The argument against multiple Registries
On Monday, February 24, 1997 1:10 AM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at accutek.com] wrote:
@ At 1:11 PM -0700 2/23/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ >This my friend is the heart of the problem....."The ARIN person"....
@ >If that person is white...will blacks receive numbers...?
@ >If that person is a man...will women receive numbers...?
@ >If that person is a woman...will men receive numbers...?
@ >If that person is a Catholic...will Protestants receive numbers...?
@ >...are you getting the picture....???...if not, I can provide a few more...
@ The "ARIN person" does not work in a vacuum. If there is discrimination in
@ the United States and Canada, there is legal recourse on the part of the
@ spurned. (Sometimes it's too easy to sue, but that's a discussion for
@ another place.) The IEEE and ACM are known for sponsoring equal
@ I mentioned Kim because of a desirable feature already discussed to death
@ in this list: continuity. Kim has been doing this, so she know the ropes.
@ The current proposal has her working for the Registry. I don't have a
@ problem with this, myself.
In my opinion, no one from Network Solutions, Inc.
should be allowed to be involved. They have a contract
The "continuity" that you seek can be achieved via
parallel operations. This serves two purposes:
1. The NSF's InterNIC remains stable.
2. Management issues of cooperating NICs
within the U.S. will be addressed.
On the IEEE and ACM notes. The ISP/C might be
another candidate organization. They already are
established as a non-profit company. They have
many leading industry experts who work well with
the InterNIC. They have a Board and Bylaws in place.
NANOG and CIX would also be possible choices.
Actually, I would prefer to see 6 or 8 get started.
The large companies that already have a /8 could
be part of that group to make sure there is a mix
of non-profits and for-profits.
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)