From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Sat Mar 1 03:54:29 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@VT.EDU) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 03:54:29 -0500 Subject: Token Posting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:02:35 PST." <199703010302.TAA02616@zocalo.net> References: <199703010302.TAA02616@zocalo.net> Message-ID: <199703010854.DAA23292@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:02:35 PST, you said: > And does this mean (hoping against hope here) that you _absolutely > promise_ not to post again until after each of these fine folks have > said something? You can demonstrate the sincerity of your committment > by not responding to this or subsequent messages, for example. :-) The problem with all token-passing schemes is recovery from a lost or damaged token. The usual solution is spontaneous regeneration of the token if it's not been seen for some timeout value. Based on recent list traffic, I suspect that some stations are running with a too-low timeout before spontaneously re-initiating a token. Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 11:31:09 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:31:09 -0600 Subject: For the record Message-ID: <01BC262B.AE1FCC60@webster.unety.net> For the record, one of the proposed Trustees of ARIN is Randy Bush. People keep claiming that domain names and IP addresses have NOTHING to do with each other. Is the "randy" who "moderates" the InterNIC's Namedropper list the same Randy Bush who is proposed to be an ARIN Trustee ? Jim Fleming ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 1997 10:25 AM To: namedroppers at internic.net; 'ru tao' Subject: RE: ***plaese help me!*** On Friday, February 28, 1997 7:07 AM, ru tao[SMTP:rt at pub.zjpta.net.cn] wrote: @ Hi all: @ Do who know what is new top-level Domain @ name?------>firm,store,web,arts,rec,infu,nom @ . i want register an domain name : myname.com, now,i must at the same time @ register domain name myname.com and myname.firm? @ if you tell me any,i'll very grateful. @ @ thanks, @ ru tao @ @ @ [ moderator's note: would someone please answer this via email? further @ posts on this subject, unless they discuss the technology as opposed to the @ politics, are unlikely to be approved. -- randy ] @ @ Here are the operational registries that can be located via the IAHC web site. @@@@@ http://www.alternic.net/domains/quick_form/ .LNX - Linux Systems .LTD - Limited .MED - Medical .NIC - Network Information Center .XXX - Adult @@@@@ http://www.mcs.net/nic/domain-register.html .CORP - For Corporations (Commercial) .NPO - Not-for-Profit Organizations .K12 - For people under the age of 18 .BIZ - General Business Use @@@@@ http://webtld.com/ .WEB - Web Sites @@@@@ http://www.agn.net/EARTH-DOMAIN.html .EARTH - General @@@@@ http://www.agn.net/USA-DOMAIN.html .USA - General @@@@@ http://www.higgs.net/hanic/reg/ .NEWS - News services, etc. ========================================= -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Sat Mar 1 11:39:28 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:39:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: IP addresses & DNS Message-ID: <199703011639.LAA01604@newdev.harvard.edu> jim seems to have said -- Is the "randy" who "moderates" the InterNIC's Namedropper list the same Randy Bush who is proposed to be an ARIN Trustee ? -- It would be a dull world indeed if people were only permitted one interest in life. Scott From jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET Sat Mar 1 11:51:32 1997 From: jeremiah at CORP.IDT.NET (Jeremiah Kristal) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:51:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: For the record In-Reply-To: <01BC262B.AE1FCC60@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: For the record, I snowboard on the weekends. People keep claiming that snowboarding and routing have NOTHING to do with each other. Is the "jeremiah" who "knuckledrags" on weekends the same Jeremiah Kristal who works on backbone routers? Jeremiah forgive me for responding to this dreck On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > > For the record, one of the proposed Trustees of ARIN is Randy Bush. > > People keep claiming that domain names and IP addresses > have NOTHING to do with each other. > > Is the "randy" who "moderates" the InterNIC's Namedropper list > the same Randy Bush who is proposed to be an ARIN Trustee ? > > Jim Fleming > > ---------- > From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net.] > Sent: Saturday, March 01, 1997 10:25 AM > To: namedroppers at internic.net; 'ru tao' > Subject: RE: ***plaese help me!*** > > On Friday, February 28, 1997 7:07 AM, ru tao[SMTP:rt at pub.zjpta.net.cn] wrote: > @ Hi all: > @ Do who know what is new top-level Domain > @ name?------>firm,store,web,arts,rec,infu,nom > @ . i want register an domain name : myname.com, now,i must at the same time > @ register domain name myname.com and myname.firm? > @ if you tell me any,i'll very grateful. > @ > @ thanks, > @ ru tao > @ > @ > @ [ moderator's note: would someone please answer this via email? further > @ posts on this subject, unless they discuss the technology as opposed to the > @ politics, are unlikely to be approved. -- randy ] > @ > @ > > Here are the operational registries that can be located > via the IAHC web site. > > @@@@@ http://www.alternic.net/domains/quick_form/ > > .LNX - Linux Systems > .LTD - Limited > .MED - Medical > .NIC - Network Information Center > .XXX - Adult > > @@@@@ http://www.mcs.net/nic/domain-register.html > > .CORP - For Corporations (Commercial) > .NPO - Not-for-Profit Organizations > .K12 - For people under the age of 18 > .BIZ - General Business Use > > @@@@@ http://webtld.com/ > > .WEB - Web Sites > > @@@@@ http://www.agn.net/EARTH-DOMAIN.html > > .EARTH - General > > @@@@@ http://www.agn.net/USA-DOMAIN.html > > .USA - General > > @@@@@ http://www.higgs.net/hanic/reg/ > > .NEWS - News services, etc. > > ========================================= > > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Senior Network Integrator \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah at hq.idt.net 201-928-4454 From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 12:56:33 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:56:33 -0600 Subject: root update message Message-ID: <01BC2637.9C9FB3E0@webster.unety.net> Mr. Jon Postel University of Southern California California, USA Jon, As I am sure you are aware, TRUE Root Name Servers are intended to provide stability to the Internet. RFC 2010 has many good ideas about how to harden these servers. All of the other TRUE Root Name Servers that I am aware of are following RFC 2010 to the letter. Are the new servers you describe, 2010 compliant ? In your note below you point out that these four machines are temporarily housed at ISI, which I assume means the University of Southern California. In the U.S. Government's InterNIC file [shown below], it indicates that two of the machines are at NSI which I assume is Network Solutions, Inc. Can you be more specific ? A traceroute to one of the machines goes via LN.NET, an ISP that you run. The leg before that is via "genuity" where you are on the Board of Directors of this Bechtel funded company . Are LN.NET or Bechtel involved in this project ? As more TLD Registries come on line, they will depend on the various confederations of TRUE Root Name Servers for service. There will be many reasons why ISPs and companies select the confederation they use. As long as each confederation refers users to the proper TLD Name Servers, downstream caching is coherent because the TLD name servers do most of the real work. Having said this, I am curious whether you view your NEW Root Name Servers to be purely for researchers to use or whether you intend broader use? I note that you mention this is an "experiment". Are you concerned that ISPs might use these servers and experience operational integrity problems ? Should ISPs be cautious about that ? Have you been following the discussions on the NANOG list regarding some of the problems they have had with the legacy Root Name Servers ? Since everyone's goal is to make sure the Internet remains stable and grows in an organized way that does not deny service to people around the world, I think that actions taken in the arena of TRUE Root Name Servers need to be done carefully. As I am sure you are aware, once ISPs adopt certain servers they rarely change and they follow the U.S. Government's lead. I also note that you are using the U.S. Government's InterNIC file distribution system to easily facilitate the wide-spread adoption of these "experimental" servers. Can you explain who at the National Science Foundation (NSF) authorized that action ? In light of the fact that some mail lists seem to filter information and some now appear to be deleting postings from their archives. I am posting this to several groups that I feel will be interested and involved in these discussions. Thanks for your time. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation ==================== [1] 4 sprint-nap.WestOrange.mci.net (204.70.1.210) 208.143 ms 220.508 ms 203.63 ms 5 genuity.sprintnap.net (192.157.69.49) 39.077 ms 25.241 ms 25.688 ms 6 core1.lax1.genuity.net (207.240.0.5) 86.219 ms 75.991 ms * 7 mla.ln.net (198.32.146.10) 78.953 ms 73.345 ms 73.039 ms 8 l.root-servers.net (198.32.64.12) 114.668 ms 111.243 ms * [2] On Friday, February 28, 1997 4:44 PM, postel at ISI.EDU wrote: @ @ Hello: @ @ There are now two more root servers root servers serving ".". The names of @ these two machines are: @ @ l.root-servers.net 198.32.64.12 @ m.root-servers.net 198.32.65.12 @ @ The latest root servers list will be found at: @ ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.ca @ @ Checksum: @ MD5 (named.ca) c6411a337311264bfb2c3edc7726e19c @ @ These machines are temporarily housed at ISI till their suitable home @ is found. All four (j, k, l, & m) will eventually be moved to various @ international locations that are "close" to the center of the internet and @ will only run "." in a non-recursive mode. This is being done as an @ experiment with running "." on separate machines from the existing iTLD's. @ @ ; This file holds the information on root name servers needed to @ ; initialize cache of Internet domain name servers @ ; (e.g. reference this file in the "cache . " @ ; configuration file of BIND domain name servers). @ ; @ ; This file is made available by InterNIC registration services @ ; under anonymous FTP as @ ; file /domain/named.root @ ; on server FTP.RS.INTERNIC.NET @ ; -OR- under Gopher at RS.INTERNIC.NET @ ; under menu InterNIC Registration Services (NSI) @ ; submenu InterNIC Registration Archives @ ; file named.root @ ; @ ; last update: Feb 28, 1997 @ ; related version of root zone: 1997022800 @ ; @ ; @ ; formerly NS.INTERNIC.NET @ ; @ . 3600000 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 198.41.0.4 @ ; @ ; formerly NS1.ISI.EDU @ ; @ . 3600000 NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 128.9.0.107 @ ; @ ; formerly C.PSI.NET @ ; @ . 3600000 NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.33.4.12 @ ; @ ; formerly TERP.UMD.EDU @ ; @ . 3600000 NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 128.8.10.90 @ ; @ ; formerly NS.NASA.GOV @ ; @ . 3600000 NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.203.230.10 @ ; @ ; formerly NS.ISC.ORG @ ; @ . 3600000 NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.5.5.241 @ ; @ ; formerly NS.NIC.DDN.MIL @ ; @ . 3600000 NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.112.36.4 @ ; @ ; formerly AOS.ARL.ARMY.MIL @ ; @ . 3600000 NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 128.63.2.53 @ ; @ ; formerly NIC.NORDU.NET @ ; @ . 3600000 NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 192.36.148.17 @ ; @ ; temporarily housed at NSI (InterNIC) @ ; @ . 3600000 NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 198.41.0.10 @ ; @ ; temporarily housed at NSI (InterNIC) @ ; @ . 3600000 NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 198.41.0.11 @ ; @ ; temporarily housed at ISI (IANA) @ ; @ . 3600000 NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 198.32.64.12 @ ; @ ; temporarily housed at ISI (IANA) @ ; @ . 3600000 NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. @ M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 A 198.32.65.12 @ ; End of File @ @ -- @ @ --jon. @ @ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @ @ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 15:50:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:50:48 -0600 Subject: ARIN and Root Name Servers Message-ID: <01BC264F.F4333600@webster.unety.net> For people not familiar with why Root Name Servers are important to ARIN, you have to look at... Domain Names Yes, I said domain names. Imagine that. ARIN may have something to do with domain names. Contrinuing, part of the IP address allocation process is a delegation of a zone from the psuedo Top Level Domain (IN-ADDR.ARPA) to the registry or ISP handling reverse resolution. Reverse resolution is like phone number to name lookup. In other words, given an IP address what is the domain name. Normally the Domain Name System does the opposite. It converts names to numbers. The ARPA Top Level Domain is not any different from any other Top Level Domain from a registry and nameserver point of view. The Root Name Servers must direct queries for names like the following to the proper name servers. 12.12.55.55.IN-ADDR.ARPA Evolution of the Root Name Servers and especially the NEW TRUE Root Name Servers (RFC 2010) is very important to the stability of the Internet. Therefore, ARIN people and people involved in this discussion should be fully aware of any evolution in that arena. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 15:57:09 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 14:57:09 -0600 Subject: "Staffing plans and a preliminary budget..." Message-ID: <01BC2650.D7344F20@webster.unety.net> Have these plans and budgets been published yet ? @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt "IP Support Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration Services." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 17:12:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 16:12:23 -0600 Subject: ARIN List Topics Message-ID: <01BC265B.597EE8A0@webster.unety.net> Folks, evidently some ISPs think that the ARIN list is a place where people come to obtain IP allocations and to discuss allocations to other people. They also evidently think it is some sort of brokerage operation. Since ARIN has not been formed I can not imagine that this list is for the above purpose. I suggest that people read the ARIN web site at http://www.arin.net to get a better feel for the topics that matter here. I do think that having open forums and discussions would be good in the IP allocation registry industry. That might be a topic that people want to discuss. (i.e. the pros and cons of OPEN allocation auctions) Again, please do not confuse allocation with routing. Many companies have been allocated huge blocks of IP addresses and they have never routed much of the space. MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 P.S. As far as I knwow these companies do not lease any of this space to anyone as a commercial registry activity without also providing service. In the future, service may not have as much value as just the lease fees. Other companies can provide the service. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Sat Mar 1 18:23:05 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 16:23:05 -0700 Subject: ARIN Comments In-Reply-To: <199702271736.CAA04782@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:43:00 CST." <01BC2492.9FB20340@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: At 10:36 AM -0700 2/27/97, David R. Conrad wrote: > >And why use states as the delinating boundary? Why should (say) >Nevada have the same number of registries as (say) California? Why >not use a more fair distribution function based on number of service >providers or population or number of telephones? As a soon-to-be-ex Nevadan, I have to echo your comment about allocating an /8 to the State. While we may be the only state raped by Lincoln for its land, the fact of the matter is that the current population could be serviced quite easily by a single /16, regardless of what UNR and UNLV think. The proposal for a *single* registry for the Americas means that any diaspora of numbers happens naturally, rather than having a shortage in one place and an abundance in another. From purely a resource management standpoint, splitting ARIN does *NOT* make sense. It also doesn't makes monetary sense, either. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 1 19:32:36 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 18:32:36 -0600 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: <01BC266E.F07CCCA0@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 01, 1997 5:23 PM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at accutek.com] wrote: @ At 10:36 AM -0700 2/27/97, David R. Conrad wrote: @ > @ >And why use states as the delinating boundary? Why should (say) @ >Nevada have the same number of registries as (say) California? Why @ >not use a more fair distribution function based on number of service @ >providers or population or number of telephones? @ @ As a soon-to-be-ex Nevadan, I have to echo your comment about allocating an @ /8 to the State. While we may be the only state raped by Lincoln for its @ land, the fact of the matter is that the current population could be @ serviced quite easily by a single /16, regardless of what UNR and UNLV @ think. @ @ The proposal for a *single* registry for the Americas means that any @ diaspora of numbers happens naturally, rather than having a shortage in one @ place and an abundance in another. From purely a resource management @ standpoint, splitting ARIN does *NOT* make sense. @ @ It also doesn't makes monetary sense, either. @ Thanks for the comments. The proposal I have made does not require the blocks allocated from the /8 to be routed in the State. Instead, the registry would be paid "lease fees" from customers that could be from anywhere. Of course, if the State imposes extra restrictions that would be their business, that is why I have suggested that the delegation be done via the Senator and Govenor so that some notion of "cyber land grant" is preserved. The main point of the allocation is to spread the economic benefits of registry operations around. If the IPv4 IP address leasing market is allowed to develop and rates are deregulated, then a multi-billion dollar per year leasing industry can blossom. The States may be willing to give away the routing details of an IP block but not the lease rights to use that block. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sat Mar 1 22:32:35 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 22:32:35 -0500 Subject: Billions? Message-ID: <3318F4D2.635D@driveway1.com> >The main point of the allocation is to spread the >economic benefits of registry operations around. >If the IPv4 IP address leasing market is allowed to >develop and rates are deregulated, then a multi-billion >dollar per year leasing industry can blossom. Hmmm. There are about 4 billion unique addresses in IPv4 Space. Are you suggesting that the end user of each address be forced to fork over a buck a year? This seems like a worse deal than we've got right now. From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Sat Mar 1 23:27:08 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:27:08 -0500 Subject: ARIN Comments Message-ID: At 19:32 3/1/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >The main point of the allocation is to spread the >economic benefits of registry operations around. >If the IPv4 IP address leasing market is allowed to >develop and rates are deregulated, then a multi-billion >dollar per year leasing industry can blossom. Now this makes sense... your goal is to create a multi-billion dollar registry industry, and mine is to ensure operational stability and transition of a key function from a for-profit to an industry-led non-profit association that recognizes stewardship responsibilities for address space and consequential routing resources. Are you certain that there is not a sufficiently large marketplace being formed for DNS registries already such that your goal can be attained without also restructuring for multiple commercial IP registries for the americas? /John From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Mar 3 09:52:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:52:55 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC27B0.4A35D2E0@webster.unety.net> What triggered ARIN ? People keep making statements that something has changed at the InterNIC and funding is no longer provided to cover the IP allocation and registration actvities. The ISP/C web site seems to confirm this viewpoint... "In the past, IP registry operations in North and South America have been funded by the US government via the National Science Foundation (NSF). Now that the NSF no longer funds this critical part of the Internet's infrastructure..." What triggered these changes ? People seem to always make the assumption that the InterNIC and Network Solutions, Inc. are one and the same. This is clearly not the case because AT&T still is an integral part of the InterNIC. U.S. Government NSF InterNIC IS, RS - Network Solutions, Inc. DS - AT&T Also, people seem to make the assumption that domain registrations now fund the ENTIRE InterNIC and NSF provides no funding. This is clearly not the case because the NSF recently authorized to pay some of NSI's legal fees ($74,617) and the NSF is funding up to $253,300 in domain registrations for schools and government organizations. Very little is said about the funding of AT&T and how the IS, DS, and RS functions cross-subsidize each other. Because of the massive resources of AT&T, it is possible that many of the DS funding issues are lost in the noise. The emphasis always seems to be placed on the RS functions, which are handled by NSI. The viewpoint that seems to be promoted is that money flows into NSI and 30% is placed in an NSF fund to be used to build additional Internet Infrastructure. The assumption is that the other 70% is used by NSI without NSF involvement. It is hard to determine whether this view is fact or semantics. According to the actual agreement [1], the money is supposed to be placed into an interest bearing account and dispersed according to an order of priorities. One would assume that one of those priorities would be funding for the IP allocation and registration activities. If instead, 70% of the funds stop at NSI with 30% passed on to NSF, then the priorities of payments can not be easily honored. As can be seen[2], an additional $2.5 million was raised in January. To date, none of this money has been spent to add any additional Internet Infrastructure. In many respects, NOT spending this money can have a long term negative impact on the Internet because additional NICs are not being funded and the monopoly situation enjoyed by NSI improves each month the funds sit idle. $15,284,934 - Current Balance -$12,685,450 - Previous Balance ------------------ $2,599,484 - Additional Funds, January 1997 According to "[Network Solutions] will develop and implement mechanisms to insure the involvement of the Internet communities in determining and overseeing disbursements from this account." It is unclear at this point whether any such mechanisms have been developed and whether it would be in Network Solutions best interest to develop such mechanisms. If ARIN is considered to be one of these "mechanisms" funded out of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund then NSI is really not funding ARIN, instead the ISPs are doing the funding via their continued channeling of domain registrations to the InterNIC. Can the people promoting ARIN including the ISP/C clarify some of the following questions ? 1. What triggered the sudden need for ARIN ? 2. Has internal funding been removed or not ? 3. Is ARIN going to be funded from the Intellectual Intrastructure Fund ? Thanks, Jim Fleming @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ [1] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nsf/agreement/agreement.html "ARTICLE 15. PROJECT INCOME FROM REGISTRATION FEES A. If, and to the extent that Awardee is authorized and/or directed to charge and collect user fees for the Registration Services provided hereunder, any user fees so collected shall be placed in an interest bearing account, and shall be used to defray the Awardee's and the Foundation's Project expenses in the following descending order of priority: 1. Project expenses incurred by Awardee as a result of the imposition of such fees. 2. Project expenses of the Awardee charged to the Foundation under this award. (Program Plans and future year funding requests should reflect any such Income. 3. Project expenses of Awardee's Collaborators charged to the Foundation under their respective Awards. (Program Plans and future year funding requests should reflect any such inform and project fund transfers. 4. The provisions of this Article shall apply only to any Project Income which is generated from the imposition of user based fees on registration services. Article 19, Project Income, of the General Conditions shall apply to project related revenue from any other source [Amend 01]." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ [2] @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html Intellectual Infrastructure Funds ...through October 31, 1996, $8,542,200.00 has been deposited into the account. ...through November 30, 1996, $9,911,000.00 has been deposited into the account. ...through December 31, 1996: $12,685,450.00 has been desposited into the account. ...through January 31, 1997: $15,284,934.00 has been desposited into the account. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Mon Mar 3 17:54:26 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:54:26 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: Jim - Excessive crossposting. Please refer folks to one list to carry on a discussion, rather than running one discussion across three lists simultaneously. I've replied to the naipr list for sake of simplicity. >At 9:52 3/3/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > >Can the people promoting ARIN including the ISP/C clarify >some of the following questions ? > >1. What triggered the sudden need for ARIN ? I believe ARIN is the result of planning for graceful transition of IP registration services from the InterNIC prior to the expiration of the current agreeement. One might be able to claim that it is still early to start on this activity, but it is far better to be too early than too late. It's also important to note that the current costs of IP registration services are being offset by the fees for DNS registration activities due to the combined nature of the current operation (if I understand the situation correctly) and that this situation may change dramatically with the emergence of new TLD registries. >2. Has internal funding been removed or not ? See above. I don't believe that any of the Int. Inf. Fund is being distributed, either to IP registry services or any other purpose, since there is a requirement to establish a fairly independent process for disbursement. >3. Is ARIN going to be funded from the Intellectual Intrastructure Fund ? In order to receive funding, there needs to be a process for applying for such funds. To my knowledge that process does not exist today, but that doesn't mean it won't be in place sometime soon. Once there is a way to get at this fund, the next question is whether it would be an appropriate use of such monies. In my personal opinion (and it's quite likely that other ARIN trustees feel differently), I would prefer to see IP allocation services provided on a cost-recovery basis without any subsidy. This is similiar in nature to the other regional IP registries and avoids creating a strange motivation for folks in other regions to use ARIN... Having said that I'm generally against using such funds for ARIN, I will contradict myself to some extent by suggesting that it might be perfectly reasonable for ARIN to seek some funding to operate during its initial phase (when members are few and startup costs are high). Hope this helps, /John From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Mar 3 20:45:38 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:45:38 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970303204532.0069ef0c@lint.cisco.com> John, I don't mean to sounds facetious here, but haven't we all provided Mr. Fleming with explanations on this same issue on (excruciating) multiple occasions? This has been stated, and re-stated, and... - paul At 05:54 PM 3/3/97 -0500, John Curran wrote: >>1. What triggered the sudden need for ARIN ? > > I believe ARIN is the result of planning for graceful > transition of IP registration services from the InterNIC > prior to the expiration of the current agreeement. One > might be able to claim that it is still early to start > on this activity, but it is far better to be too early > than too late. > From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Mar 3 10:19:51 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 00:19:51 +0900 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:45:38 EST." <3.0.32.19970303204532.0069ef0c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <199703031519.AAA15297@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Hi, This actually raises an interesting point. Are there _any_ substantive issues left to be addressed regarding the current draft, or shall we just rename NAIPR to YAJFS (Yet Another Jim Fleming Soapbox)? If there are substantive issues, can people provide them (preferably _without_ complaints about how they've been posted before and ignored, how Kim, the BoD, and InterNIC are not responsive, etc. etc.) in a simple list format? Might make the discussion be a bit more productive... Thanks, -drc ----------- >John, > >I don't mean to sounds facetious here, but haven't we all >provided Mr. Fleming with explanations on this same issue >on (excruciating) multiple occasions? This has been stated, >and re-stated, and... > >- paul > >At 05:54 PM 3/3/97 -0500, John Curran wrote: > >>>1. What triggered the sudden need for ARIN ? >> >> I believe ARIN is the result of planning for graceful >> transition of IP registration services from the InterNIC >> prior to the expiration of the current agreeement. One >> might be able to claim that it is still early to start >> on this activity, but it is far better to be too early >> than too late. >> > > From pferguso at CISCO.COM Mon Mar 3 22:27:12 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 22:27:12 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970303222704.006a2f28@lint.cisco.com> At 12:19 AM 3/4/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >If there are substantive issues, can people provide them (preferably >_without_ complaints about how they've been posted before and ignored, >how Kim, the BoD, and InterNIC are not responsive, etc. etc.) in a >simple list format? Might make the discussion be a bit more >productive... > Don't forget the black helicopters, Dave. :-) - paul From arinlist at gix.com Mon Mar 3 17:30:11 1997 From: arinlist at gix.com (Christopher McKeen) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:30:11 -0400 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <19970303233008.AAA19983@chris> Where can a breakdown of the proposed ARIN budget be found. Thanks- From kimh at internic.net Tue Mar 4 10:34:46 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:34:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <19970303233008.AAA19983@chris> from "Christopher McKeen" at Mar 3, 97 06:30:11 pm Message-ID: <199703041534.KAA19796@jazz.internic.net> > The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. Cheers, Kim > Where can a breakdown of the proposed ARIN budget be found. > > Thanks- > From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Tue Mar 4 12:07:38 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:07:38 -0800 Subject: ARIN in Hong Kong Message-ID: <01BC287B.82C26E40@jfbb.atmnet.net> An APRICOT session on address allocation has nothing to do with ARIN. Please take your question to an appropriate forum. -- jfbb ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:34 AM To: 'Paul Ferguson' Cc: 'naipr at arin.net' Subject: ARIN in Hong Kong Paul, I notice that you lead this discussion at the APRICOT conference in Hong Kong. Can you provide the ARIN discussion group a summary of what people reported, discussed, etc. ? @@@@ http://svc00.apnic.net/apricot/conf.html APRICOT Conference Program Paul Ferguson - Cisco Scott Bradner - Harvard University David Conrad - APNIC Kim Hubbard - InterNIC Daniel Karrenberg RIPE-NCC Mark Kosters - Network Solutions @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 11:50:39 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:50:39 -0600 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <01BC2889.E6D0B780@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 4:34 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] wrote: @ > @ The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. @ @ Cheers, @ @ Kim @ @ @ > Where can a breakdown of the proposed ARIN budget be found. @ > @ > Thanks- @ > Kim, Have these meeting notes been published yet ? Also, are the budgets you refer to the same as the ones in the November 1996 Internet Monthly Report ? @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9610.txt "IP Support Kim Hubbard met with Jon Postel (IANA), David Conrad (APNIC) and Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE) in California to discuss IP issues. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt "IP Support Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration Services." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 12:40:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:40:23 -0600 Subject: ARIN helps streamline NSI...? Message-ID: <01BC2890.D96974E0@webster.unety.net> According to the following...ARIN is to help streamline NSI... @@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/2124.html >"Outsourcing is the only way to handle this exponential growth," said Chris >Clough, NSI's director of communications. "We literally couldn't hire the >personnel fast enough to handle it otherwise." <...> >In another move to streamline its functions, NSI is leading a proposal to >set up a nonprofit organization that would assign Internet numbers and, for >the first time ever, charge a fee for them. NSI currently manages the >assignment of IP addresses under its agreement with the NSF, the cost of >which has been subsidized by its domain name registration fees. The >proposed organization, to be called the American Registry of Internet >Numbers (ARIN), would collect user fees of from $2,500 to $25,000 a year, >depending on the number of addresses registered.=20 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 11:33:59 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:33:59 -0600 Subject: ARIN in Hong Kong Message-ID: <01BC2887.92C03FA0@webster.unety.net> Paul, I notice that you lead this discussion at the APRICOT conference in Hong Kong. Can you provide the ARIN discussion group a summary of what people reported, discussed, etc. ? @@@@ http://svc00.apnic.net/apricot/conf.html APRICOT Conference Program Paul Ferguson - Cisco Scott Bradner - Harvard University David Conrad - APNIC Kim Hubbard - InterNIC Daniel Karrenberg RIPE-NCC Mark Kosters - Network Solutions @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 12:10:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:10:01 -0600 Subject: ARIN in Hong Kong Message-ID: <01BC288C.9B6BD880@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 11:07 AM, Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb at ATMnet.net] wrote: @ An APRICOT session on address allocation has nothing to do with ARIN. Please take your question to an appropriate forum. @ -- @ jfbb @ @ @ @ ---------- @ From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] @ Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:34 AM @ To: 'Paul Ferguson' @ Cc: 'naipr at arin.net' @ Subject: ARIN in Hong Kong @ @ @ Paul, @ @ I notice that you lead this discussion at the APRICOT @ conference in Hong Kong. @ @ Can you provide the ARIN discussion group a @ summary of what people reported, discussed, etc. ? @ @ @@@@ http://svc00.apnic.net/apricot/conf.html @ @ APRICOT Conference Program @ @ Paul Ferguson - Cisco @ Scott Bradner - Harvard University @ David Conrad - APNIC @ Kim Hubbard - InterNIC @ Daniel Karrenberg RIPE-NCC @ Mark Kosters - Network Solutions @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ -- @ Jim Fleming @ Unir Corporation @ @ e-mail: @ JimFleming at unety.net @ JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) @ @ @ Are you saying that the following discussion "Internet Address Allocation Panel Discussion" has nothing to do with ARIN...? Does ARIN have anything to do with "Internet Address Allocation"...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From waz at ENTERACT.COM Tue Mar 4 13:07:43 1997 From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Waz Imp man) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:07:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <01BC2884.9DD04F00@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > On Monday, March 03, 1997 9:19 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: > @ Hi, > @ > @ This actually raises an interesting point. Are there _any_ > @ substantive issues left to be addressed regarding the current draft, > @ or shall we just rename NAIPR to YAJFS (Yet Another Jim Fleming > @ Soapbox)? > @ > @ If there are substantive issues, can people provide them (preferably > @ _without_ complaints about how they've been posted before and ignored, > @ how Kim, the BoD, and InterNIC are not responsive, etc. etc.) in a > @ simple list format? Might make the discussion be a bit more > @ productive... > David, > > Before you go... > > Can you list the ARIN Trustees who were > part of the recent conference that you sponsored > in Hong Kong ? > > Can you also list what you paid each person to attend ? > Also, how many black helicopters were needed? From hcb at CLARK.NET Tue Mar 4 14:49:09 1997 From: hcb at CLARK.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:49:09 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <199703041534.KAA19796@jazz.internic.net> References: <19970303233008.AAA19983@chris> from "Christopher McKeen" at Mar 3, 97 06:30:11 pm Message-ID: At 10:34 AM -0500 3/4/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: >> >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. > >Cheers, > >Kim But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? > > >> Where can a breakdown of the proposed ARIN budget be found. >> >> Thanks- >> From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 14:49:06 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:49:06 -0600 Subject: So what have we learned from this? Message-ID: <01BC28A2.D50DDDC0@webster.unety.net> Ivan, I am glad that you brought this up in the IAHC discussion. You might also want to join the ARIN discussion. It is supposed to cover these topics. Your experience in these areas could be helpful to the ARIN discussions. More info is at...http://www.arin.net Jim Fleming @@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/2137.html Re: So what have we learned from this? Ivan Pope (ivan at netnames.com) Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:46:02 +0000 >> >>In another move to streamline its functions, NSI is leading a proposal to >>set up a nonprofit organization that would assign Internet numbers and, for >>the first time ever, charge a fee for them. NSI currently manages the >>assignment of IP addresses under its agreement with the NSF, the cost of >>which has been subsidized by its domain name registration fees. The >>proposed organization, to be called the American Registry of Internet >>Numbers (ARIN), would collect user fees of from $2,500 to $25,000 a year, >>depending on the number of addresses registered. So NSI stops subsidising the IP address assignment out of Domain Name fees. So, do the Domain Name fees go down? And, by how much? Or do NSI add this to their profit? Ivan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Pope ivan at netnames.co.uk NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY Registering Domain Names in over 160 countries http://www.netnames.com +44 171 224 2017 UK Freephone 0800 269049 The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing Proverb @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 11:12:49 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:12:49 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2884.9DD04F00@webster.unety.net> On Monday, March 03, 1997 9:19 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote: @ Hi, @ @ This actually raises an interesting point. Are there _any_ @ substantive issues left to be addressed regarding the current draft, @ or shall we just rename NAIPR to YAJFS (Yet Another Jim Fleming @ Soapbox)? @ @ If there are substantive issues, can people provide them (preferably @ _without_ complaints about how they've been posted before and ignored, @ how Kim, the BoD, and InterNIC are not responsive, etc. etc.) in a @ simple list format? Might make the discussion be a bit more @ productive... @ @ Thanks, @ -drc David, Before you go... Can you list the ARIN Trustees who were part of the recent conference that you sponsored in Hong Kong ? Can you also list what you paid each person to attend ? Thanks... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 11:01:07 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:01:07 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2882.FBB78860@webster.unety.net> On Monday, March 03, 1997 4:54 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ Jim - Excessive crossposting. Please refer folks to one list @ to carry on a discussion, rather than running one discussion @ across three lists simultaneously. I've replied to the naipr @ list for sake of simplicity. @ Thank you for replying... @ >At 9:52 3/3/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ >Can the people promoting ARIN including the ISP/C clarify @ >some of the following questions ? @ > @ >1. What triggered the sudden need for ARIN ? @ @ I believe ARIN is the result of planning for graceful @ transition of IP registration services from the InterNIC @ prior to the expiration of the current agreeement. One @ might be able to claim that it is still early to start @ on this activity, but it is far better to be too early @ than too late. @ Yes, I imagine everyone wants to plan for the transition. It is in everyone's best interest: NSF - Needs to focus on R&E not running registries which require business operations, clerical support, etc. This not only holds for the .COM, .NET, .ORG InterNIC but also the .US domain. (see below) NSI - Has some unique business opportunities that it has enjoyed. It may have even more unique opportunities if it was free to enter the TLD arena that is shaping up. SAIC - Probably wants to focus on DOD contracts. There may always be more money there than in domain names and IP addresses. IANA/USC/ISI - Needs to focus on R&E not running the .US registry and not running interference between the various business communities. ISPs - More Top Level Domain registries will give the ISPs more choices and their customers will enjoy a more diverse Internet. NEW Root Name Server Confederations - These groups of commercially supported TRUE Root Name Servers help to provide the ISPs with the stability they need and accurate information. They are strictly operational in their nature. (Examples: InterNIC, eDNS, ...) NEW Registry Authorities (RA) - These commercial entities need to provide a layer of glue between the TLD registries and the Root Name Server Confederations. This allows TLD registries to work with several confederations and insulates the Root Name Server operators from the decisions and details of the changing TLD Registry Industry. (Examples: IANA, IAHC, AlterNIC, ...) NEW TLD Registries - These commercial and non-commercial organizations provide ISPs and end users with a place to register Second Level Domains (SLDs). They depend on the RAs to coordinate with the Root Name Server Confederations to keep the infratstructure together. (Examples: .COM, .US, .WEB, ...) These last THREE entities are once again part of a three-way structure that holds everything together. A similar three-way structure was created when the InterNIC was created. That structure consists of IS, DS, and RS. In my opinion, ARIN breaks that structure. I would rather see the structure CLONED not fragmented. ARIN could easily CLONE the structure by working on a plan that dove-tails more closely with the rest of the industry. No one disagrees a transition plan is needed and that is why some of us have been working on these plans almost full-time for over one year. I will not go into detail, but I will never forget the conversations I had with people at the NSF when they said, "we hope you people figure out a way to get us out of here...". The NSF has been saying this for some time. What I do not understand is why the ARIN proposal was not brought up in all the other forums where people are working hard to "get the NSF" out of the picture before September 1998. Why haven't the people launching ARIN explained the meetings reported in the Internet Monthly Reports? Why are these open forums only used AFTER everything is a "done deal"...? @ It's also important to note that the current costs of @ IP registration services are being offset by the fees @ for DNS registration activities due to the combined @ nature of the current operation (if I understand the @ situation correctly) and that this situation may change @ dramatically with the emergence of new TLD registries. @ @ >2. Has internal funding been removed or not ? @ @ See above. I don't believe that any of the Int. Inf. @ Fund is being distributed, either to IP registry services @ or any other purpose, since there is a requirement to @ establish a fairly independent process for disbursement. @ By internal funding I did not mean the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. By internal funding I meant the money flowing from domain registrations to the various IS, DS, RS activities. IP registration services mostly fall under RS. I do not understand how one small part of RS can be magically without funding. The InterNIC is supposed to be a "Cooperative Agreement". The cooperation is between IS, DS, and RS. For some reason, the domain name fees seem to be mostly attributed to RS. This is not the case, because people working in IS functions are clearly being paid by domain name fees. I suppose AT&T, the contractor for DS, is not being paid because they can handle DS out of petty cash. This is a problem when you get IS, DS, RS contractors of different size. One company needs the money to survive and the other lets them have it. When the total organization grows there may be no plan for funding all aspects of IS, DS and RS. Now, if a part of RS pops up and claims they have no funding then it is incumbent on the managers, in this case the NSF, to find out why the funds flowing into the IS, DS, RS "coop" are not covering the entire coop. @ >3. Is ARIN going to be funded from the Intellectual Intrastructure Fund ? @ @ In order to receive funding, there needs to be a process @ for applying for such funds. To my knowledge that process @ does not exist today, but that doesn't mean it won't be @ in place sometime soon. @ I assume the NSF is evaluating the various options. Again, I suggest that they use the fund to CLONE 50 InterNICs, one for each State in the U.S. They can start doing this and there will be more than enough "NICs" in place before September 1998 to effect a smooth transition. @ Once there is a way to get at this fund, the next question @ is whether it would be an appropriate use of such monies. @ In my personal opinion (and it's quite likely that other @ ARIN trustees feel differently), I would prefer to see @ IP allocation services provided on a cost-recovery basis @ without any subsidy. This is similiar in nature to the @ other regional IP registries and avoids creating a strange @ motivation for folks in other regions to use ARIN... @ I would prefer to see the IS, DS, RS cooperative structure used to allow various revenues (domain names, IP addresses, etc.) to find their true equilibrium points. This will allow for many InterNIC clones to appear to serve the public. If ARIN is isolated and has ANOTHER monopoly, then the IP charges become artificial numbers. If you would like to discuss 50 ARINs, one in each State, then you might have a chance to find the true market value of IP addresses. Unfortunately, some people feel that 50 ARINs could not all stand on their own that there is not enough revenue to support that many. @ Having said that I'm generally against using such funds @ for ARIN, I will contradict myself to some extent by @ suggesting that it might be perfectly reasonable for @ ARIN to seek some funding to operate during its initial @ phase (when members are few and startup costs are high). @ Again, I suggest that companies with large IP allocations, like BBN Planet, help fund an ARIN-like service to see how the market responds. It is called a "market trial" by some companies. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET Tue Mar 4 17:24:35 1997 From: sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Alan Bechtold) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 22:24:35 +0000 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <19970304222426.AAB11730@LOCALNAME> At 08:13 PM 3/4/97 +0000, you wrote: >On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >> >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. > >> But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? > >I've been informed by reliable sources that the black helicopters will >be rented but other essential equipment such as dark sunglasses will >be purchased. Leasing is only being considered for non-essential items >like computer equipment. > >;-) ;-) So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? Just trying to get myself educated as to the proper way to conduct myself on this "open forum." --- ALAN ============================================================ Alan R. Bechtold Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals Member, AOP Board of Directors From pferguso at CISCO.COM Tue Mar 4 17:43:43 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 17:43:43 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970304174336.006bb03c@lint.cisco.com> At 10:24 PM 3/4/97 +0000, Alan Bechtold wrote: > >So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them >hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible >for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? > >Just trying to get myself educated as to the proper way to conduct myself on >this "open forum." > Sheesh. No sense of humor. - paul From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Tue Mar 4 18:41:02 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:41:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <19970304222426.AAB11730@LOCALNAME> from "Alan Bechtold" at Mar 4, 97 10:24:35 pm Message-ID: <199703042341.AA126638865@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Alan Bechtold supposedly said: > > So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them > hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible > for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? > No. Asking questions is great and useful and part of the process. However walking into the middle of a conversation (or discussion) and make broad sweeping statements that are incorrect does not contribute to the discussion, but tends to sidetrack from actually getting any work done. In such a situation it is appropriate to be informed that the answers to your questions have been answered numerous times, and that you should read the archives to catch up. It may be that a majority of the participants have been long time participants in the IETF, where the standard practice when joining a working group is to go and read the archives and the current drafts before asking basic questions that have long been cleared up. The magic and wonder of this process has worked for many years based on the commitment of the participants and their willingness to undertake such efforts. In many ways we are the victims of our success. The Internet (and computers/networks in general) have given most people a world of instant gratification. Want to know about something, boom! here's a one page summary and you are up to speed. This is also the case with many management mindsets, they don;t need the details just the basics (and that i appropriate for their function), but most of these discussions take place between technical people. Ignorance is NOT a sin, but an unwillingness to do the ground work once it is pointed out to you ussually does not result in a lot of patience. > Just trying to get myself educated as to the proper way to conduct myself on > this "open forum." > Although this is not technically an IETF working group, much of the discussion is taking place is a similar manner, so you may want to go read the RFC on the Zen of the IETF. > --- ALAN > ============================================================ > Alan R. Bechtold > Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report > Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated > Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals > Member, AOP Board of Directors > > ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 18:48:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:48:13 -0600 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <01BC28C4.3C38FCC0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 4:24 PM, Alan Bechtold[SMTP:sysop-news at WORLDNET.ATT.NET] wrote: @ At 08:13 PM 3/4/97 +0000, you wrote: @ >On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: @ > @ >> >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. @ > @ >> But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? @ > @ >I've been informed by reliable sources that the black helicopters will @ >be rented but other essential equipment such as dark sunglasses will @ >be purchased. Leasing is only being considered for non-essential items @ >like computer equipment. @ > @ >;-) ;-) @ @ So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them @ hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible @ for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? @ @ Just trying to get myself educated as to the proper way to conduct myself on @ this "open forum." @ @ --- ALAN @ ============================================================ @ Alan R. Bechtold @ Editor and Publisher, Sysop News and CyberWorld Report @ Director of Corporate Communications, Bidworld, Incorporated @ Founding Gold member, Association of Online Professionals @ Member, AOP Board of Directors @ @ @ These people are supplying answers by not answering... The question is whether they will supply the same answers in other forums... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 17:58:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:58:45 -0600 Subject: ARIN Spinout or Spin Message-ID: <01BC28BD.537A8680@webster.unety.net> If the NSF was going to spin anything out, it should probably be the .COM registry. If .COM is pulled out of the InterNIC then the NSF can keep a close eye on the important IP address allocations that need government scrutiny to ensure fairness. There is probably more than enough money in the various funds for the InterNIC coop to operate until September 1998 without the .COM registry. It appears that Network Solutions is ready for .COM and a "whole lot more"... http://www.netsol.com === -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Mar 4 15:13:57 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. > But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? I've been informed by reliable sources that the black helicopters will be rented but other essential equipment such as dark sunglasses will be purchased. Leasing is only being considered for non-essential items like computer equipment. ;-) ;-) Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Tue Mar 4 16:00:00 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:00:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: from "Howard C. Berkowitz" at Mar 4, 97 02:49:09 pm Message-ID: <199703042100.QAA20051@jazz.internic.net> > > At 10:34 AM -0500 3/4/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: > >> > >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Kim > > But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? All black helicopters will be leased. Unless you know of a great sale going on now :-) Kim > > > > > > > >> Where can a breakdown of the proposed ARIN budget be found. > >> > >> Thanks- > >> > > > From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 20:24:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:24:50 -0600 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <01BC28D1.BB80FD40@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 6:15 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz[SMTP:hcb at CLARK.NET] wrote: @ @ If your reference is to large numbers of questions that stay repetitive, I @ would only hope that there is as much humor as there is repetition and @ conspiracy theories. @ @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt "IP Support Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration Services." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ If these plans were "completed" last November, why wouldn't they be available. This is March.... Here is a little humor... November December January February March A large company I knew used to say they always got the "month" right to announce a product... they just miss on which year...maybe that November above is November 1997...??? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From hcb at clark.net Tue Mar 4 19:15:47 1997 From: hcb at clark.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:15:47 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <19970304222426.AAB11730@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: At 10:24 PM +0000 3/4/97, Alan Bechtold wrote: >At 08:13 PM 3/4/97 +0000, you wrote: >>On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >> >>> >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. >> >>> But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black >>>helicopters? >> >>I've been informed by reliable sources that the black helicopters will >>be rented but other essential equipment such as dark sunglasses will >>be purchased. Leasing is only being considered for non-essential items >>like computer equipment. >> >>;-) ;-) > >So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them >hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible >for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? > >Just trying to get myself educated as to the proper way to conduct myself on >this "open forum." > >--- ALAN >============================================================ Alan, Precisely who do you think is being belittled here? I made a humorous comment on a serious issue, the budget, in the intent of relieving a bit of tension. The budget certainly is on-topic; I would like to see it, but the people preparing it don't have it ready yet. An in-context bit of levity is part of any business negiotiation. Kim and others replied in what I consider a consistent spirit. If your reference is to large numbers of questions that stay repetitive, I would only hope that there is as much humor as there is repetition and conspiracy theories. Howard Howard From JimFleming at unety.net Tue Mar 4 19:56:05 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:56:05 -0600 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <01BC28CD.B7978AE0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 12:41 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote: @ Alan Bechtold supposedly said: @ > @ > So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them @ > hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible @ > for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? @ > @ @ @ No. Asking questions is great and useful and part of the process. However @ walking into the middle of a conversation (or discussion) and make broad @ sweeping statements that are incorrect does not contribute to the @ discussion, but tends to sidetrack from actually getting any work done. In @ such a situation it is appropriate to be informed that the answers to your @ questions have been answered numerous times, and that you should read the @ archives to catch up. @ The archives do not always seem to be working. Also, some people may not be able to download huge files via FTP. A simple message per file web interface might be better. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Mar 4 20:22:21 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:22:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <19970304222426.AAB11730@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Alan Bechtold wrote: > >> >The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. > > > >> But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? > > > >I've been informed by reliable sources that the black helicopters will > >be rented but other essential equipment such as dark sunglasses will > >be purchased. Leasing is only being considered for non-essential items > >like computer equipment. > > > >;-) ;-) > > So -- let me get this straight. Asking a lot of questions -- some of them > hard, some of them repeptitive, some of them off-topic -- is not acceptible > for this list, but belittling the person who asks is? Cracking jokes is not neccessarily belittling people. Perhaps not everybody on this list recalls, but two separate members of the Board of Trustees have said that they will not post preliminary budgets to this list because, in the past, preliminary information has been subject to a stream of attacks and has not led to constructive discussion. You may not like this, but there is nothing wrong with them taking this approach considering that they are all unpaid volunteers who are donating their time and other resources to this initiative. If they feel better about working out all the budget details and having a bulletproof justification for each line item before releasing them, then that's OK. I can see no valid criticism of this choice. I don't neccessarily LIKE this choice but that is my personal feeling and not a specific criticism of the BoT. However, I'm sure that if anyone has suggestions for the budget or suggestions for the bylaw structure of ARIN, it is still worthwhile posting these to the list where the BoT and other interested people can comment. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From kimh at internic.net Wed Mar 5 14:42:16 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:42:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <01BC28D1.BB80FD40@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Mar 4, 97 07:24:50 pm Message-ID: <199703051942.OAA20720@jazz.internic.net> > Jim, The budget being discussed below is the InterNIC budget, not the ARIN budget. The separation discussed is the fact that before ARIN was devised, the proposed plan was to completely separate the IP group from every other part of the InterNIC, with different staffing and possibly even a different location, because we recognized the community's desire for this separation. However, it was determined that creating ARIN was possibly a better solution so we did not move forward with the internal separation. Kim > On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 6:15 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz[SMTP:hcb at CLARK.NET] wrote: > > @ > @ If your reference is to large numbers of questions that stay repetitive, I > @ would only hope that there is as much humor as there is repetition and > @ conspiracy theories. > @ > @@@@ ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/imr/imr9611.txt > > "IP Support > > Staffing plans and a preliminary budget were completed with > regard to separating the IP Section from InterNIC Registration > Services." > > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > If these plans were "completed" last November, why wouldn't > they be available. This is March.... > > Here is a little humor... > > November > December > January > February > March > > A large company I knew used to say they always > got the "month" right to announce a product... > they just miss on which year...maybe that > November above is November 1997...??? > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 14:59:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:59:23 -0600 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <01BC296D.6F2E2340@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 8:42 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ Jim, @ @ The budget being discussed below is the InterNIC budget, not the ARIN @ budget. The separation discussed is the fact that before ARIN was @ devised, the proposed plan was to completely separate the IP group from every @ other part of the InterNIC, with different staffing and possibly even @ a different location, because we recognized the community's desire for @ this separation. However, it was determined that creating ARIN was @ possibly a better solution so we did not move forward with the internal @ separation. @ @ Kim @ Thanks for the response. I see the difference. I hope that ARIN is able to step-out of the InterNIC world. In my opinion, it would be better to step totally out and look back and clone the whole thing. As a business person, I get concerned with cloning part of a proven operation. As you know I suggested cloning the InterNICs with each new entity having the following resources: 1. Three TLDs (infrastructure, commercial, free) 2. One /8 IP Space to "manage" There is no doubt with the proper leasing model an IP registry can stand on its own. It does not need the cross-subsidy from the TLD domain registrations. Basically, people in the managed address space would be paying fees for their IN-ADDR.ARPA entries at a minimum. At $2 per IP address per year, a /24 could yield $512 which is certainly in the range of a business. It would be best if the registry had ownership of the IP addresses. That is an area that interests me. More on that later...:-) Keep up the good work. I hope that you and the other ARIN founders realize that some people are coming at this same problem from the domain name registration side of the business. I suspect everyone will eventually meet in the market place. I am a little concerned that a TLD domain name registry with 3 TLDS plus a /8 might be too much competition for ARIN. As a non-profit you might be able to overcome any problems in that arena. You certainly do not want to set yourself up for failure, because customers of registries do not like for them to fail. This is one of the reasons why I like to look at the problem from all sides. I see your point of view and I see others. There do not have to be winners and losers as long as the customers are served. Thanks again for the reply.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 15:10:41 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:10:41 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: >The suggestion has been that these regional registries >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses >to allocate because their address space is full. They would >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. Wild. I now understand what you're proposing. What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit company charging existing allocations management fees?? Doesn't this create dozens of windfall situations where new registries get the right to extort payments for existing allocations without any limitation or competition? (or cost :-) >If you feel that provider-based allocations are better I don't think they're better, but we've had trouble coming up with any alternatives that scale. /John From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 15:19:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:19:48 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2970.4934BC00@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ @ >The suggestion has been that these regional registries @ >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. @ >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses @ >to allocate because their address space is full. They would @ >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. @ >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. @ @ Wild. I now understand what you're proposing. @ @ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit @ company charging existing allocations management fees?? Doesn't @ this create dozens of windfall situations where new registries @ get the right to extort payments for existing allocations @ without any limitation or competition? (or cost :-) @ @ >If you feel that provider-based allocations are better @ @ I don't think they're better, but we've had trouble @ coming up with any alternatives that scale. @ If you think that is "wild"....here is another approach... Since some people can not seem to "grok" the idea of having a "registry" to simply manage a /8 space leaving allocations out of the picture....another idea comes to the surface... If the IPv4 address space is sold off in 256 units (i.e. /24s) then the owners of those units can collect annual "lease fees" from the people/companies those units have been assigned to. Those owners could be separate from the registries. In some cases, ISPs might just buy up their /24s to avoid the annual fees. In others they may decide to pay rent to the owner. Decoupling the owner from the company handling the allocation helps solve many problems. As an example, we have a few stray /24s that are part of the MCI aggregate. If someone other than us or MCI took "ownership" of one of those /24s then we (or MCI) could pay rent to that owner. In an aggregate, there could be many owners and it would not affect routing one bit. Let me know if this makes sense. For some reason I could not make it clear how a registry could manage a space separate from the routing. The more I thought about it, it might be best to have "owners" be separate from the registries which are sort of in place because IP allocations are mostly tied to upstream providers. Wild...?...:-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 15:23:21 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:23:21 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2970.C7DF2FE0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ @ >The suggestion has been that these regional registries @ >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. @ >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses @ >to allocate because their address space is full. They would @ >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. @ >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. @ @ Wild. I now understand what you're proposing. @ @ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit @ company charging existing allocations management fees?? Doesn't @ this create dozens of windfall situations where new registries @ get the right to extort payments for existing allocations @ without any limitation or competition? (or cost :-) @ Now you may see why I wanted to delegate the /8 spaces to individual States (U.S. Senators and Governors). If those States gouge the users...what can we do...? @ >If you feel that provider-based allocations are better @ @ I don't think they're better, but we've had trouble @ coming up with any alternatives that scale. @ In my opinion, provider based allocations are the same "windfall" situations you describe above. They are just cloaked with services. What stops a major provider from taking a T1 from $3,000 per month to $4,000 per month AFTER locking the poor ISP into an address block ? Isn't that sort of a windfall...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 15:56:46 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:56:46 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 15:23 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >In my opinion, provider based allocations are the same >"windfall" situations you describe above. They are just >cloaked with services. A non-profit registry provides IP allocations to any and all ISPs on a cost-recovery basis. No windfall there. ISP's connect customers and need to provide IP addresses in order to deliver the service. Generally, this is included in the price of service. >What stops a major provider from taking a T1 from >$3,000 per month to $4,000 per month AFTER locking >the poor ISP into an address block ? Isn't that sort >of a windfall...? I agree that there is a real potential for problems with the implicit 'vendor lock' due to provider-based addressing. The only good news that I've seen on this front is that use of firewalls in some modes may greatly reduce the renumbering cost and that we're actually beginning to see deployment of DHCP in volume. /John From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 16:06:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:06:35 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2976.D2739080@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:56 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 15:23 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >In my opinion, provider based allocations are the same @ >"windfall" situations you describe above. They are just @ >cloaked with services. @ @ A non-profit registry provides IP allocations to any @ and all ISPs on a cost-recovery basis. No windfall @ there. @ Yes, but non-profit does not mean low-cost or minimalist. I prefer to have some representative of the people other than the IRS looking over the non-profit to provide guidance that the beach house (er office) in California and the servers in Maui are not critical to the operation. Neither are the Ferrari and Mercedes parked at the condo in "D.C" and New York. Also, keep in mind that non-profits can hide their revenue and expenses. For example, I know for a fact that a well postioned non-profit can be wined, dined, and hosted at the finest hotels in Switzerland if the right deals are being discussed. Those expenses never show up on the books. @ ISP's connect customers and need to provide IP addresses @ in order to deliver the service. Generally, this is @ included in the price of service. @ Yes...it is cloaked in the service....ISPs that have the IP addresses can more easily win contracts and sign up customers.... @ >What stops a major provider from taking a T1 from @ >$3,000 per month to $4,000 per month AFTER locking @ >the poor ISP into an address block ? Isn't that sort @ >of a windfall...? @ @ I agree that there is a real potential for problems @ with the implicit 'vendor lock' due to provider-based @ addressing. The only good news that I've seen on this @ front is that use of firewalls in some modes may greatly @ reduce the renumbering cost and that we're actually @ beginning to see deployment of DHCP in volume. @ I would say these are real problems...not potential problems... as a company with three /8s it may be difficult to see these problems... That is part of my concern about ARIN. Do we have people putting together programs to allocate food to the less advantaged ? and will the people founding ARIN know who the less advantaged are..? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Mar 5 15:01:02 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:01:02 -0700 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <199703031519.AAA15297@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> References: Your message of "Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:45:38 EST." <3.0.32.19970303204532.0069ef0c@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: At 8:19 AM -0700 3/3/97, David R. Conrad wrote: >Hi, > >This actually raises an interesting point. Are there _any_ >substantive issues left to be addressed regarding the current draft, >or shall we just rename NAIPR to YAJFS (Yet Another Jim Fleming >Soapbox)? > >If there are substantive issues, can people provide them (preferably >_without_ complaints about how they've been posted before and ignored, >how Kim, the BoD, and InterNIC are not responsive, etc. etc.) in a >simple list format? Might make the discussion be a bit more >productive... 1. Proposed budget, capitalization, funding model, cash flow 2. Proposed location(s) 3. Alternatives using existing not-for-profits with Registry and Internet experience 4. Bylaws (strawman would be fine) --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Mar 5 15:13:19 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:13:19 -0700 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: References: <19970304222426.AAB11730@LOCALNAME> Message-ID: At 6:22 PM -0700 3/4/97, Michael Dillon wrote: >However, I'm sure that if anyone has suggestions for the budget or >suggestions for the bylaw structure of ARIN, it is still worthwhile >posting these to the list where the BoT and other interested people >can comment. Does that mean I should dig through the archive and repost my budget? Would it really help anything? --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Wed Mar 5 15:08:25 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 13:08:25 -0700 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: References: <199703041534.KAA19796@jazz.internic.net> <19970303233008.AAA19983@chris> from "Christopher McKeen" at Mar 3, 97 06:30:11 pm Message-ID: At 12:49 PM -0700 3/4/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >At 10:34 AM -0500 3/4/97, Kim Hubbard wrote: >>> >>The ARIN budget has not been posted yet. We'll let you know when it is. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Kim > >But can't we have a hint whether you will buy or lease the black helicopters? Given that Kim would be doing the ordering, I would suspect that we are talking pastels here... --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 16:18:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:18:13 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2978.72319E40@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit @ company charging existing allocations management fees?? Assuming "for profit" with local government involvement.... The possible bnenefits are: 1. Better IP Space management, reclamation, ecology 2. More eyes and people watching the space 3. Fairness in allocations 4. Regional and cultural sensitivity to allocatons 5. Stability 6. Growth of the infrastructure and industry 7. Economic distribution of jobs, taxes, etc. 8. Regional development of expertise 9. Increased operational bases to prepare for next wave.... to name a few... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From stevek at STEVEK.COM Wed Mar 5 16:31:55 1997 From: stevek at STEVEK.COM (Steve Kann) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:31:55 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <01BC2970.4934BC00@webster.unety.net>; from Jim Fleming on Mar 5, 1997 14:19:48 -0600 References: <01BC2970.4934BC00@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: Jim Fleming writes: > On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: > @ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > @ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: > @ > @ >The suggestion has been that these regional registries > @ >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. > @ >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses > @ >to allocate because their address space is full. They would > @ >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. > @ >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. > @ > @ Wild. I now understand what you're proposing. > @ > @ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit > @ company charging existing allocations management fees?? Doesn't > @ this create dozens of windfall situations where new registries > @ get the right to extort payments for existing allocations > @ without any limitation or competition? (or cost :-) > @ > @ >If you feel that provider-based allocations are better > @ > @ I don't think they're better, but we've had trouble > @ coming up with any alternatives that scale. > @ > > If you think that is "wild"....here is another approach... > > Since some people can not seem to "grok" the idea > of having a "registry" to simply manage a /8 space > leaving allocations out of the picture....another idea > comes to the surface... > > If the IPv4 address space is sold off in 256 units > (i.e. /24s) then the owners of those units can > collect annual "lease fees" from the people/companies > those units have been assigned to. > > Those owners could be separate from the registries. > In some cases, ISPs might just buy up their /24s > to avoid the annual fees. In others they may decide > to pay rent to the owner. > > Decoupling the owner from the company handling > the allocation helps solve many problems. As an > example, we have a few stray /24s that are part > of the MCI aggregate. If someone other than us or > MCI took "ownership" of one of those /24s then > we (or MCI) could pay rent to that owner. In an > aggregate, there could be many owners and it > would not affect routing one bit. Why is this any different than assigning ownership of the letter "A" to some organization, who could then "manage" it, and collect "rent" from those who use the letter "A"? In either case, it doesn't seem like the organization getting the money is doing anything at all, except keeping records of who owes and who has paid. In fact, we could auction off the entire 7-bit ascii character set! Nay, let's auction the entire 8-bit byte space!! I propose the creation of ASCII-64, a confederation of 64 _different_ registries, One for each of the 50 states, plus an additional 14 international registries. These registries will devoted to the coordination of the usage of 8-bit bytes in the internet. People wanting to use a particular byte in their communications on the Internet could "lease" that particular byte from that registry. This would make it difficult, though, for organizations who would like to be able to use a large subset of the possible 8-bit bytes. To solve this business need, perhaps we could also have other organizations, similar to real estate agents, who could, for a small commission, coordinate with various sets of registries, on behalf of a client, for leases on larger sets of characters. The market will decide how much each lease would cost. More common characters will most likely command a higher premium. Of course, the letters A-Z will be the most important, and heck, maybe Null will be cheap. Think of what an industry could be generated from this. Think of all the Tax revenues that Governments could collect, when they pick up on this, and start taxing us for it! Nevermind the one-time income from the initial sale. Attached is form Short form 1040/BYTE EZ, which consumers can use to declare their BYTE usage, and figure their levy: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FORM 1040/BYTE EZ Name: _____________________________ Social Security Number: _____________________________ PART I: Declaration (1) Number of bytes transmitted in set (A-Za-z0-9) __________ (2) Number of bytes transmitted in set (!@#$%^&*()-_.,) __________ (3) Number of bytes transmitted where byte&0x80 = 0 __________ (4) Number of bytes transmitted where byte&0x80 = 1 __________ PART II: Figure your tax (5) Multiply line 1 by 20 __________ (6) Multiply line 2 by 10 __________ (7) Add lines 1 and 2 __________ (8) Subtract line 7 from line 3 __________ (9) Multiply line 8 by 7 __________ (10) Multiply line 4 by 5 __________ (11) Add lines 5,6,9 and 10. This is your ABU (adjusted byte usage) __________ (12) Enter your AGI from form 1040 EZ here __________ (13) Look up your ABUM (Adjusted byte usage rate multiplier) in table 1040/BYTE-TABLE, enter it here __________ (14) Multiply line 11 by line 13. This is your BYTE TAX __________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -SteveK -- Steve Kann i/o 360 digital design 841 Broadway, Suite 502 PGP 1024/C0145E05 F2 D6 24 83 9E 52 9A 61 AA BB 97 61 5C A1 B8 CE Personal:stevek at SteveK.COM Business: stevek at io360.com From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 17:01:35 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:01:35 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: >Assuming "for profit" with local government involvement.... > >The possible bnenefits are: > > 1. Better IP Space management, reclamation, ecology > 2. More eyes and people watching the space > 3. Fairness in allocations > 4. Regional and cultural sensitivity to allocatons > 5. Stability > 6. Growth of the infrastructure and industry > 7. Economic distribution of jobs, taxes, etc. > 8. Regional development of expertise > 9. Increased operational bases to prepare for next wave.... > >to name a few... My fault, I asked about _possible_ advantages. Now let's move on to _probable_ advantages... I don't see 1, 3, or 5 being all that likely, and we still don't have a way to handle the routing demand that will result. /John From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 17:01:31 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:01:31 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 16:06 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >... >That is part of my concern about ARIN. Do we have people >putting together programs to allocate food to the less >advantaged ? and will the people founding ARIN know who >the less advantaged are..? Isn't this why policies issues should be handled by the Advisory Council? /John From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 17:14:38 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:14:38 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2980.53AF95A0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 4:01 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ >Assuming "for profit" with local government involvement.... @ and we still don't have a way to handle the @ routing demand that will result. @ Please explain the "routing demand".... Do you think every ISP is going to demand a /18 ? What exactly are your concerns ? Don't you think reclamation and ecology will occur ? Have you factored in the defections from the major provider spaces allowing them to reuse ? How many routes can you tolerate adding to the tables ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 08:56:29 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 07:56:29 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC293A.BC78B300@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ At 11:01 3/4/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >If you would like to discuss 50 ARINs, one in each State, @ >then you might have a chance to find the true market value @ >of IP addresses. Unfortunately, some people feel that @ >50 ARINs could not all stand on their own that there is @ >not enough revenue to support that many. @ @ Jim, @ @ You have not demonstrated how the Internet can continue @ to grow successfully when we attempt to route the IP @ address prefixes that result from 50 non-toplogically @ aligned registries. Can you please address this side @ effect of your position?? @ @ /John @ The suggestion has been that these regional registries take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses to allocate because their address space is full. They would just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. In other cases, I have suggested restricting the allocations to /18s. ISPs would be the primary organizations where allocations woiuld be made. For an example, imagine that some registry took over the 192.X.X.X space and did not change the allocations. They would just collect lease fees. This registry would spend most of its time reclaiming space and if it were to be able to pull together a /18, it would allocate that to an ISP. ==== If you feel that provider-based allocations are better then I am not sure we will ever get to the world where ISPs can obtain some independence from their upstream providers. If that is the direction that things head, then the IPv4 space and networks might as well have a ring drawn around them and the entire legacy Internet can be used as a low-cost core transport for a new beginning around the outside. I can see merit in either direction...you are starting to convince me that the best way is recognize IPv4 for what it is, and move forward...or rather outward... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 15:31:37 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:31:37 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2971.EF9824A0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 2:10 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 8:56 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Tuesday, March 04, 1997 8:51 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ @ >The suggestion has been that these regional registries @ >take over the "management" of the allocations, not the routing. @ >In some cases, the registry would not have any addresses @ >to allocate because their address space is full. They would @ >just collect lease revenues and work on reclamation. @ >This situation would have zero impact on the routing tables. @ @ Wild. I now understand what you're proposing. @ @ What possible benefit could there be to having a for-profit @ company charging existing allocations management fees?? Again...these are not "for profit"...they are InterNIC clones... The idea is to clone the IS, DS, RS InterNIC model. By working this diplomatically via the State, the "profits" would hopefully be kept in check. I would think people would have learned that lesson from the InterNIC if they learned anything. Here is the summary again... 1. Keep the InterNIC prototype in place until September 1998 when the U.S. Government's Cooperative Agreement ends with AT&T and NSI who are the remaining two companies that form what is called the InterNIC. 2. Allow companies to clone the InterNIC with the following Internet resources: 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names 2. One /8 IP Address Space 3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine $250,000 grants from the National Science Foundation which would come from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over $12,000,000 for this type of purpose. 4. Allocate one grant to each state and direct the U.S. Senators to work with the Governor to select THREE companies in each state to "outsource" a Cooperative Agreement similar to the ORIGINAL InterNIC plan to have IS, DS, and RS functions. As an example, the State of Virginia had... IS - General Atomics DS - AT&T RS - Network Solutions, Inc. an IS company needs to be selected there. 5. The NSF bows out in September 1998, the proud parent of up to 50 InterNICs which serve the U.S. and the world... 6. These 50 InterNICs then help to coordinate a world collection of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide stability to the entire Internet. P.S. Obviously the THREE companies bidding might be profit making companies. They may not make much profit off their State InterNIC activity. The citizens will watch that. P.P.S. One question that has come up is, could AT&T or Network Solutions go to all the States where they have a major presence and bid on one of the pieces (IS, DS, RS) ? In my opinion, the answer has to be yes and if they have the best "cooperative" proposal, the people of that State will get the best service. That is the goal...is it not...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at EROLS.COM Wed Mar 5 19:58:41 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 19:58:41 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970305195840.014cd9a8@justin.erols.com> At 05:16 PM 3/5/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: >If you write the rules with precision, you can make anything >happen or not happen. The key has to be that the rules are >objective and applied equally to all. > >What if you delegated the space with the requirement that >the net gain/loss on the router tables had to be zero ? >Don't you believe the InterNIC clones can follow rules ? > Jim, This discussion probably belongs over on PAGAN, so I am attempting to redirect the discussion there. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From usdh at mail.ccnet.com Wed Mar 5 19:51:34 1997 From: usdh at mail.ccnet.com (steve) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:51:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: Ray, It seems that Mr. Fleming brings up issues which relate to the discussion on a "macro" scale. If the discussion is purely "micro" then it should be stated as such. Censorship, or "filtering" of viewpoints which are thought provoking, seems to smack of Albanian-style cyber-crackdowns. (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are 1) curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental ideas) on anyone congregating in groups greater than four, 3) censorship or "filtering" of the press. I would hope that an informative list like ARIN would be inclusive of all viewpoints. That is the spirit of diversity which Internet is best at fostering. Dr. Stephen J. Page (510-227-1650) >Dear Mr. Fleming, > >I respectfully request that you cease posting messages about ARIN, >IAHC, ISOC, DNS, eDNS, TLDs, domain names, funding, NSF, InterNIC, > and anything related, to the ISP/C mailing list. > >This mailing list is a forum to discuss the ISP/C and what its members >are interested in. There are appropriate lists, which are monitored >by ISP/C members and board, for you to post this sort of discussion. > >Any further abuse of our mailing list and we will be forced to delete >you from the list and place a filter on you. > >Thanks you, >Ray Davis > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom at vrx.net. To subscribe or >unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or >"help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request at vrx.net From shields at CROSSLINK.NET Wed Mar 5 20:24:46 1997 From: shields at CROSSLINK.NET (Michael Shields) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:24:46 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <199703060124.UAA09002@daedalus.crosslink.net> > (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are 1) > curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental ideas) on > anyone congregating in groups greater than four, 3) censorship or > "filtering" of the press. Before the metadiscussion devolves completely, let me post some new, stronger procmail rules I've been using: :0: * ^From: .*JimFleming at unety\.net $JUNK # and replies! Sheesh. :0: * ^In-Reply-To: .*unety\.net $JUNK :0: * ^References: .*unety\.net $JUNK :0: * ^TOJimFleming at unety\.net $JUNK These have been very effective. In fact they toss away almost all the traffic on naipr. I don't know why I bother to subscribe. -- Shields, CrossLink. From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Wed Mar 5 20:26:18 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:26:18 -0800 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <01BC298A.56C04C80@jfbb.atmnet.net> There are appropriate mailing lists for almost any topic you can think of, however that does not mean that every worthwhile topic is appropriate for each and every list. This list is for the discussion of the establishment of a non-profit IP address registry. Many of the topics Mr. Fleming seeks to discuss are more properly dealt with in other venues, as many people continually point out. I will also point out that the message you replied to (at least the message you included in your reply) is from the ISP/C list, not from the naipr/ARIN list, and as such has nothing to do with this list... Please restrict your responses to the list which generated the traffic unless it clearly belongs on a *different* list. Cross-posting is generally a bad thing...You are wasting people's time... -- Jim Browning ---------- From: steve[SMTP:usdh at mail.ccnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 4:52 PM To: naipr at arin.net Subject: Threats of Censorship? Ray, It seems that Mr. Fleming brings up issues which relate to the discussion on a "macro" scale. If the discussion is purely "micro" then it should be stated as such. Censorship, or "filtering" of viewpoints which are thought provoking, seems to smack of Albanian-style cyber-crackdowns. (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are 1) curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental ideas) on anyone congregating in groups greater than four, 3) censorship or "filtering" of the press. I would hope that an informative list like ARIN would be inclusive of all viewpoints. That is the spirit of diversity which Internet is best at fostering. Dr. Stephen J. Page (510-227-1650) >Dear Mr. Fleming, > >I respectfully request that you cease posting messages about ARIN, >IAHC, ISOC, DNS, eDNS, TLDs, domain names, funding, NSF, InterNIC, > and anything related, to the ISP/C mailing list. > >This mailing list is a forum to discuss the ISP/C and what its members >are interested in. There are appropriate lists, which are monitored >by ISP/C members and board, for you to post this sort of discussion. > >Any further abuse of our mailing list and we will be forced to delete >you from the list and place a filter on you. > >Thanks you, >Ray Davis > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ >This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom at vrx.net. To subscribe or >unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or >"help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request at vrx.net From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 18:01:41 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:01:41 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 17:14 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 4:01 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: >Please explain the "routing demand".... > >Do you think every ISP is going to demand a /18 ? > >What exactly are your concerns ? [RFC 1519] Fuller, V., Li, T., Yu, J., and K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", September 1993. [RFC 1518] Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR", September 1993. >How many routes can you tolerate adding to the tables ? Some tens of thousands of additional prefixes is conceivable from a routing computation and memory size perspective. Note that under a non-aggregatable allocation strategy, we could easily see such routes over the course of a single month's growth in new sites. /John From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 18:16:45 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:16:45 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2989.01979160@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 5:01 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 17:14 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ >On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 4:01 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ @ @ Some tens of thousands of additional prefixes is conceivable @ from a routing computation and memory size perspective. Note @ that under a non-aggregatable allocation strategy, we could @ easily see such routes over the course of a single month's @ growth in new sites. @ I hate to bring up the domain name debates but this reminds me of the people that said a year ago that if the legacy Root Name Servers were opened up to allow TLDs, that TLD registries would grow like crazy and everyone with a lap-top and a cellular connection would be selling domain names from their car. When the rubber hit the road, there were actually very few companies willing to invest the time and energy into the industry in hopes of getting a return on their investment. If you write the rules with precision, you can make anything happen or not happen. The key has to be that the rules are objective and applied equally to all. What if you delegated the space with the requirement that the net gain/loss on the router tables had to be zero ? Don't you believe the InterNIC clones can follow rules ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From tomg at BOILED.EGG.COM Wed Mar 5 22:11:18 1997 From: tomg at BOILED.EGG.COM (Tom Glover) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: <199703060124.UAA09002@daedalus.crosslink.net> Message-ID: Thanks. I needed those procmail rules. What is being forgotten here is this. I'll use an analogy so even Jim can understand. If there is a list to discuss Chevy engines then those people who insist on posting questions about Ford engines (or wheat farming in the Ukraine) can expect to be asked to cease and desist. In fact if they persist in posting off topic they should expect that their names be removed from the list membership. Jim Fleming has posted so much off topic stuff that he has long been relegated to my procmail kill file. In Jim's case I don't find a "curfew with shoot to kill order" an unacceptable solution :) Seriously, there is no talk of censorship but simply a request that all posts made are relevant to the specific purpose of the list. On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Michael Shields wrote: > > (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are 1) > > curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental ideas) on > > anyone congregating in groups greater than four, 3) censorship or > > "filtering" of the press. > > Before the metadiscussion devolves completely, let me post some new, > stronger procmail rules I've been using: > > :0: > * ^From: .*JimFleming at unety\.net > $JUNK > # and replies! Sheesh. > :0: > * ^In-Reply-To: .*unety\.net > $JUNK > :0: > * ^References: .*unety\.net > $JUNK > :0: > * ^TOJimFleming at unety\.net > $JUNK > > These have been very effective. In fact they toss away almost all the > traffic on naipr. I don't know why I bother to subscribe. > -- > Shields, CrossLink. > -- Regards, Tom ________________________________________________________________________ | "The Egg Domain" | "And all you touch and all you see, | | tomg at egg.com | is all your life will ever be." | | http://www.egg.com/ | (Pink Floyd) | From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Mar 5 23:11:18 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > 1. Proposed budget, capitalization, funding model, cash flow Some elements of this are in the proposal at the website and in the archives of this list there is a strawman budget that Stephen Satchell posted. It's at least something to use as a basis for discussion. > 2. Proposed location(s) I think there is no good reason to move ARIN outside of Fairfax county in Norther Virginia. First, it simplifies transferring the Internic IP allocation function intact, people and all. And second, this region is becoming the Internet industry's Silicon Valley and in the event that key people decide to move on to other jobs, it will be easier to find qualified employees to replace them. > 3. Alternatives using existing not-for-profits with Registry and Internet > experience I don't know of any existing non-profits that have this experience except the RIPE NCC and APNIC. There are other groups with related experience such as Merit, however none of them have made any public offers to host ARIN. And even if there was a group that could handle this, it seems to me that an essential element of the ARIN transition is to place this function into the hands of an independent industry group. > 4. Bylaws (strawman would be fine) Again, there is a skeleton of this on the website that could be used as the basis for discussion. In fact, this is one area where the discussions on the list led to some substantive changes in the proposal. But more detailled suggestions would be a nice thing to see here. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Wed Mar 5 23:31:25 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:31:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <01BC297F.C5781D20@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Mar 5, 97 04:10:39 pm Message-ID: <199703060431.AA183872686@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > The more people you get involved the better... Not necessarily true. The more people who understand the issues... > > The more people with diverse backgrounds the better... > With the caveat above... > The more ARIN-like organizations the better... > Very, very unclear. > The more the Internet is distributed the better... > Address allocation is not the Internet. It is something that needs to be managed. > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > ---> Phil From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Mar 5 23:30:36 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:30:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Steve Kann wrote: > In fact, we could auction off the entire 7-bit ascii character set! Great idea! I have a quarter here to bid for RS (0x1E). I plan to rename it Registration Services and redefine it as an escape character in order to sell two byte sequences beginning with 0x1E. 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 Thu Mar 6 01:28:01 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:28:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Internet draft re ISP Address Coalitions Message-ID: There is an Internet draft re ISP Address Coalitions that should probably be included in the recommended reading section at http://www.arin.net http://www.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-li-ispac-00.txt Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:09:40 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:09:40 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <199703060903.EAA07915@info.netsol.com> > Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > > > The more people you get involved the better... > > Not necessarily true. The more people who understand the issues... So as long as the issues are understood then we can get involved???? > > > > The more people with diverse backgrounds the better... > > > With the caveat above... Hmmmm..... > > The more ARIN-like organizations the better... > > > Very, very unclear. Agreed wholeheartedly > > The more the Internet is distributed the better... > > > > Address allocation is not the Internet. It is something that needs to be > managed. That is already agreed upon....It is HOW that is the question :-) > > > -- > > Jim Fleming > > Unir Corporation > > > > e-mail: > > JimFleming at unety.net > > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > > > > > ---> Phil > > From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Tue Mar 4 21:51:30 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:51:30 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 11:01 3/4/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >If you would like to discuss 50 ARINs, one in each State, >then you might have a chance to find the true market value >of IP addresses. Unfortunately, some people feel that >50 ARINs could not all stand on their own that there is >not enough revenue to support that many. Jim, You have not demonstrated how the Internet can continue to grow successfully when we attempt to route the IP address prefixes that result from 50 non-toplogically aligned registries. Can you please address this side effect of your position?? /John p.s. (The remainder of your message discussed principally domain name registration services which is a rather interesting topic, but not something I've taken a particular interest in. If you can trim back to questions particular to IP registries and ARIN, I'll reply promptly.) p.p.s. I've deleted the various NSF folks from the cc (on the assumption that they will have found their way to this mailing list if really interested. Feel free to forward my reply if you must... From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:13:28 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:13:28 -0500 Subject: Internet draft re ISP Address Coalitions Message-ID: <199703060908.EAA07951@info.netsol.com> I read the disclaimer and then continued thru the rest of the document Mike....But the disclaimer in the first section is what catches my eye :-).... Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org ---------- > > There is an Internet draft re ISP Address Coalitions that should probably > be included in the recommended reading section at http://www.arin.net > > http://www.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-li-ispac-00.txt From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:28:11 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:28:11 -0500 Subject: Suggestions Message-ID: <199703060923.EAA08058@info.netsol.com> > On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > > 1. Proposed budget, capitalization, funding model, cash flow > > Some elements of this are in the proposal at the website and in the > archives of this list there is a strawman budget that Stephen Satchell > posted. It's at least something to use as a basis for discussion. Dave McClure also posted some pertinent items..... > > 2. Proposed location(s) > > I think there is no good reason to move ARIN outside of Fairfax county > in Norther Virginia. First, it simplifies transferring the Internic IP > allocation function intact, people and all. And second, this region is > becoming the Internet industry's Silicon Valley and in the event that > key people decide to move on to other jobs, it will be easier to find > qualified employees to replace them. Cost od operations and quality of operations is one reason...... > > 3. Alternatives using existing not-for-profits with Registry and Internet > > experience > > I don't know of any existing non-profits that have this experience except > the RIPE NCC and APNIC. There are other groups with related experience > such as Merit, however none of them have made any public offers to host > ARIN. And even if there was a group that could handle this, it seems to me > that an essential element of the ARIN transition is to place this function > into the hands of an independent industry group. Better do a bit more research....There is a Non-Profit existing who has the experience to handle what is being proposed in a more proper and correct manner (I know all Hades is gonna break loose because of this statement....But it is a fact)........And if I see what ARIN is at this time it is to place it in hands who do NOT know what it is 'really' like out here.....If you wish to place it into a seperate and independent group then you MUST eliminate the NSI folks ..... > > 4. Bylaws (strawman would be fine) > > Again, there is a skeleton of this on the website that could be used as > the basis for discussion. In fact, this is one area where the discussions > on the list led to some substantive changes in the proposal. But more > detailled suggestions would be a nice thing to see here. There has been been much discussion of this aspect.....The key point is that there are not many questions being answered that even a Strwman's budget can be compiled on.....Som key questions about the BoT and a few other things have to be answered aforn a basic budget can be hashed out.... <<>>>> -Steve- Stephan R. May, Sr., Manager, Southeastern Online System Services http://www.sols.net the_innkeeper at sols.net VOICE: (304)235-3767 FAX: (304)235-3772 Proud member of the Association of Online Professionals Board of Directors http://www.aop.org > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From tomg at BOILED.EGG.COM Thu Mar 6 06:35:12 1997 From: tomg at BOILED.EGG.COM (Tom Glover) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:35:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: <199703060848.AAA06971@boiled.egg.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, The Innkeeper wrote: > Welp Tom.....Even I (with my open views and the such ) have been dealing > Mr. Flemming to my trash list for the past week since he is loading down > the lists with completely nonsensical BS...... > > I am one who is open to all views and opinions.....But Jim is off on the > deep end anymore and I feel that he needs to stop flooding this list so > that we can get on with what this list is here for.... > Maybe you misunderstood my posting or mayybe I phrased it poorly. That is precisely what I was trying to say. > - Steve - > > ---------- > > Thanks. I needed those procmail rules. > > > > What is being forgotten here is this. I'll use an analogy so even Jim can > > understand. If there is a list to discuss Chevy engines then those people > > who insist on posting questions about Ford engines (or wheat farming in > > the Ukraine) can expect to be asked to cease and desist. In fact if they > > persist in posting off topic they should expect that their names be > > removed from the list membership. Jim Fleming has posted so much off > topic > > stuff that he has long been relegated to my procmail kill file. In Jim's > > case I don't find a "curfew with shoot to kill order" an unacceptable > > solution :) Seriously, there is no talk of censorship but simply a > request > > that all posts made are relevant to the specific purpose of the list. > > > > On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Michael Shields wrote: > > > > > > (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are > 1) > > > > curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental > ideas) on > > > > anyone congregating in groups greater than four, 3) censorship or > > > > "filtering" of the press. > > > > > > Before the metadiscussion devolves completely, let me post some new, > > > stronger procmail rules I've been using: > > > > > > :0: > > > * ^From: .*JimFleming at unety\.net > > > $JUNK > > > # and replies! Sheesh. > > > :0: > > > * ^In-Reply-To: .*unety\.net > > > $JUNK > > > :0: > > > * ^References: .*unety\.net > > > $JUNK > > > :0: > > > * ^TOJimFleming at unety\.net > > > $JUNK > > > > > > These have been very effective. In fact they toss away almost all the > > > traffic on naipr. I don't know why I bother to subscribe. > > > -- > > > Shields, CrossLink. > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Tom > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > | "The Egg Domain" | "And all you touch and all you see, > | > > | tomg at egg.com | is all your life will ever be." > | > > | http://www.egg.com/ | (Pink Floyd) > | > > > -- Regards, Tom ________________________________________________________________________ | "The Egg Domain" | "And all you touch and all you see, | | tomg at egg.com | is all your life will ever be." | | http://www.egg.com/ | (Pink Floyd) | From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 03:52:20 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:52:20 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <199703060848.DAA07779@info.netsol.com> Welp Tom.....Even I (with my open views and the such ) have been dealing Mr. Flemming to my trash list for the past week since he is loading down the lists with completely nonsensical BS...... I am one who is open to all views and opinions.....But Jim is off on the deep end anymore and I feel that he needs to stop flooding this list so that we can get on with what this list is here for.... - Steve - ---------- > Thanks. I needed those procmail rules. > > What is being forgotten here is this. I'll use an analogy so even Jim can > understand. If there is a list to discuss Chevy engines then those people > who insist on posting questions about Ford engines (or wheat farming in > the Ukraine) can expect to be asked to cease and desist. In fact if they > persist in posting off topic they should expect that their names be > removed from the list membership. Jim Fleming has posted so much off topic > stuff that he has long been relegated to my procmail kill file. In Jim's > case I don't find a "curfew with shoot to kill order" an unacceptable > solution :) Seriously, there is no talk of censorship but simply a request > that all posts made are relevant to the specific purpose of the list. > > On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Michael Shields wrote: > > > > (Do you support President Sali Berisha in Tirana's reforms? They are 1) > > > curfew with 'shoot to kill' orders (elminate all non-governmental ideas) on > > > anyone congregating in groups