>@ Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for
>@ each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league
>@ baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties
>@ between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code,
>@ or any *other* scheme?
> It is political...have you closely followed the NSF proceedings
> and meeting notes...?....do you know their interests...?
> Do you know where the NSF get's their money...?
Do you know what the law constrains the NSF to spend their money for? I
suspect IP address registry services, let alone domain name registrations,
no longer qualify.
Perhaps it would be better to be asking the ISPs who would be the primary
customers of an IP address registry whether they see an advantage in
having (and paying for) a choice of 50 of them instead of just one?
It seems to me that letting IP address registry customers choose what
they pay for is a better idea then trying to get the government to
force an outcome which the government (or the NSF, certainly) is not
allowed to pay for.