Reject the NAIPR

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
>