NAIPR Message

"leasing" the addresses

Jim writes:
> Please do not mis-interpret my views.

I am trying not to. If I do, then your clarifications are most welcome.

> IF there were 50 operational Top Level Domain registries
> in the U.S., I would be the first to be saying, "Hmmm
> maybe we need to expand the pie and encourage IP only
> registries..."

Are there not a large number of national registries that are 
at the Top level? Or, are you really referring to the Generic 
Top Level domain registries, like those recommended by IAHC. 
Please clarify.

> Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NSF and the
> InterNIC has not helped to create any NEW Top Level
> Domain registries. In fact, they have helped stand in
> the path of progress and people are being forced to
> route around the situation.

I was under the impression that InterNIC was not authorized to
create top level domain registries. My understanding is that is
part of the IANA. Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Would
you restate?

> This is not what is coming across, if that is what
> ARIN intended. What is coming across is a defensive
> group that wants to keep control. Trying to control
> the Internet is like trying to wrestle a fire-hose with
> an unlimited supply of water while you have
> roller-skates on your feet...

This is unfortunately. I don't think those involved in ARIN
are trying to be defensive, but I can certainly see how others
might take the actions they have seen and come to that conclusion.
It reminds me of how Republicans and Democrats see the same needs
and have completely different ways of viewing a mechanism to met
those needs. None of the proposed mechanisms are necessarily wrong, 
but in most cases, there is just not enough resources to implement more
than one or two of them.

Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: sob at
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- |Opinions expressed are only mine.