proposal, claims to have authority to take control over American IP addresses from IANA.  Okay.  Who gave IANA the authority to assign a non-competitive contract to ARIN?

I'll repeat my comment about the major ISPs.  How many support this proposal?  Why are they not here, voicing it?  I can tell you that the ISPs who are members of AOP -- more than 600, large and small -- do not support the current proposal.  And I would dearly love to hear withat MCI, SPrint, AT&T, UUNet, Earthlink, Netcom and others have to say on this subject.  Where are they in this disucssion?

Sigh!  Michael, I know that I seem to be a constant critic of ARIN.  But the truth is that this is beeing done sloppily at best, and at wrost to the very detriment of our industry.  I have several times offered simple suggestions to improve or fix the proposal -- publicly and privately.

All have been ignored.

On a personal level, I can accept that.  After all, I've been called worse than the names I've been called here.  But the fact is that what we are proposing is nothing short of the future of IP administration in the northern hemisphere, and I am stunned that it is being handed over so casually on the basis of blind trust.

If you are wrong, Michael, who will you complain to?  You will have no input, no voice, and no one in control except the seven people you helped give control of IP registries to.  What then?

Regards,
Dave McClure