From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:29:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:13 -0600 Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries Message-ID: <01BC0472.0CD379E0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 4:52 AM, David Schwartz[SMTP:davids at wiznet.net] wrote: @ @ Sprint, for all intents and purposes, already does operate an IP @ registry. They receive IP allocations from Internic and then redistribute @ them to their customers. What more do they need? @ As I said... "In my opinion, Sprint is large enough to operate their own "registry". They could easily handle a /8." I see that you agree... Now...you ask..."What more do they need?" I would recommend that they obtain their own /8 and establish the necessary telemarketing people to handle registrations that do not necessarily have anything to do with people buying route announcement slots or bandwidth from them... Tieing IP Address Registrations to companies that sell bandwidth, short circuits what is really occurring. There should be at least three distinct steps... 1. Registration of IP addresses 2. Obtaining the right to announce routes 3. Purchasing bandwidth You could compare this to obtaining a (1) driver's license, (2) licensing your car, (3) operating the car. In the current system we have various agencies trying to sell IP addresses. Some control route announcements and some do not. The method of directing people to their "upstream provider" was a way to push most of the IP registry work off onto carriers. This was like saying, get your driver's license from the car dealer and they will give you a "dealer plate" (their IP addresses) and you can drive around on their parking lot which just happens to be connected to MOST of the other parking lots. Now ARIN is ready to take that work back for a fee. I suggest that ARIN only take on item #1 above and only for a limited part of the IPv4 address space (one /8 or maybe several /16s). I also suggest that carriers consider separating items #2 and #3 into distinct steps. When they do this, they may want to get into the business of #1, but that of course is their decision. That is the way it should be in a free market system. No matter what happens, all of these IP Address Registries, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, AlterNIC, AfricNIC, SouthAmericaNIC, CaribNIC, etc. still have to get their IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations entered in the Root Name Servers. I am sure that some of the Root Name Server owner/operators will be interested to see how much these registries are going to pay to obtain these delegations. Part of the registry fees should obviously be paid to the people who run the Root Name Servers for the good and stability of the Internet. It should be noted that some ISPs are large enough to have huge blocks of IP addresses, which they skillfully obtained from the InterNIC. Those ISPs can go directly to the Root Name Servers to secure their allocations. They are registries in their own right, even though they may not have the public exposure that ARIN will have because of the Network Solutions, Inc. funding. @ The authority is already there for them (and other ISPs) to @ allocate IPs to non-customers, including those who don't even have an @ Internet connection. Someone (David Conrad?) recently cited that RFC on @ this list. @ @ If anything, this pricing plan will increase the incentive for @ ISPs to act more like registries -- after all, it will now be more @ expensive for people to get their IPs 'direct'. So I think what you are @ asking for is already there. @ Great... You might be interested to know that several ISPs have told me that people are already calling asking to "pay" for their IP addresses to make sure they do not lose them. One of the good things that will come of these developments is more education on the part of the consumers. Some people think that they have their own IP addresses, when in fact they do not. They are going to find that they can not buy what they thought was theirs at any price. The demand for "provider independent" IPv4 addresses is going to go through the roof. Just as with the explosive growth of the .COM domain, if the Internet community does not deploy a structure to handle this growth, many customers will get poor service. Everyone seems willing to re-live the history of Network Solutions, Inc. doing on the job training to handle the growth of domain registrations without helping to spread the work to other registries. In my opinion, now is the time for people to learn from this past experience and to encourage the launch of numerous ARINs. Unfortunately, the IANA only seems to be willing to help certain companies get launched...why is that...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:47:06 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:47:06 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 5:00 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at ripe.net] wrote: @ @ Hi Jim, @ @ Jim Fleming writes: @ * On Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:42 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net @ * @ * David, @ * @ * I am really surprised that people are not telling you that @ * this is the ARIN list and not the APNIC list... @ * @ * Do you think that ARIN should be a carbon copy of APNIC...? @ * @ * If so, I would point out that APNIC has three /8 address spaces @ * that you "manage". @ * @ * Can you explain what plans APNIC has to create additional @ * registries to help manage those large spaces ? @ @ RIPE NCC also has 3 * /8, 193/8 194/8 and 195/8 and when 195/8 @ is full we will need another one. Why would we then need another @ registry to help us with this? I don't follow your logic. @ In my opinion, the additional registries would be helping you to allocate portions of the three /8 spaces that you have. If you educate those registries, they may grow up to apply for their own /8. As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous registries that will be requesting such an allocation. I can not imagine that it will be easy to obtain a fourth /8 when the line is long and you already have three. Scarce resources should be shared. @ If a ISP has a /16 which is fully used for his infrastructure and @ customers then they also come back for more address space, they don't @ go and start another ISP. @ Of course not, I am pointing out that some ISPs cultivate the training and growth of other ISPs. They sell them bandwidth, they help them with routers, they loan them IP addresses to get started, etc. Some ISPs grow to be as big or bigger than the ISPs that helped to launch them. Some do not. Sometimes the "parent" ISP buys its successful off-spring. Every combination has been seen. If you separate registry services from being an ISP, you might see that the registry services part of the business could be as profitable or more profitable as the "modem part". This is similar to airlines who discover that their on-line reservation systems have more value than their planes and gates. @ * Based on your experience with APNIC, do you think that @ * ARIN should start with a /8 or just a /16 ? @ @ @ Based on whats already been said here, you must have missed those @ mails, ARIN will take over where InterNIC stops. @ Oh really...has the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Government approved that...? Can you show me the public records where that decision has been made ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 13:56:31 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:56:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries In-Reply-To: <01BC0472.0CD379E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:29:13 pm Message-ID: <199701171856.NAA13108@access.netaxs.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1260 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970117/0aa4abff/attachment.ksh From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:58:22 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:58:22 -0600 Subject: ARIN, ISPs and registries Message-ID: <01BC0476.1F3EE980@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:56 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > No matter what happens, all of these IP Address Registries, @ > ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, AlterNIC, AfricNIC, SouthAmericaNIC, @ > CaribNIC, etc. still have to get their IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations @ > entered in the Root Name Servers. @ > @ > I am sure that some of the Root Name Server owner/operators @ > will be interested to see how much these registries are going @ > to pay to obtain these delegations. Part of the registry fees @ > should obviously be paid to the people who run the Root Name @ > Servers for the good and stability of the Internet. @ > @ > It should be noted that some ISPs are large enough to have @ > huge blocks of IP addresses, which they skillfully obtained @ > from the InterNIC. Those ISPs can go directly to the Root Name @ > Servers to secure their allocations. They are registries in their @ > own right, even though they may not have the public exposure @ > that ARIN will have because of the Network Solutions, Inc. @ > funding. @ @ Why do you fail to understand that there is a community, and that @ community supports the IANA and *not* the root name servers as @ allocaters of IP space. Really, the concept is quite simple. @ @ Have you even found *one* of the respected/trusted/current root @ name server operators who will go along with your theory? @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ @ Some people support dictatorships and others support democracy... Suit yourself... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:59:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:59:17 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0476.3FF368E0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:57 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get @ > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous @ > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. @ @ And which registries would these be? @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ You indicated that you are interested in running an IP Address Registry... Are you in line...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:52:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:52:40 -0600 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <01BC0475.53CF23A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 7:53 PM, Jerry Scharf[SMTP:scharf at VIX.COM] wrote: @ For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an anual @ fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things allocated @ in a prior period. @ @ There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a nominal @ recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally by @ ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. @ Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. @ @ Jerry @ @ Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 13:57:02 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:57:02 -0600 Subject: .AFRICA TLD Message-ID: <01BC0475.EFCE7120@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 5:10 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at noc.usvi.net] wrote: @ well, i guess my response to this should be @ @ .CARIB and CARIB.NIC @ @ for all the countries touching the waters of the caribbean. @ @ to see the floags (most of them) try www.caribtour.com @ @ or (alternatively) www.carib.tour @ @ @ @ @ Peter J. de Blanc pdeblanc at usvi.net @ Director, USVI.NET P.O. Box 1678 @ Voice (809) 776-4800 St. Thomas, VI 00804 @ Fax (809) 776-2666 United States of America @ @ @ CARIB.NIC makes a lot of sense... ...especially, if you plan to provide IP Address Registry services... You might want to check out the developments at... http://www.arin.net -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 14:08:18 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:08:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0476.3FF368E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:59:17 pm Message-ID: <199701171908.OAA14608@access.netaxs.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 907 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970117/7d517b9b/attachment.ksh From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 14:13:01 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:13:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: from "Brian Tackett" at Jan 16, 97 10:43:19 am Message-ID: <199701171913.OAA15074@access.netaxs.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 181 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970117/17c88dd4/attachment.ksh From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 14:10:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:10:11 -0600 Subject: Your kidding right? Message-ID: <01BC0477.C5D32620@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 8:08 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 7:57 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ > @ > As far as obtaining another /8. I imagine that you have to get @ > @ > at the end of the line and apply just like all of the other numerous @ > @ > registries that will be requesting such an allocation. @ > @ @ > @ And which registries would these be? @ > @ @ > @ > Jim Fleming @ > @ @ > @ Avi @ @ > You indicated that you are interested in running an @ > IP Address Registry... @ > @ > Are you in line...? @ @ Sure, we would love to start a registry. But it doesn't seem that the @ community is interested in having many competing registries in an area. @ @ When I see RFPs from respected bodies, Net Access may apply. @ @ But I suspect that a huge portion of the 'net would filter announcements from @ 'roguely allocated' IP space - enough to make the question of starting registries @ without the blessing of IANA quite pointless. @ @ > Jim Fleming @ @ Avi @ @ @ Can you point to the ARIN RFP...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From freedman at netaxs.com Fri Jan 17 13:57:28 1997 From: freedman at netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:57:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 12:47:06 pm Message-ID: <199701171857.NAA13216@access.netaxs.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 252 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://eris.arin.net/pipermail/naipr/attachments/19970117/f7a0791d/attachment.pl From wardish2 at ns.mtinter.net Fri Jan 17 15:15:00 1997 From: wardish2 at ns.mtinter.net (Ward R. Goodwin Jr. - Maillist account) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:15:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Info Request on updated proposal In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. > > Kim Hi Kim; Do you have a rough idea when the updated proposal will be available? Many of us have been following the ongoing discussions on here and I suspect I speak for many when I say we are eagerly looking forward to the updated proposal. Ward =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Mountain Internet, Inc. sysadmin at mtinter.net System Administrator P.O. Box 1939 wardish at mtinter.net Voice - (540) 935-4141 Grundy, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 597-2413 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Meddle not in my affairs, for you are mortal and taste good with ketchup... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer. Of course it's possible they don't reflect mine either... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From scharf at vix.com Fri Jan 17 14:26:28 1997 From: scharf at vix.com (Jerry Scharf) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:26:28 -0800 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <199701171927.LAA29727@bb.home.vix.com> JimFleming at unety.net said: > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? I think is within the guidance role of IETF/pagan to recommend that an annual maintainence fee be charged for Internet Engineering reasons and what that fee should cover. I think it will be the responsibility of the registries/user base to decide how much the charge. This is just my personal opinion. This should move to pagan at apnic.net, as it has nothing directly to do with ARIN. I stated this in my last comment and you chose to ignore it, yet you are always wondering why people consider you a destructive force on mailing lists. Jerry From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 15:34:19 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:34:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC046B.4B3C8340@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. > > Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? The point is that nobody cares whether it is a /8 or a /16 or any other netblock size. When ARIN runs short of address space, they talk to IANA about it. After consulations IANA gives them more. > Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted > to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? Nobody submits applications to IANA. You are under the misconception that IANA is some sort of aloof, remote bureaucracy that requires proper forms in triplicate. This is not the case. There is a darn good reason why people refer to the "Internet community" all the time in these sorts of discussions. That's because it *IS* a community and decisions are reached through a consultative process where everyone bounces ideas around and tries to find a workable solution through consensus. > What form was used ? There are no forms. The only thing I can possibly see IANA using forms for would be SNMP MIB registrations because there are so many. > Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? > Is there an application fee ? Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going on here. > @ > 2. Does ARIN intend to cultivate the education of additional > @ > registries ? > @ > @ The only other IP registrie4s that ARIN will cultivate will be IP > @ registries for the continents of South America and Africa. Once those > @ registries are actually operational they will be equals with ARIN, APNIC > @ and RIPE with all 5 getting IP allocations from IANA. > That is good news.... > > You are obviously much more in touch with what is going > on with ARIN than most people... > > Do you work for Network Systems, Inc. ? No. I just pay attention to what people say and I try to put aside my own preconcieved notions of how things operate in order to more clearly see what is there. You would be well advised to start doing the same. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:45:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:45:59 -0600 Subject: request for clarification Message-ID: <01BC0485.27CF74C0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 1:26 PM, Jerry Scharf[SMTP:scharf at VIX.COM] wrote: @ JimFleming at unety.net said: @ > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? @ @ I think is within the guidance role of IETF/pagan to recommend that an annual @ maintainence fee be charged for Internet Engineering reasons and what that fee @ should cover. I think it will be the responsibility of the registries/user @ base to decide how much the charge. This is just my personal opinion. @ I tried to get some clarification on this from Fred Baker the IETF chair. It appears that he is traveling on ISOC business in France, so this may take a while. @ This should move to pagan at apnic.net, as it has nothing directly to do with @ ARIN. I stated this in my last comment and you chose to ignore it, yet you are @ always wondering why people consider you a destructive force on mailing lists. @ @ Jerry @ @ For the record, you did not state which list this should be discussed on. You just said not to cross the threads. I have only posted to the ONE list and you chose to cross the threads and post to BOTH lists... ...once again, we see the double standard at work... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:51:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:51:04 -0600 Subject: How ARIN obtains IP blocks Message-ID: <01BC0485.DE104160@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. @ > @ > Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? @ @ The point is that nobody cares whether it is a /8 or a /16 or any other @ netblock size. When ARIN runs short of address space, they talk to IANA @ about it. After consulations IANA gives them more. @ Will this same process be used by ALL companies that run IP address registries ? Are ALL companies treated equally by the IANA ? What criteria does the IANA use ? Are the discussions and results published ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:52:57 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:52:57 -0600 Subject: The InterArin Community Message-ID: <01BC0486.213CE920@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted @ > to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? @ @ Nobody submits applications to IANA. You are under the misconception that @ IANA is some sort of aloof, remote bureaucracy that requires proper forms @ in triplicate. This is not the case. There is a darn good reason why @ people refer to the "Internet community" all the time in these sorts of @ discussions. That's because it *IS* a community and decisions are reached @ through a consultative process where everyone bounces ideas around and @ tries to find a workable solution through consensus. @ Can you give us the names of the top 10 people in this "community" ? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 15:55:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:55:48 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 6:34 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ @ > Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? @ > Is there an application fee ? @ @ Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do @ nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going @ on here. @ Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, called meetings, and even accepted application fees... You were one of the people that helped to confuse everyone by running around with this "Wizard of Oz" IANA descriptions... Do you really think that you are going to fool people this time around...? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 14:05:03 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:05:03 -0600 Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees Message-ID: <01BC0477.0E5C98A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 9:17 PM, Chuck Goes[SMTP:chuck at digiplay.com] wrote: @ I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks @ of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on @ my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to @ cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would @ be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. @ This will eventually put me out of business. @ @ And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they @ are covering? This I do not understand. @ @ Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. @ -- @ _________________________________________________________________ @ @ Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. @ chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 @ http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 @ Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 @ _________________________________________________________________ @ @ If you become an IP Address Registry, then you can obtain your own blocks and lease parts of those blocks to people or companies not directly involved in the Internet infrastructure. This can become a profit center rather than a cost center... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 16:30:21 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:30:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: opinions Message-ID: <199701172130.AA15362@zed.isi.edu> So, It looks like Jim "Everyone is entitled to My Opinions" Flemming has found this list as well.... -- --bill From davids at wiznet.net Fri Jan 17 10:35:40 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:35:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: <32DEEF5B.176A@digiplay.com> Message-ID: Since you got your IP addresses from WorldWide Access, one of the "larger providers" who "would be able to eat this cost", I don't understand what you are worried about. DS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Chuck Goes wrote: > I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks > of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on > my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to > cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would > be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. > This will eventually put me out of business. > > And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they > are covering? This I do not understand. > > Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. > -- > _________________________________________________________________ > > Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. > chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 > http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 > Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 > _________________________________________________________________ > > From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Fri Jan 17 23:43:51 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:43:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: from "David Schwartz" at Jan 17, 97 10:35:40 am Message-ID: <199701180443.XAA02730@linux.silkroad.com> He is simply a concerned person, it seems, who cares about, not only the 'largest providers who.... eat this cost' (as you reply) but to everyone who would like to be one the internet regardless of provider. > > Since you got your IP addresses from WorldWide Access, one of the > "larger providers" who "would be able to eat this cost", I don't > understand what you are worried about. > > DS > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In the news today: A fire tore through Bob Dole's library. Both books > were destroyed, and he hadn't even finished coloring one yet. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Chuck Goes wrote: > > > I have just been advised about the proposals to charge fees for blocks > > of IP Addresses. As a small ISP, this would be an intolerable burdon on > > my small business. I would be forced to increase my fees dramatically to > > cover this increased cost. Meanwhile, some of the larger providers would > > be able to eat this cost and therefore not have to increase their fees. > > This will eventually put me out of business. > > > > And to what benefit will these fees go for? What is the cost that they > > are covering? This I do not understand. > > > > Bottom line, I am very much apposed to this proposal. > > -- > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Chuck Goes Digital Interplay, Inc. > > chuck at digiplay.com P.O. Box 607061 > > http://www.digiplay.com Chicago, IL 60660-1912 > > Voice: 773-743-9843 FAX: 773-743-9844 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From jfbb at ATMnet.net Fri Jan 17 18:16:00 1997 From: jfbb at ATMnet.net (Jim Browning) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:16:00 -0800 Subject: All this /12, /14, /19, /24, etc? Message-ID: <01BC04B7.47FB2960@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] >Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 4:49 AM > >>I agree - there's absolutely *no* reason why competent ISPs should pay >>any portion of expenses incurred as a result of helping the clueless. > >Sigh. Shared fate, cooperation, culture of the Internet, etc. "This >is not your father's Internet". > >As I mentioned, the path chosen by APNIC was decided after significant >discussion and it was felt that a flat fee would balance out in the end >(e.g., an organization would cost more than they paid when they started, >but would in the end recover those costs after they gained clues). > >However, given the ability for the membership to modify the funding plan, if >ISPs in NA do not feel such an approach is appropriate, the funding mechanism >can change. That's pretty much the point -- the people who are affected by >the operation of the registry decide how the registry will operate. Giving the membership some authority in the articles/bylaws would go a long way t eliminating a lot of (otherwise pointless) controversy.. -- Jim Browning From bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM Sat Jan 18 00:39:48 1997 From: bass at LINUX.SILKROAD.COM (Tim Bass) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:39:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: Interrogatories (opportunity to contribute) Message-ID: <199701180539.AAA02830@linux.silkroad.com> Ladies and Gentlemen: After lurking on this list for some time, it has become obvious (at least to me) this group is just another iteration of the CIDRD-WG and enjoys the same emotional support and prejudicial bias famous in that WG. However, I'm disinterested in emotional and circular arguments which defy logic, fear tactics, and deception; which has dominated this issue for years. I am going to submit a set of Interrogatories via the US judicial system which addresses basic questions, to relevant organizations, regarding core IP issues: These Interrogatories will begin with a set of basic questions such as (worded better than these quick examples): (1) Does your organization claim copyright to the Internet Protocol? (2) Does your organization claim ownership rights to the Internet Protocol Address space? (3) Under what authority does your organization claim to regulate, administer, register or control the use of IP address space? &c. &c. (moving to a level of finer granularity as the questions progress). I'm sorry to be inclined to proceed with these Interrogatories; but it is quite obvious this issue will not be resolved; and the public trust has been violated by both the NSF and Network Solutions, Inc. (SAIC) and the I* organizations. Discussion and opposition is futile as it is apparent the future is for *some org* to regulate the Internet by charging for address space. There is no time nor energy for pointless argumentation and opposition. I was informed, via a FOIA reply from NSF, this group was for discussing the proposal; and I was informed by SAIC they were not convinced address space charges were necessary. However, the same old provider based address space proponents are here, on this list, dominating the discussion and shouting down and intimidating all who disagree. Enough is enough. This has gone too far already. Anyone who has specific questions they think would be useful in these Interrogatories, please forward them to me. I am happy to review them and include them, if possible. Emotional arguments by provider based proponents, threats, insults, and censure is totally unnecessary. My mind is firm on this matter and the Interrogatories will be filed soon. I cannot be intimated, threatened, nor insulted into inaction (period). It was my firm hope, the Internet Community and the supporting commercial vendors would energize to build a scalable exterior routing protocol where the service access points (IP addresses) would have no value. However, after watching and participating in this debate for over four years, there is little hope for a scalable paradigm when all parties are advocating economic and administrative solutions (and all technical proposals have either abandoned, shouted down, or ignored by the vendors and vendor supporters and employees within I* organizations). I cannot, in good conscious, stand by and watch 'the elite' claim IP address space rights and create an economic market, based on a poorly designed exterior routing protocol track. Furthermore, I have no interest in participating in emotional, circular, arguments which do little for the future of a scalable Internet. This is especially true as IPv6 matures. My vision of the Internet is one where IP address space is abundant, not polluted, and routable by a scalable paradigm. It is unethical to allow commercial interests to place IP address space and the Internet Community under siege and create a economic commodity out of a numbering system. To allow this to happen, in my opinion, is to allow a great injustice to occur and I do not think, men and women of good intent, should waste their valuable time in this continuing debate, which in over 15 years, has produced little technical progress, made a mockery of the intelligence of the Internet Community, and allowed a self-proclaimed group of 'elite' to drive the Internet down to a new low, all in the guise of their 'vision of the commercial Internet'. Relevant contributions to the Interrogatories are welcome and appreciated. However, I will proceed independently, without outside input, if necessary. Tim -- mailto:bass at silkroad.com voice (703) 222-4243 http://www.silkroad.com/ fax (703) 222-7320 From woody at zocalo.net Sat Jan 18 01:40:08 1997 From: woody at zocalo.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:40:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Interrogatories (opportunity to contribute) Message-ID: <199701180640.WAA25665@zocalo.net> Tim Bass (bass at linux.silkroad.com) writes: > Does your organization claim copyright to the > Internet Protocol? > > Does your organization claim ownership rights > to the Internet Protocol Address space? > > Under what authority does your organization claim > to regulate, administer, register or control > the use of IP address space? Tim, As you well know: 1) "Copyright" of the Internet Protocol, if it exists, has no bearing upon the right to use integers. 2) To the best of my knowlege, nobody is claiming to "regulate or control" the set of integers. 3) Anyone who likes may "register" or "administer" integers to the extent of their heart's desire. 4) You're welcome to use any integer you like, for any purpose you like, anyone else's registration and administration notwithstanding. Accordingly I have, for my own amusement, just dubbed you "42". Furthermore, I've registered this fact on a half-used Post-It(tm) note here on my desk. I'm curious to find out whether this will provoke you to sue me. -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com From davids at wiznet.net Fri Jan 17 10:52:18 1997 From: davids at wiznet.net (David Schwartz) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:52:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC03B9.802E91E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: Sprint, for all intents and purposes, already does operate an IP registry. They receive IP allocations from Internic and then redistribute them to their customers. What more do they need? The authority is already there for them (and other ISPs) to allocate IPs to non-customers, including those who don't even have an Internet connection. Someone (David Conrad?) recently cited that RFC on this list. If anything, this pricing plan will increase the incentive for ISPs to act more like registries -- after all, it will now be more expensive for people to get their IPs 'direct'. So I think what you are asking for is already there. David Schwartz On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > In my opinion, Sprint is large enough to operate their > own "registry". They could easily handle a /8. > > Most ISPs are not large enough or experienced enough > to operate an IP Address Registry. Those ISPs will likely > have to band together under an ARIN-like organization. From cym at acrux.net Fri Jan 17 10:55:55 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:55:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Kim Hubbard wrote: > we could get community reaction on the proposal and make whatever > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. And we appreciate your effort a great deal. Hopefully we (well, at least I can speak for myself :) can keep focus where it needs to be kept until the next revision is available. From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Fri Jan 17 02:59:26 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:59:26 -0000 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC044C.5CEEA2E0@tcsd.k12.ca.us> To Whom: I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a global market. The ramifications would be severe. While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it has been explained. Mark Richmond CNE, AOP, CPIM District Technology Coordinator Tulare City Schools, CA From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 01:23:12 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:23:12 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Unlike RIPE, ARIN proposes to have both membership dues and service fees. Do we really need both membership dues and service fees? The membership dues are structured so that they represent a re-assessment of the previously paid assignment fees. This is different from both APNIC and RIPE, which assess dues based on the size (revenue) of the organization. Should we adopt the APNIC and RIPE model? An alternative would be to eliminate member dues, instead relying on assignment fees for revenue. A nominal amount, such as $100, could be assessed a member in those years that no new assessments are needed. Since ARIN has not yet published a proposed budget, we cannot judge whether these fees are adequate to cover expenses, current and future. In the absence of information, I am seeking consensus on the form and general amount of fees. Here are various proposed (one-time) fees: current similar medium broader ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 /16 $10,000 each $10,000 each $4,096 each $6,561 each /17 $7,500 " $7,500 $3,072 $4,374 /18 $5,000 " $5,500 $2,304 $2,916 /19 $2,500 " $4,000 $1,728 $1,944 /20 $2,500 " $3,000 $1,296 $1,296 /21 $2,500 " $2,250 $972 $864 /22 $2,500 " $1,750 $729 $576 /23 $2,500 " $1,500 $547 $384 /24 $2,500 " $1,325 $410 $256 Does column 3 (medium) look about right in scaling? or column 4? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:40:51 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:40:51 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC046B.4B3C8340@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 5:05 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ 95% of the people on this list probably already know what ARIN's position @ on these questions will be. @ @ > 1. What /8 does ARIN intend to manage ? @ @ ARIN will manage whatever address space is delegated to it by IANA. @ Will that be a /8 or a /16 ? Have the applications been posted that ARIN submitted to the IANA to obtain IPv4 Address Space and Registry rights ? What form was used ? Is the IANA accepting additional applications ? Is there an application fee ? @ > 2. Does ARIN intend to cultivate the education of additional @ > registries ? @ @ The only other IP registrie4s that ARIN will cultivate will be IP @ registries for the continents of South America and Africa. Once those @ registries are actually operational they will be equals with ARIN, APNIC @ and RIPE with all 5 getting IP allocations from IANA. @ That is good news.... You are obviously much more in touch with what is going on with ARIN than most people... Do you work for Network Systems, Inc. ? @ > 3. Who are the Trustees of ARIN ? @ @ Kim said this would get announced when they publish a revised proposal. @ I think most people would be satisfied to wait and see it all at once. @ Sure...while they are waiting for the IANA, the IAHC, the ISOC...etc... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 02:14:00 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:14:00 +0900 Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Jan 1997 06:23:12 GMT." <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: <199701180714.QAA12384@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Bill, A clarification: >This is different >from both APNIC and RIPE, which assess dues based on the size (revenue) >of the organization. Should we adopt the APNIC and RIPE model? APNIC's "size" differentiation is entirely self-determined, not based on revenue. As the APNIC community couldn't agree as to what constituted a good metric for "size", but we realized that some organizations would be interested/willing to pay more than others (for whatever reason), we decided to allow the members to define their own sizes. At this time, we have a distribution of (about) 50% small, 20% medium, 30% large. Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:56:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:56:14 -0600 Subject: ARIN Humor Message-ID: <01BC046D.7113CA40@webster.unety.net> I heard that these are the ARIN Trustee "candidates"... http://www.neato.org/~femur/images/gallery/aringrp.html I guess now we just need names to go with the faces...;-) -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 12:53:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:53:47 -0600 Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees Message-ID: <01BC046D.19C330A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, January 16, 1997 4:43 PM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: @ @ But I don't think any one's seriously claiming that the proposed prices @ are outrageously high and in danger of making business difficult @ for them. @ Until many ARIN-like companies are *allowed* to get into the business, people will not know what the prices or costs should be. The market place should be allowed to determine the price... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Fri Jan 17 17:06:09 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:06:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: the IETF & fees Message-ID: <199701172206.RAA06546@newdev.harvard.edu> Jim asked: > Are you saying that the IETF makes recommendations on fees ? explicitly by command of the IESG lawyers - no Scott From kimh at internic.net Fri Jan 17 17:44:12 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:44:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Info Request on updated proposal In-Reply-To: from "Ward R. Goodwin Jr. - Maillist account" at Jan 17, 97 03:15:00 pm Message-ID: <199701172244.RAA05174@jazz.internic.net> > > > Kim > > > Hi Kim; > > Do you have a rough idea when the updated proposal will be available? > Many of us have been following the ongoing discussions on here and I > suspect I speak for many when I say we are eagerly looking forward to the > updated proposal. > > Ward Understood. I would say middle of next week at the latest. Actually, all of the details have pretty much been ironed out (at least where the BoT is concerned) it's just a matter of making sure it's clear to you the reader. Kim > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Ward R. Goodwin Jr. Mountain Internet, Inc. sysadmin at mtinter.net > System Administrator P.O. Box 1939 wardish at mtinter.net > Voice - (540) 935-4141 Grundy, VA 24614 Fax - (540) 597-2413 > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Meddle not in my affairs, for you are mortal and taste good with ketchup... > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Opinions expressed here don't necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer. > Of course it's possible they don't reflect mine either... > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Jan 18 02:39:51 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN Humor In-Reply-To: <01BC046D.7113CA40@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > I heard that these are the ARIN Trustee "candidates"... > > http://www.neato.org/~femur/images/gallery/aringrp.html > > I guess now we just need names to go with the faces...;-) I think most members of this list will find more humour at the end of this column.... http://www.zdnet.com/macuser/onlinecol/ihnatkosf96.html :-) Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 18:08:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:08:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ Obviously the answer is "no" to both of these. Your silly questions do > @ nothing but confuse the media who are trying to understand what is going > @ on here. > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... In my opinion you are deliberately lying about this in order to mislead people. IANA did *NOT* encourage people to submit applications for TLD's. They did suggest that people who were concerned about being first in the event first-com first-served was used as a deciding factor, should send in a notice of their intention to make an application. And IANA did *NOT* call any meetings although one of the people who was assisting IANA in developing a TLD plan offered to meet with anyone who cared to attend and noted publicly that such a face-to-face meeting would not make any decisions. And IANA certainly did *NOT* accept any application fees. One of the attendees at the abovementioned meeting placed a cheque in a sealed envelope and slipped it into a file with notes and other documents from the meeting. When it was revealed that this envelope containing a cheque existed the envelope was returned to the individual without ever being opened. > You were one of the people that helped to confuse everyone > by running around with this "Wizard of Oz" IANA descriptions... > > Do you really think that you are going to fool people this > time around...? People will judge me by my words. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 18:08:57 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:08:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0486.875A44A0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 02:55:48 pm Message-ID: <199701172308.AA15535@zed.isi.edu> > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. -- --bill From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:22:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:22:45 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ @ -- @ --bill @ @ Can you be more specific...? BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about along with your expansion on the above...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From bmanning at ISI.EDU Fri Jan 17 18:26:28 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:26:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 17, 97 05:22:45 pm Message-ID: <199701172326.AA15584@zed.isi.edu> > > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... > @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. > @ > @ -- > @ --bill > @ > @ > > Can you be more specific...? I refer you to the mailing list archives. > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about > along with your expansion on the above...? And Mr. Dillon is who's legal representative? > > -- > Jim Fleming > UNETY Systems, Inc. > Naperville, IL > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > -- --bill From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:33:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:33:59 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC049C.A0570CC0@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:26 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ > @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ > @ @ > @ -- @ > @ --bill @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Can you be more specific...? @ @ I refer you to the mailing list archives. @ The mailing lists confirm what I have posted... Now, I realize that you have posted stories about how an envelope with money appeared in a file folder you had at a meeting, but those are your stories and several witnesses do not back up your story... ...in fact, they claim that you provided the envelope... As for you representing the IANA, that was very clear to everyone and last Fall you gave a talk in Silicon Valley as...Bill Manning of the IANA...if you recall, I had to ask Jon Postel and Fred Baker if that was the case and then after the meeting with 70+ people, the web site was changed... @ > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe @ > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about @ > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about @ > along with your expansion on the above...? @ @ And Mr. Dillon is who's legal representative? @ I just asked why Michael Dillon was telling people on the IAHC list that you should not talk about this for 2 years...what is the 2 years all about...? -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Jan 17 18:58:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:58:15 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC04A0.04AF3140@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:26 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > On Friday, January 17, 1997 9:08 AM, bmanning at ISI.EDU wrote: @ > @ > Hmmm...this is odd...during the Top Level Domain debates, @ > @ > the IANA clearly encouraged people to submit applications, @ > @ > called meetings, and even accepted application fees... @ > @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ > @ @ > @ -- @ > @ --bill @ > @ @ > @ @ > @ > Can you be more specific...? @ @ I refer you to the mailing list archives. @ @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Re: Notes (fwd) John Frangie (john at toyota-slo.com) Fri, 03 Jan 1997 13:21:12 -0800 Mr Dillon, please don't take this wrong. I think the technical contribution you can add to this process is very valuable. Since day one, I have considered you, Rick Wesson, Perry Metzger, Simon Higgs along with Chris Ambler and a few others as the ones I draw most of my knowledge from. Thank you all for your input. Now I am unclear if you if you are planning on running a Registry. If you are, that might explain your need to try and make Chris look silly by constantly disreguarding the facts as they happened. IMO you will fail at a registry or any other endeavor you attempt if you try and convince anyone, anything that is not based on truth. Now the truth is you were not at this meeting. Michael Dillon wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > Since the Postel draft was > > not yet RFC (according to their plans), I asked permission to go online now, > > as long as I disclaimed that it would take a while longer to get the Postel > > draft to RFC status. > > You asked permission? Do you think Bill is God? In English the words used > to ask for permission are also used to ask if something is technically > possible. Lots of room for misunderstanding there. And since Bill had no > authority to give you permission to do this anyway, it is a moot point. Michael, if I may, your crystal ball seems to be fooling you. A conversation with Bill Manning on this subject might stop this noise you are posting. > > Both myself > > and Mr. Frangie (a shareholder and partner in Image Online Design) were very > > clear with Bill. > > I see. So when you placed a check in a sealed enveloppe and slipped the > enveloppe into a file folder with some other paper, this was being > "very clear"? If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and he would place it in file along with our application. (Note) Bill said nothing about slipping the envelope anywhere as he appears to have too much integrity for anything like that. It was always our intention, in giving Bill Manning the check, to have this complete our application process according to the Postel draft which would become a RFC around October 1, 1996. And so accepted. > > What is important is the final document that the IAHC will present to us on > > the 31st, and what happens thereafter. > > As I read the draft of this document, there is very little hope that any > company will find a golden egg in the outcome of the IAHC. In other words, > if you have a business plan that relies on becoming a domain name > registrar and making lots of money, you had better change those plans now. > It is quite clear that the IAHC is not going to create a cash cow for > anyone. > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From randy at psg.com Sat Jan 18 02:58:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees References: <5632.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: > current similar medium broader > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 19:18:38 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:18:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049B.0E3F4240@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about > along with your expansion on the above...? At the time on the IAHC list there were people who were threatening to take legal actions against Bill and against IANA if IAHC did not give them the rights to run a domain name registry. In addition Jim Fleming was posting messages that I considered to be mostly innuendo and outright lies. I posted a message that attempted to clarify what had actually taken place and I included portions of several email messages from public lists such as domain-policy at internic.net. I felt that Bill needed to say no more than what was already on the public record and I suggested that he should not say anything more about it because of the vultures waiting to pounce with their lawsuits. I did not consult with Bill on any of this nor did I send him the advice privately. In other words, Bill has nothing whatsever to do with what I said. If anyone wonders why I keep answering these allegations from Fleming it is because I have seen some evidence that members of the media are monitoring this list and have been mislead by Fleming's words. Thus I am attempting to provide an opposing viewpoint that, I hope, is a fairly close reflection of reality. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 19:50:28 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:50:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC049C.A0570CC0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > I just asked why Michael Dillon was telling people on > the IAHC list that you should not talk about this for 2 > years...what is the 2 years all about...? I picked it out off the top of my head because I'm reasonably certain that in two years, the details of how new TLD's came to be will be of no interest to anyone but historians. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Jan 17 20:07:47 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC04A0.04AF3140@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Anybody who is REALLY interested in the details can check that message and the other messages in the day or two before and after. The whole story should become clear if you follow through the thread over a couple of days. You don't have to take my word for it because the discussions are all in the public domain. > If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill > Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse > himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the > envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and > he would place it in file along with our application. You will note that Chris Ambler and John Frangie, who make this claim, are both from the same company. If you read through the whole thread to get the context you will find a list of other participants at the meeting and you will note that neither Jim Fleming nor myself was there. But one other participant at the meeting *DID* comment on the events and his comments do *NOT* agree with what John Frangie said above. Seems to me that Jim Fleming is once again lying by ommission and dragging mud all over everything because he cannot get his own way. And if you were to review the IAHC list (a voluminous task) you would see that the people who Fleming has called as witnesses have made some clearly incorrect statements on numerous occasions on that list. That is why I cannot take the above statement by John Frangie seriously. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From icarvs at prtc.net Fri Jan 17 00:43:54 1997 From: icarvs at prtc.net (icarvs) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 21:43:54 PST Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170153.RAA10933@bb.home.vix.com> References: Conversation with last message <199701170153.RAA10933@bb.home.vix.com> Message-ID: Thank you. ---------- > For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an anual > fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things allocated > in a prior period. > > There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a nominal > recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally by > ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. > Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. > > Jerry From handler at sub-rosa.com Fri Jan 17 21:05:20 1997 From: handler at sub-rosa.com (Michael Handler) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:05:20 -0500 Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC0474.8C77A520@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: In <01BC0474.8C77A520 at webster.unety.net>, JimFleming at UNETY.NET (Jim Fleming) wrote: > @ Based on whats already been said here, you must have missed those > @ mails, ARIN will take over where InterNIC stops. > > Oh really...has the National Science Foundation and > the U.S. Government approved that...? Sure. When they gave authority of delegation over the IPv4 space to the IANA. > Can you show me the public records where that decision > has been made ? There probably are not. It would defeat the point of delegating the management of IPv4 space to the IANA, if the IANA was forced to justify every decision they made to the NSF in committee hearing. I have no doubt if the IANA tried to do something utterly unreasonable with the responsibilities they have been given, that the NSF would step in and remove them from power. -- Michael Handler i seek a thousand answers / i find but one or two / i maintain no discomfiture / my path again renewed -- bad religion From davidc at apnic.net Sat Jan 18 04:27:12 1997 From: davidc at apnic.net (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:27:12 +0900 Subject: Your kidding right? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:41:51 CST." <9701161742.aa17558@blkbox.COM> Message-ID: <199701180927.SAA13502@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Marc, >I am and have been on hold for over 45 minutes dialed into the NIC's >help line currently. "All representitives are busy. Please stay on the >line". This is a toll call. You can forget my vote of confidence as to >having the current InterNic infrastructure handling any sort of new >arangement that might arise. So I gather you support the concept of fees for allocation and informational services. Regards, -drc From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 08:48:09 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 13:48:09 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5634.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > current similar medium broader > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From icarvs at prtc.net Fri Jan 17 13:28:22 1997 From: icarvs at prtc.net (icarvs) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 10:28:22 PST Subject: request for clarification In-Reply-To: <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> References: Conversation with last message <199701170301.WAA19153@moses.internic.net> Message-ID: Dear Kim , I have one simple question, Can I volunteer to be a member of the board? You see, is not that easy to find a job in the real world as a generation X'er anymore. Section 1.1 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Board of Trustees will manage the business affairs of ARIN. This 5-member voluntary board will include the following corporate officers positions: President, Secretary and Treasurer. The initial Board of Trustees will be selected from those individuals who have shown an understanding of the issues and a desire to participate in solutions. The terms of the initial trustees selected shall be staggered to allow one to expire after the first year, two after the second year and the final two after the third year. Each term thereafter will be three years. The trustees whose terms do not expire shall elect successor trustees to fill the vacancies. ---------- On Thursday, Jan 16, 1997 Kim wrote: > > > > Ok, let me explain where the misunderstanding apparently is, ANNUAL means > > once a year folks. This means once PER year, you get charged. What we're > > Brett, you're right. The proposal is not clear on several issues and > needs modifying on others. That's why this list was established, so > we could get community reaction on the proposal and make whatever > changes necessary. It's taking a little longer than expected to update > the proposal because we're trying to take our time to make sure each > part is clear and each issue that has been raised is addressed. > > Kim > > > > discussing here is a one time fee for all allocations received in that > > 'business year'. Its this kind of vagueness that makes ARIN stink so badly, > > well, that and the self-sustaning dictorship. > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Jerry Scharf wrote: > > > > > > > > For any given year in which you want allocations from ARIN, you pay an > anual > > > fee. There is no fee per allocation, and there is no fee for things > allocated > > > in a prior period. > > > > > > There has been a discussion on the pagan IETF group about putting in a > nominal > > > recurring fee. That is a separate thing and would not be done unilaterally > by > > > ARIN, but would be done by all the NICs under recommendation of the IETF. > > > Please don't cross the two threads, it makes a mess. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) > [-] > > [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas > [-] > > [-] 713-467-7100 > [-] > > From randy at psg.com Sat Jan 18 09:04:00 1997 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:04 PST Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees References: <5633.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: >>> current similar medium broader >>> ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 >> >> Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested > would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps > you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? Hi Bill, Just pointing out (obscurely, sorry) that your chart accidentally happens to show points on the scale that appeal to you, and that there are many more possibilities. In particular, Let's make the unexpected leap of faith that the ARIN numbers were based on someone running the numbers and coming out with a scale that met, to the best of the their abilities, the stewardship, service, and non-profit goals we think the ARIN should have. Then a scale which does not maintain the bottom line may not work. So maintaining the endpoint while changing the slope may not work, and you need to think about the integral. randy From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 09:10:08 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:10:08 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118091005.0069585c@lint.cisco.com> Folks, It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. - paul At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: >To Whom: > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >has been explained. > > >Mark Richmond >CNE, AOP, CPIM >District Technology Coordinator >Tulare City Schools, CA From erikl at sover.net Sat Jan 18 09:56:49 1997 From: erikl at sover.net (Erik R. Leo) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:56:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118091005.0069585c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > [...AOP encourging members to complain about ARIN...] > > This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely > annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion > on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if > folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the > proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > > - paul > > At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > > > [...example AOP member "dissenting message"...] We happen to be a member of the AOP (probably not for much longer). I've enclosed a copy of their original (corrected) "alert" and my (completely inadequate) response to it. AOP doesn't seem to do much polling of their membership before deciding on their stance :(. But they did mention the ARIN web-site. Someone with a little more time on their hands may want to take a shot at a point-by-point rebuttal of AOP's "concerns." -Erik -- Erik R. Leo, Net Worker SoVerNet Tel: +1(802)463-2111 Vermont's Sovereign Internet Connection Fax: +1(802)463-2110 5 Rockingham Street Email: erikl at sover.net Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101 > ============================================================= > AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 > ============================================================= > > The following is a legislative alert from the Association of > Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet > Service Providers and other professionals who manage online > services. > > Please give it the widest possible distribution: > > ============================================================= > AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal > ============================================================= > > This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a > new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for > registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition > to fees already charged for registration of domain names. > > Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be > created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the > addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored > InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making > as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. > > Information regarding the proposal may be found at > http://www.arin.net. > > The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the > proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and > their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are > addressed: > > ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are > needed. > > ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other > information beyond its structure and fees. > > ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, > yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or > how it will benefit the Internet. > > ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are > incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. > > ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of > doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current > economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure > would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non- > profit, hobbyist and public access providers. > > ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose > the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such > should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small > group of individuals or entities. > > AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and > structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover > the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. > > However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more > information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to > ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of > the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. > > Please do the following immediately: > > 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be > implemented. > > Comments are being taken only on the Internic listserv. To make > comments, you must first join the listserv by sending mail to > listserv at internic.net with SUBSCRIBE NAIPR in the body. You may > then post comments to naipr at internic.net. > > 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the > proposal. > > > AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, > and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on > these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a > consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec at aop.org. > ====================================================================== > Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax > Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org > Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info at aop.org > ====================================================================== and my response to AOP: > I would like to go on record as being in favor of the ARIN > proposal. I think AOP should reconsider their position on this > proposal. > > -Erik > -- > Erik R. Leo, Net Worker SoVerNet > Tel: +1(802)463-2111 Vermont's Sovereign Internet Connection > Fax: +1(802)463-2110 5 Rockingham Street > Email: erikl at sover.net Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101 From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 09:56:45 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 09:56:45 -0500 Subject: Articulation of ARIN opposition Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118095642.006926c4@lint.cisco.com> David, As you are the Executive Director of the Association of Online Professionals, I encourage you to articulate AOP's opposition to the ARIN proposal on the NAIPR mailing list (copied). The catalyst for this is two-fold. There have been numerous dissenting messages submitted to the list from AOP members, affiliates and/or supporters which vocalized opposition to the ARIN proposal, but which have also clearly shown a lack of understanding of the proposal. Also, it would serve as a clarification of AOP's basic understanding of the proposal and subsequent opposition. Thanks, - paul (concerned bystander) From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 10:13:47 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:13:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: <5634.wsimpson@greendragon.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > Date: Fri, 17 Jan 97 23:58 PST > > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > current similar medium broader > > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > > I do not understand this comment. The scaling that you have suggested > would make larger blocks _less_ expensive than smaller ones. Perhaps > you could be more descriptive as to why this is a desirable quality? I'm not sure that I understand the 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, x:y either, but there are many reasons that larger allocations should be cheaper on a per address basis than smaller allocations. Unless someone were to develop a new class of router, that could handle many, many more routes than the current class of backbone routers (mostly Cisco at this time), *and* get all the backbone ISPs to implement them, there has to be an incentive to get people to request smaller allocations (/20 or smaller for now) from their upstream provider. I'm not sure if ARIN will be willing to give larger allocations to upstream providers who manage their address space closely, but Internic sure does. If ARIN can be convinced to give a /16 to a provider who may only need a /18 at the present time but has historically managed their allocations well, i.e. effective use of subnetting and supernetting, education of downstream customers, active utilization of SWIP, then it makes things smoother and more scalable for the internet at large. There is a lot of FUD and innuendo being spread here, and from what I can see certain people who are spreading it either don't understand that IP allocations that are too small to be picked up by the backbone providers are generally worthless, or they're bringing up the $2500 cost of a /24 as a strawman. If providers want to tell their customers to get a /24 directly from ARIN, then they can deal with the hassle of explaining why the customer can't reach sites on Sprint's network. I would just as soon see ARIN not even allocate anything smaller than a /19 without a statement releasing ARIN and the provider from any blame if the allocation is not globally routable. Heck, I would like to see ARIN only allocate /19s or greater. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 10:27:01 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:27:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: AOP Message-ID: With all the hubbub about the AOP, I checked ot their site. This is taken verbatim from their Code of Professional Standards: 8.Members shall not knowingly disseminate false or misleading information and shall act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which he or she is responsible, or which has originated from or resides on his or her system. I have no problem with AOP members opposing the ARIN proposal, but I would ask that they follow their own code and not disseminate misleading information or attempt to scuttle this proposal through the use of straw men. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 12:05:15 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 17:05:15 GMT Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <5635.wsimpson@greendragon.com> After some private consultation and wordsmithing, I would like to propose the following language for the Organization: The organization shall be comprised of: 3.1: Members, the governing body of the Registry. 3.2: an Executive Council, elected from the Members, acting on behalf of the Members between membership meetings. 3.3: an Executive Director, appointed by the Executive Council with the advice and consent of the Members, and serving at the pleasure of the Executive Council. 3.4: the Secretariat, appointed by the Executive Director with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, for administering daily Registry operations. 3.5: zero or more Committees, designated by the Executive Council for a limited time to resolve specific issues or conduct specific business on behalf of the Registry. Does this meet the general approval of the list? WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 12:36:38 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:36:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Organization Message-ID: <199701181736.MAA07973@newdev.harvard.edu> > I would like to propose the following language for the Organization: Bill, Kim said that a new version of the proposal is done modulo cleaning up the text to be minimimaly confusing - can you hold off on suggestions for basic changes until you can reference the revised proposal - it will be less confusing to have people talking from the same base. thanks Scott From bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM Sat Jan 18 13:50:19 1997 From: bazyar at HYPERMALL.COM (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:50:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Proposals for IP Address fees In-Reply-To: <01BC046D.19C330A0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > On Thursday, January 16, 1997 4:43 PM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman at netaxs.com] wrote: > > @ > @ But I don't think any one's seriously claiming that the proposed prices > @ are outrageously high and in danger of making business difficult > @ for them. > @ > > Until many ARIN-like companies are *allowed* to get into the > business, people will not know what the prices or costs should be. > > The market place should be allowed to determine the price... When you say "the marketplace should be allowed to determine the price", do you mean "individuals should be allowed to place whatever value they want on obtaining IP addresses", just as it is with sugar, or automobiles, or gold? -- Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar at hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax From cym at acrux.net Sat Jan 18 14:19:11 1997 From: cym at acrux.net (Brian Tackett) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:19:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html Folks, May I ask why this list now has to play host to IAHC, TLD, etc issues? The last I checked, this list was for discussion of the ARIN proposal. Nothing else. If we're not capable of restraining ourselves to the topic at hand, perhaps we should unsubscribe this list? From lindae at subjungle.com Sat Jan 18 15:49:39 1997 From: lindae at subjungle.com (Linda Emmele) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 14:49:39 -0600 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <01BC054E.D6F1F3A0@ppp03.azone.net> I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. Linda Emmele ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM To: Mark Richmond Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR Folks, It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. - paul At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: >To Whom: > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >has been explained. > > >Mark Richmond >CNE, AOP, CPIM >District Technology Coordinator >Tulare City Schools, CA From sysop at nmol.com Sat Jan 18 15:42:00 1997 From: sysop at nmol.com (Simon Clement) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:42:00 -0700 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118134159.006b5c74@nmol.com> >---------- >From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM >To: Mark Richmond >Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com >Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > >Folks, > >It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of >Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization >representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to >deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of >the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > >In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, >lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream >service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > >This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely >annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion >on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if >folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the >proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > >- paul > Paul, I heard about the ARIN proposal through the AOP mail list. I went and read the proposal. To be honest, the way the proposal is written I can't tell if I will be affected or not. Can you or anyone else explain the proposed fee chart? Regardless, if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers. I don't like extra fees, especially if it is not clear what how the fees were assessed or what services are provided as a result. Your input clarifying this matter is appreciated. Simon Clement From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 15:48:15 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:48:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701182048.PAA08401@newdev.harvard.edu> Simon, > if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, > the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. Scott From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 15:52:33 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:52:33 -0800 Subject: Rationale Message-ID: As a new member to the list, I am interested in locating a rationale for the fee schedule as described in as of 18 Jan 1997. As someone who has followed many of the discussions, I understand much of the terminology, but for someone with other than a background in ARPAnet that dates back to the '70s many of the descriptions are in a shorthand which is almost impossible to understand. Perhaps reverting to plain English would be an improvement -- I understand there is to be a revision to this document and I await the presentation of it. I'm particularly interested in why the policy membership assessment is set so high. I'm a member of the Telecommunications Industry Association TR-30 as a consultant and my fees have historically been $300 per year -- and that is to cover the cost of paper mailings of notices, ballots for draft standards, and a small administration in Washington. (Corporate fees for the same organization are $10,000 per year for manufacturers.) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From satchell at accutek.com Sat Jan 18 16:02:08 1997 From: satchell at accutek.com (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 13:02:08 -0800 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: At 3:48 PM 1/18/97, Scott Bradner wrote: >Simon, > >> if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, >> the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers > >If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged >and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your >part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers >then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division >were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. If providers were told that they HAD to do that, it would be another story. As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at $2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you suggest. For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and upstream port costs. This is why I'm asking for a comprehensive rationale. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations for contact and other info From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:21:31 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:21:31 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118162129.006b96b8@lint.cisco.com> Not to stoke the fires here, but passing along any cost to the end-user would make the ISP business more competitive, and some would argue that the end-user is the ultimate winner. - paul At 02:49 PM 1/18/97 -0600, Linda Emmele wrote: >I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. >Linda Emmele > >---------- >From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM >To: Mark Richmond >Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com >Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > >Folks, > >It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of >Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization >representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to >deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of >the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > >In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, >lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream >service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > >This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely >annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion >on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if >folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the >proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > >- paul > > > >At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > >>To Whom: >> >>I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a >>fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a >>global market. The ramifications would be severe. >> >>While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here >>only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the >>proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To >>enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the >>ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. >> >>I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it >>has been explained. >> >> >>Mark Richmond >>CNE, AOP, CPIM >>District Technology Coordinator >>Tulare City Schools, CA > From sob at newdev.harvard.edu Sat Jan 18 16:23:07 1997 From: sob at newdev.harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:23:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <199701182123.QAA08444@newdev.harvard.edu> Stephen, if you get your service from a rip off organization then they might try and make a 10000% profit on these fees - I rather doubt that you will find many such organizations lasting long in this world. please wait for the revision of the proposal and discuss aipr based on that rather than the proposal that is currently there or on fears of provider behaviors. Scott From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:29:38 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:29:38 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118162936.006a7fec@lint.cisco.com> [thinking out loud] Well, there's not written rule or law that says that the costs have to be *directly* passed along to the end-user (from the ISP), in the form of prefix charges. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier message, if the charges were passed along to the end-user in a heavy-handed fashion, one would think that this would inject a bit more competitiveness in the ISP marketplace. Is this a bad thing in itself? - paul At 03:48 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Scott Bradner wrote: >Simon, > >> if I as a Class C license holder am charged or if my provider is charged, >> the charges, or some percentage thereof, will flow to me and my customers > >If you got your addresses from your provider then the provider is charged >and the pass on to you (if the provider decides to do so) will be your >part of their charge - for example if your provider has 1000 ISP customers >then your fee would be $20K/1K or $20 per year (if a very crude division >were done) hardly worth the heat that seems to be showing up. > >Scott > From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Jan 18 16:30:30 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <01BC054E.D6F1F3A0@ppp03.azone.net> Message-ID: Once more, and maybe this should be explained on the ARIN homepage. The costs are very reasonable for the small provider who properly uses his assigned address space. Since it is almost impossible to get a new allocation smaller than a /19 routed across the internet, since certain large providers will not accept the announcments, small providers will get their IP address blocks from their upstream provider. Assuming that the upstream provider has a /16, which pay $5000 for, the cost per /24 comes out to under $19.55. Even if the upstream provider only has a /19, which is the smallest globally routable block, the per /24 cost is only $78.13. These costs are not excessive! Any ISP that can't afford $80 yearly is running on a very, very thin margin. Please people, do the math, learn about CIDR, and set aside the 2 cents a day that a /24 will cost from a provider with a /16. Jeremiah who has only answered this same question about 10 times today. On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Linda Emmele wrote: > I am interested in this only as a small business owner who cannot afford to stay on the Internet if costs increase. I cannot understand how an upstream provider would not pass through these charges, who would then pass them on to me. > Linda Emmele > > ---------- > From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at cisco.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 1997 8:10 AM > To: Mark Richmond > Cc: 'naipr at lists.internic.net'; aop at cris.com > Subject: Re: Reject the NAIPR > > Folks, > > It is obvious that members & affiliates of the AOP (Association of > Online professionals, who according to c|net radio, is an organization > representing ~600 small & medium sized ISP's) have been encouraged to > deluge this mailing list with notes of dissention, irrespective of > the fact that they do not completely understand the ARIN proposal. > > In fact, I would suggest that in a majority of the cases, the smaller, > lower-echelon ISP's will obtain their IP addresses from their upstream > service provider and will be completed unaffected by the ARIN proposal. > > This type of form-letter bombardment of this mailing list is extremely > annoying. This is not to say that constructive criticism & discussion > on the proposal is unwelcome, but it would be most appreciated if > folks would take a few moments to familiarize themselves with the > proposal before flooding the list with their dissenting messages. > > - paul > > > > At 07:59 AM 1/17/97 -0000, Mark Richmond wrote: > > >To Whom: > > > >I urge you to reject the ARIN proposal. The proposal reflects a > >fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of Internet access in a > >global market. The ramifications would be severe. > > > >While there are benefits to organization, there would be benefits here > >only to the founders of ARIN. As there is no explanation given for the > >proposed fees, I can only assume that they would serve two purposes: To > >enrich the licensing agency, and to force smaller operators out of the > >ISP business. Neither of these seems worthwhile. > > > >I seriously question the motives of anyone in favor of this proposal as it > >has been explained. > > > > > >Mark Richmond > >CNE, AOP, CPIM > >District Technology Coordinator > >Tulare City Schools, CA > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:50:30 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118165028.006a9898@lint.cisco.com> At 01:02 PM 1/18/97 -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >As it is, the ARIN proposal sets the price of a Class C allocation at >$2500. All price offering will start from there, not from the $20 you >suggest. For a precedent, look at "port costs" and see how they haven't >changed much even with the drop in the cost of telecomm charges and >upstream port costs. > Don't compare apples & elephants. And also bear in mind that the fee structure suggested in the current proposal is a draft & subject to modification. The proposed fees are for intended for allocation & management services with regards to IP address allocation, and are modeled after the existing policies already in place at the RIPE-NCC (Europe) and the APNIC (Asia Pacific), both of which have had similar fee structures for quite a while. While I'm personally in no position to speak for the ARIN folks, I believe the rationale for charging for these services is to fund the activities of the registry once formal funding relationship to SAIC and the NSF has been decoupled. Having said that, it should be noted that only those organization which feel the need to go directly to ARIN to obtain IP addresses will be charged these fees. One might also suggest that readers of this forum familiarize themselves with the registry guidelines as outlined in RFC2050: [snip] In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following conditions: a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is very large, for example, the network prefix required to cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet. [snip] Anyone else, other than organization which fall into category (a), (b) or (c) above, should go to their upstream service provider to obtain IP addresses. RFC2050 is a Best Current Practice. One Good Thing (tm) that falls out of this, is that this encourages aggregation, since provider-based addressing can be aggregated in the global routing system, whereas smaller allocations which are made without regard to topological significance most probably cannot. - paul From pferguso at cisco.com Sat Jan 18 16:53:04 1997 From: pferguso at cisco.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:53:04 -0500 Subject: Reject the NAIPR Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970118165301.006b5550@lint.cisco.com> At 04:30 PM 1/18/97 -0500, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > >Please people, do the math, learn about CIDR, and set aside the 2 cents a >day that a /24 will cost from a provider with a /16. > Or better yet, one might suggest that learning about global aggregation is a more interesting exercise. ;-) - paul From bradley at dunn.org Sat Jan 18 17:22:19 1997 From: bradley at dunn.org (Bradley Dunn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:22:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Jeremiah Kristal wrote: > I'm not sure that I understand the 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, x:y either, but there > are many reasons that larger allocations should be cheaper on a per > address basis than smaller allocations. Unless someone were to develop a > new class of router, that could handle many, many more routes than the > current class of backbone routers (mostly Cisco at this time), *and* get > all the backbone ISPs to implement them, there has to be an incentive to > get people to request smaller allocations (/20 or smaller for now) from > their upstream provider. Yes, there do need to be incentives for hierarchy and aggregation. I do not agree, however, that registry fees should serve that purpose. The issue of routability is an issue to be negotiated between ISPs and their customers and peers. Prefix fees should accurately reflect the costs of registering that prefix. No more, no less. On a different note, I have something else to add. The issue of who will bear the cost of registry fees has come up recently. I believe this depends on the elasticity of demand for Internet services. I would venture to say demand is fairly elastic at this point, although it is probably getting less elastic as people begin to rely on the 'net for more than just entertainment. If demand is indeed relatively elastic, then the imposition of a new tax/fee/whatever will tend to be borne by the *supplier*, i.e. upstream providers. -BD From jamie at comet.net Sat Jan 18 17:50:40 1997 From: jamie at comet.net (jamie dyer) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:50:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: test...'scuse the spam Message-ID: jamie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jamie at comet.net | Comet.Net | Send empty message | Charlottesville, Va. | to pgpkey at comet.net | (804)295-2407 | for pgp public key. | http://www.comet.net | "Remember, there are only two kinds of music ... Blues and Zippidy-Do-Dah." -- Townes van Zandt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jan 18 18:26:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:26:42 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0564.C5EDDD60@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 10:18 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @ I dont think you are being accurate here Jim. @ @ > BTW...several weeks ago on the IAHC list, I believe @ > that Mr. Michael Dillon advised you not to talk about @ > this for 2 years...can you explain what that was about @ > along with your expansion on the above...? @ @ At the time on the IAHC list there were people who were threatening to @ take legal actions against Bill and against IANA if IAHC did not give them @ the rights to run a domain name registry. In addition Jim Fleming was @ posting messages that I considered to be mostly innuendo and outright @ lies. I have never posted to the IAHC list... Please be specific... I posted a message that attempted to clarify what had actually taken @ place and I included portions of several email messages from public lists @ such as domain-policy at internic.net. I felt that Bill needed to say no more @ than what was already on the public record and I suggested that he should @ not say anything more about it because of the vultures waiting to pounce @ with their lawsuits. I did not consult with Bill on any of this nor did I @ send him the advice privately. In other words, Bill has nothing whatsever @ to do with what I said. @ @ If anyone wonders why I keep answering these allegations from Fleming it @ is because I have seen some evidence that members of the media are @ monitoring this list and have been mislead by Fleming's words. Thus I am @ attempting to provide an opposing viewpoint that, I hope, is a fairly @ close reflection of reality. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ You are doing the same thing that you have done for the past year or more...I think people have heard this story before... I suggest that the press read the archives...of the newdom list(s), the inet-access lists, and the IAHC list... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Jan 18 18:57:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:57:55 -0600 Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) Message-ID: <01BC0569.22548280@webster.unety.net> On Friday, January 17, 1997 11:07 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at memra.com] wrote: @ On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > @@@@@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/1666.html @ @ Anybody who is REALLY interested in the details can check that message and @ the other messages in the day or two before and after. The whole story @ should become clear if you follow through the thread over a couple of @ days. You don't have to take my word for it because the discussions are @ all in the public domain. @ Michael, Why would anyone "take your word for it"...? Here are your words...recently posted to this list... "One of the attendees at the above mentioned meeting placed a cheque in a sealed envelope and slipped it into a file with notes and other documents from the meeting. When it was revealed that this envelope containing a cheque existed the envelope was returned to the individual without ever being opened." Below you admit that you were not at the meeting. Yet you have consistently described this absurd story where someone takes $1,000 and seals it into an envelope and "slips" it into a folder. The implication is that the receiver, Bill Manning, did not know it was there. Where did you get this story...? As noted here, people who *were* at the meeting have posted in numerous places that not only did Bill Manning know it was there, he supplied the envelope...!!!! This story was reported in Boardwatch Magazine and on other lists. The story of the participants has not changed. @ > If you were at the meeting, you would have seen Bill @ > Manning, when asked if we could pay the $1000 to IANA, stand up, excuse @ > himself from the room and come back with an envelope. He gave us the @ > envelope and we put the check in it. He told us to seal the envelope and @ > he would place it in file along with our application. @ @ You will note that Chris Ambler and John Frangie, who make this claim, @ are both from the same company. If you read through the whole thread to @ get the context you will find a list of other participants at the meeting @ and you will note that neither Jim Fleming nor myself was there. But one @ other participant at the meeting *DID* comment on the events and his @ comments do *NOT* agree with what John Frangie said above. @ Both from the same company...so ? Good...you note that you were not there... Please substantiate your claims regarding the "other participant". Are you speaking of Simon Higgs ? If so, his postings match the events as John Frangie and Chris Ambler have described them. And...Simon is not from the same company... Are you lying by omission...? By the way, I was not there, but there is much more to this story that has never been published....an may never be... @ Seems to me that Jim Fleming is once again lying by ommission and @ dragging mud all over everything because he cannot get his own way. Can not get my way about what...? Please be more specific...your comments and omissions are noted... @ And if you were to review the IAHC list (a voluminous task) you would see @ that the people who Fleming has called as witnesses have made some @ clearly incorrect statements on numerous occasions on that list. That is @ why I cannot take the above statement by John Frangie seriously. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ For people that came to this list to discuss ARIN. I offer the following... 1. The TLD discussions and the IAHC discussions have largely the same issues as the ARIN discussions.. control power money jealousy the haves the have nots etc. 2. I doubt of the ARIN list will be able to deal with these complex issues any better than the numerous mailing lists for the past two years. There are those people who have control and those that do not, and the ones with control are not going to give it up and therefore the growth of the Internet suffers. It is a real shame, and I am sure that historians will look back at this era and document the fact that some people asked for basic courtesy and freedoms and the people in charge were not able to grant those requests for fear of losing their monopoly power. These are serious human rights violations, which are just as serious as those in countries where people are deprived other basic rights. 3. There are a few people on the Internet who seem to have one agenda and one agenda only...that agenda is to defend the IANA at all cost...I suggest that you watch them in action... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Sat Jan 18 19:12:53 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: How costs will trickle down (if ARIN goes through) In-Reply-To: <01BC0564.C5EDDD60@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Jan 18, 97 05:26:42 pm Message-ID: <199701190012.TAA06064@moses.internic.net> And I suggest you take this off-line. Again, this list is to discuss ARIN - only. If you continue to engage in off-topic discussions, I will have no choice but to remove you from the list. It is imperative that we receive community input on ARIN and I will not risk the possibility that individuals with constructive comments may unsubscribe because they do not have the time or patience to wade through off-topic dialogue. Kim Hubbard > You are doing the same thing that you have done for > the past year or more...I think people have heard this > story before... > > I suggest that the press read the archives...of the > newdom list(s), the inet-access lists, and the IAHC list... > > -- > Jim Fleming > UNETY Systems, Inc. > Naperville, IL > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 19:16:25 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:16:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Reject the NAIPR In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970118162129.006b96b8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: I beg to differ, in the end, the end-user will always lose, its a simple matter of economics. You raise my prices, I raise theirs, otherwise I go out of business. This might cut out alot of smaller providers (the ones who usually provide the best service at that) which is good for the large companies, but face it folks.. the end user _will_ pay, one way or another. All ARIN does at this point is make it next to impossible for small ISPs to get started, and makes the existing fat cats that much fatter. Welcome to the Corporate Government you wall read about in the Cyberpunk novles 10 years ago. On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote: > > Not to stoke the fires here, but passing along any cost to the end-user > would make the ISP business more competitive, and some would argue that > the end-user is the ultimate winner. > > - paul [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From blh at nol.net Sat Jan 18 19:21:53 1997 From: blh at nol.net (Brett L. Hawn) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:21:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Sheesh Message-ID: Not to sound like Mr. Flemming but one thing strikes me as a serious oversight, the lack of thought towards the future. Rather than overprice a non-scalable resource, and basically screw everyone in the process. Why isn't something being done to create something more scalable and useable? I've seen this topic brought up once or twice and I have yet to see anyone even attempt to reply to it. We've seen lots of 'ARIN SUCKS' or 'ARIN RULES' messages, this is dandy (if you like the moronic politics involved) but ARIN is _NOT_ the solution. As the internet grow IP space is only going to become more and more scarce and then your troubles will be even more. Now I'm no genius, and I can't provide the answers.. what I want to know is why the people that can aren't. You've got dozens of brilliant minds spewing their politics back and forth rather than spending productive hours creating a new, more powerful, more scalable resource which can be enjoyed by everyone without the excessive costs and basic stupidity we're seeing now. [-] Brett L. Hawn (blh @ nol dot net) [-] [-] Networks On-Line - Houston, Texas [-] [-] 713-467-7100 [-] From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 19:39:23 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 00:39:23 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5638.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 97 06:04 PST > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > Let's make the unexpected leap of faith that the ARIN numbers were based > on someone running the numbers and coming out with a scale that met, to > the best of the their abilities, the stewardship, service, and non-profit > goals we think the ARIN should have. Then a scale which does not maintain > the bottom line may not work. So maintaining the endpoint while changing > the slope may not work, and you need to think about the integral. > I have, Randy, and looked at the numbers available. Unfortunately, we do not have the actual budget. But we know how many registrations occur. One advantage we have is that NRI has promised to make up any shortfall until the fees stabilize. Therefore, we are not totally dependent on getting it right the first time. There is no scaling in the ARIN proposal below /18, and then /24 is explicitly stated as $2,500. This makes no sense, as there are many intermediate prefixes. It is confusing other posters to this list. So, rather than the abundant FUD on this list, I was and am trying to explore constructive, tangible, proposals for alternatives. IMnsHO, all the numbers are much too high for a realistic budget, and a major surplus will result. But I scaled it both as if the ARIN numbers were correct, and as if they could be lower. Then we can look at the alternatives and make a choice. It is _our_ choice. If you do not want to explore alternatives, then please stop adding to the FUD. WSimpson at UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson at MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 From wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM Sat Jan 18 19:23:31 1997 From: wsimpson at GREENDRAGON.COM (William Allen Simpson) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 00:23:31 GMT Subject: Advice on Dues and Fees Message-ID: <5637.wsimpson@greendragon.com> > From: Jeremiah Kristal > > > From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) > > > > current similar medium broader > > > > ARIN scaled 4:3 scaled 4:3 scaled 3:2 > > > > > > Where are scaled 3:4, 2:3, 17:41, ...? > > > > > I do not un