pagans@texoma.net principle #3

Larry,

Larry Vaden wrote:
> 
> Eric, where did you read "talk soft, carry a big stick?"
> 
> That MIGHT cause them to move the IP registry function out to ARIN post
> haste in order to put a stop loss on NSI's liabilities.
> 
> But unless small IPSs join in droves, the 300 +/- forecasted membership of
> ARIN will be highly skewed towards the "haves" vs. the "have nots".

  You may be right here.  I do believe that many smaller ISP's will
joine however.
> 
> By the way, NSI has an IPO in process.

  Yes I posted the announcment on ARIN's list originaly earlier today.
> 
> ldv `[8-))
> 
> At 06:32 PM 7/4/97 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >Robert L. Shearing wrote:
> >>
> >> >> ISPs who wish to multi-home should be allowed to decide for themselves
> >> >> what technique they wish to use, absent some compelling reason to the
> >> >> contrary.
> >> >
> >> >I missed that part of the US Constitution.  And compelling seems to be in
> >> >the eye of the beholder.
> >> >
> >> It has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.  It's just a general
> >> deregulatory/free enterprise philosophy that in this context says: "Don't
> >> restrict a company's ability to make its own decisions unless there's a
> >> compelling reason to do so."  I think this philosophy is consistent with
> >> the best traditions of the Internet.
> >>
> >> The only compelling reason I can think of to block the allocation of the
> >> /19s in question would be if failing to do so would make a tangible
> >> difference in the useful lifetime of the remaining IPv4 address space.  And
> >> I don't believe that to be the case.
> >> *********************************************************
> >> Robert L. Shearing                voice: +1-415-482-2840
> >> President/CEO                       fax: +1-415-482-2844
> >> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.              http://www.priori.net
> >>
> >> "The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
> >> *********************************************************
> >Randy raises an interesting point.  He correctly points out that the
> >Constitution generally does not protect individuals from private
> >action.  That is why several folk have suggested that government
> >regulation is preferable to private--you get the guarantees of due
> >process, free speech, open records and democratic processes.
> >
> >However, the "compelling reason" test DOES come into play in several
> >contexts relating to private entities, most notably in the field of
> >federal anti-trust law.  Anti-competitive arrangements are usually
> >illegal unless there is a compelling justification for them to exist.
> >It should be noted that many states, on the other hand, do not permit
> >anti-competitive arrangements even if there are "compelling reasons" for
> >them.   Some have suggested that the anti-trust laws apply to NSI's PI
> >allocation criteria (note that I continue to call them NSI's since NSI
> >is the entity using those standards no matter who actually authored or
> >approved them).
> >
> >Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
> >Internet Texoma, Inc.
> >The ISP which DIDN'T
> >
> >

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com