I believe in creating a registry for each state. However, I don't agree with the
process mentioned below of letting the Senator's and Governor's decide who will
handle the tasks. The less the government is involved the better. Exactly
companies are decided, well that could be opened for discussion. The idea of
political figures decide leads me to believe special interest would soon
take control of
a number states, which in turn could harm the entire process. That is just
At 09:45 AM 2/26/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
>I believe that I have made these suggestions before.
>Unfortunately, the ARIN mail list archive was fouled
>up for a week or so, and it was just recently fixed.
>I am not sure everything made it into the record.
>One suggestion that I have made to the National
>Science Foundation is to take the $12.6 million
>dollar infrastructure fund and divide it 49 ways
>to help fund a new registry in each state. In
>September of 1998, the InterNIC would be
>handed over to the state of Virginia.
>The NSF could allocate $250,000 to each state
>and the U.S. Senators for the state in conjunction
>with the Governor, could help select a company
>to clone the InterNIC in that state. The selection
>process would be similar to the way the InterNIC
>Since John Curran and Scott Bradner are both
>in the State of Massachusetts, ARIN could be
>started there. Maybe ARIN could be used as
>a "prototype" by the NSF for other states to
>Again, I suggest that ARIN also pick up 3
>Top Level Domains to help provide a funding
>source. The business people behind ARIN
>should try to make sure ARIN is able to
>survive because customers will seek stability.
>A $250,000 grant from the NSF could help
>as "seed capital".
>Network Solutions, Inc. has evidently made
>suggestions to the NSF about what should
>be done with the $12.6 million. I would be
>interested in seeing those proposals here
>and to see how thjey compare and what
>other people's comments are...
>JimFleming at unety.net
>JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)