NAIPR Message

.WEB Suit

Glossary:
	InterNIC = NSF + (AT&T + NSI) Cooperating
	NSF = U.S. Government National Science Foundation
	AT&T = AT&T
	NSI = Network Solutions, Inc.

On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 12:28 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote:
@ At 12:12 2/26/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ 
@ >Now, you might not agree that the InterNIC should
@ >be kept in tact to provide stability, etc. You also
@ >might not agree that the InterNIC has been a success.
@ 
@ Jim - Since the cooperative agreement exists and specifically
@ tasks the InterNIC to handle this IP registry functions, their
@ ability to not provide such services is quite likely predicated
@ upon ARIN's success. 
@ 

Both can provide the services in parallel.
If the InterNIC wants to stop after ARIN and the other 40 or 50 NICs
are rolling, that will save the InterNIC the headaches
and the money.

@ >In closing, can you or anyone explain in GREAT detail
@ >why everyone seems to have decided that the IP address
@ >allocations be split from the InterNIC, especially when their
@ >is only one+ year left on the Cooperative Agreement ?
@ 
@ The costs of IP registry services are currently rolled into
@ the entire InterNIC costs.  These costs are offset principally
@ by DNS registration service fees which quite likely will undergo
@ significant changes over the next year with whatever combination
@ of new name registries emerge.
@ 

Yes...it is interesting that you mention these "changes".
There is one significant change that people seem to overlook.

Many of the costs of getting the InterNIC to where it is have
eaten into the profits of NSI. AT&T has not had much impact.
Once the .COM domain becomes stable, NSI's costs will
likely drop because more and more functions are automated
and renewals will just happen over and over. This is what
happens to insurance agents who work for a few years.

As NSI's costs drop, their profits may go up. They have
to manage their business in a changing climate.

You seem to be implying that the InterNIC can no longer "afford"
to support IP allocations. If that is the case then the NSF, AT&T
and NSI ought to spread the load around.

Until NSI's books are available to the general public to review
and the NSF audits the books, I am not sure anyone is in
a position to comment on the specifics of that situation. 


@ Given the operational importance of functional registry services,
@ it's desirable to start the transition of these services to a 
@ self-sustaining financial base sooner rather than later.  One 
@ additional benefit of such a transition is the ability to open 
@ up the policy formation process to those actually affected by
@ the IP registry services. 
@ 

I agree. I also have proposed that people be educated. This
is one of the goals of the NSF.

People need to become educated about the good and the
bad aspects of the prototype InterNIC the NSF has built.
By keeping the InterNIC together for 18 more months,
people can study it and make the best transitions.

I believe if the original plan of IS, DS, and RS had been followed
things would be better. Unfortunately, the NSF dismissed the
IS company and with that some of the functions were reorganized
to NSI and AT&T took a back seat to everything.

NSI has now emerged as what most people think is the InterNIC.
This is not the case.


@ Presumably, we could wait until the cooperative agreement nearly
@ expires to create ARIN; that would create serious risk to perform 
@ a flash cutover of facilities and authority to whatever structures
@ emerged as successor.
@ 
@ /John

Yes, that is why I have suggested that you keep the InterNIC
together and you clone the entire unit many times. Several
companies have been working on this cloning for many months
in anticipation of the need to do this.

We (the proverbial we) are way ahead of you. As BBN Planet
with hundreds of people under your management you should
not be insulted nor surprised that small companies are way
ahead of you on this one.

I am disturbed that the NSF has not recognized the efforts
of these smaller companies and worked more closely with
them to plan the transition. Instead, we see what appears to
be the NSF approach of catering to big companies, big
universities, and big names.

That is something no one can stop the NSF from doing,
but I hope you realize that smaller companies and
"Internet nobodys" will eventually see this and head in
other directions. In my opinion, that is a net-loss for
the Internet which ironically gives these smaller companies
unique advantages over large companies who can not
quickly make decisions and respond to markets as
fast as this net is moving.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)