From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Sat Mar 1 03:54:29 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at 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 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 nlj at BELLCORE.COM Thu Mar 6 09:37:27 1997 From: nlj at BELLCORE.COM (Nicholas Lordi Jr) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 09:37:27 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <199703061437.JAA04524@cutlass17.bellcore.com> Anyone who is (was ?) on the IAHC mailing list is aware of the inordinate amount of traffic which did little to add to the discussion. In fact, a recent article in the Feb 24th edition of Network World by Scott Bradner entitled "Is online discussion democracy ?" discusses the nature of the IAHC list. Scott states in his article: "Clearly, debate is necessary in a democracy, but historically, debates are moderated in some way and have been used to try to build consensus. Unfettered debates can foster demagogurey, disinterest, and disgust, all at the same time." When I read this, I thought not of the IAHC list of the past, but the active NAIPR list in which the proponents are sincerely trying to work with the community. Therefore, let me suggest a stake in the ground, a compromise between the limitless opportunity to post to this list and a moderated list, ie., each "member" of the list is limited to 3 posts per day. A post is either an original message or a response to someone elses original message. If you exceed it, you're removed from the list, say for a period of two weeks and will not be allowed to post via pseudonyms or third parties either. Nick Lordi (these opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer) From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Thu Mar 6 12:11:08 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:11:08 -0500 Subject: A parallel "debate" re: registries Message-ID: <331EFAAC.23B@driveway1.com> Admittedly offtopic, but not more so than the last two weeks of this list: >From Today's NY Times OP ED section about new area codes in Manhattan: Who "owns" "212" ? And what riparian rights are cited in support thereof? http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/06feir.html From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 12:09:32 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:09:32 -0600 Subject: ARN Advisory Council Message-ID: <01BC2A1E.DF396F80@webster.unety.net> Can someone post who is "The President of ARIN" ? Referrig to the following... "Selection of the Advisory Council: The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's membership by the Board of Trustees." Who are the "members" of ARIN ? @@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html SECTION 1.2 Advisory Council ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Advisory Council shall act in advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on all matters involving the interests, activities, and operations of ARIN. The Advisory Council is to act on behalf of the membership on all issues including, but not limited to: .registry goals .future funding .allocation policy guidelines .nominations for the Board of Trustees .nominations for the Advisory Council .database maintenance .registry procedures .training To encourage continued stability, the terms of the initial Advisory Council will be staggered as follows: five expiring after the first year, five expiring after the second year and five expiring after the third year. Each term therafter will be for three years. The President of ARIN will be an ex-officio member of the Advisory Council and will act as the liaison between the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will also bring membership proposals to the Board of Trustees for formal votes. Selection of the Advisory Council: The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's membership by the Board of Trustees. It is expected that the initial Advisory Council will develop procedures to fill vacancies on the Council. These procedures, as envisioned, would allow ARIN's membership to elect future Advisory Council members. This selection model would ensure that the Advisory Council is representative of ARIN's membership and is capable of presenting the interests and concerns of the membership to the Board of Trustees. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:59:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:59:14 -0600 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <01BC2A1D.6ECA4860@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:53 AM, Tracy Snell[SMTP:waz at enteract.com] wrote: @ On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:36:31 -0600, you wrote: @ @ > @ >Thanks for helping to make this clear...good luck with ARIN... @ @ Does this mean your leaving?! Not at all... It means all energies need to be focused on getting ARIN launched. Unfortunately, most of that energy needs to come from the proposed Board of Directors. Forming a non-profit corporation is a little different than forming a for-profit company but there are similarities. It appears that everyone on the list, including you, are comfortable with the direction that ARIN is headed. That is called consensus. Once you have consensus you go for it...would it had better if I had said..."go for it ARIN"...? Why waste time on this stuff. Why don't you and the ARIN founders and the other advocates roll up your sleeves and get the job done ? If ARIN was intended to happen....make it happen... If ARIN is a public relations survey, then they should state that... If ARIN is "serious"...get down to the "serious" business... ...I am sure the serious people here will be here waiting to see serious business and not some helicopter postings... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Thu Mar 6 12:23:22 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:23:22 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: At 10:36 3/6/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >In my opinion, some of the ARIN founders falsely gave >people the impression that ARIN was a "concept" in the >early stages of formation...what people seem to be >indicating is that ARIN is very mature and only minor >comments are now required... ARIN was a concept at the time... it's now a proposal which is preparing for initial rollout with significant support from the Internet community. >Thanks for helping to make this clear...good luck with ARIN... Thanks! /John From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 12:22:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:22:50 -0600 Subject: ARIN Capitalization Message-ID: <01BC2A20.BAC7AF20@webster.unety.net> One of the ways for ARIN to be capitalized would be for the "members" to bring their IP address blocks to ARIN for "safe keeping". Not to pick on John Curran and BBN Planet, but they could bring the following address blocks to help "capitalize ARIN" or place them in "trust" with ARIN. MA 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) MA 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) Each block above has 16,777,216. This is a total of 50,331,648. If BBN Planet had to purchase those addresses for $1 per address that would be $50,331,648.00. Instead, it might make more sense to place them in trust, with ARIN. Apparently ARIN has been able to work through the issues of who owns IP addresses. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 12:28:52 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:28:52 -0600 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <01BC2A21.92A7F760@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 11:23 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 10:36 3/6/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >In my opinion, some of the ARIN founders falsely gave @ >people the impression that ARIN was a "concept" in the @ >early stages of formation...what people seem to be @ >indicating is that ARIN is very mature and only minor @ >comments are now required... @ @ ARIN was a concept at the time... it's now a proposal @ which is preparing for initial rollout with significant @ support from the Internet community. @ @ >Thanks for helping to make this clear...good luck with ARIN... @ @ Thanks! @ /John @ Someone really needs to get a service mark registered on... "with significant support from the Internet community" -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Mar 6 12:27:33 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:27:33 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:30:36 PST." References: Message-ID: <199703061727.MAA10498@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Steve Kann wrote: > In fact, we could auction off the entire 7-bit ascii character set! Hmm.. where does that leave Kim? Do we need to interview Vanna White? This *does* put a whole new meaning to "I want to buy a vowel"... ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Thu Mar 6 12:33:34 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:33:34 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: At 9:37 3/6/97, Nicholas Lordi Jr wrote: >Therefore, let me suggest a stake in the ground, a compromise between >the limitless opportunity to post to this list and a moderated list, >ie., each "member" of the list is limited to 3 posts per day. >A post is either an original message or a response to someone elses >original message. Seems quite reasonable (although it seems I've already reached this quota today :-) Till tomorrow, /John From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 10:36:31 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:36:31 -0600 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <01BC2A11.E05F8BE0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 2:52 AM, The Innkeeper[SMTP:the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET] wrote: @ > @ > 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 Thanks for the analogy... What you are saying is...ARIN is ARIN...period !!!! read about it, endorse it, approve it, tweek it, launch it... ...but... the discussion leading to ARIN is over. It is a done deal. The real discussion which is how does the IPv4 Address Space get placed under proper management in light of the coming transition in 1998 of the National Science Foundation out of the "registration" business...is NOT here... I agree with that...clearly, those discussions need to be in other forums... In my opinion, some of the ARIN founders falsely gave people the impression that ARIN was a "concept" in the early stages of formation...what people seem to be indicating is that ARIN is very mature and only minor comments are now required... Thanks for helping to make this clear...good luck with ARIN... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From nlj at BELLCORE.COM Thu Mar 6 12:54:01 1997 From: nlj at BELLCORE.COM (Nicholas Lordi Jr) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:54:01 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:12:47 -0600. <01BC2A16.F15D4540@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703061754.MAA04868@cutlass17.bellcore.com> One thing Scott failed to say in his Network World article "Is online discussion democracy ?" about the IAHC discussion list is that if one delves into the details further, that there is a lack of participation from individuals within corporate america. Many of us do not post to email lists for fear of inappropriate innuendos directed towards ourselves or our employers, and more importantly the time it takes to deal with it. My post was personal, out of concern for yet another list becoming untenable, and was made without prior consultation with anyone. And yes, I suspected I'd get a comment or two similar to yours, and considered posting what I said from my personal online account, but then thought about it and felt that that isn't right, why should I "hide" the company I work for, as long as I put a disclaimer at the end of my email. Back to the question at hand, if you have an opinion on the suggestion, I'd welcome it. As far as Bellcore ownership is concerned, I'm not sure what your question is leading to, or how it is pertinent to the discussion at hand. If you need more information on Bellcore or SAIC, visit their home pages on the web. Nick On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 Jim Fleming wrote: > >Did SAIC, the owner of Network Solutions, Inc. >complete the purchase of Bellcore who is apparently >your employer...? > >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Mar 6 12:56:11 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:56:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <199703060903.EAA07915@info.netsol.com> from "The Innkeeper" at Mar 6, 97 04:09:40 am Message-ID: <199703061756.AA034740973@martigny.ai.mit.edu> The Innkeeper supposedly said: > > > 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???? > > Please feel free to play Devils Advocate. You are correct. It would be more proper to say: Not necessarily true. The more people who understand the issues or are willing to take the time to learn what the issues are... ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 12:55:55 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:55:55 -0600 Subject: ARIN National Internet Park Message-ID: <01BC2A25.59F7CD60@webster.unety.net> ==== Two Camps at ARIN National IP ===== As I see it, the ARIN discussion boils down to two camps. On one side there are people who believe in private property, on the other there are people who believe in public property managed by private people and companies. I prefer a mixture of public and private property. If ARIN wants to create a "Yellowstone IP" or ARIN National Internet Park...great... If people want to donate land to create the ARIN National Internet Internet Park...great.. ======= For those people that do not want your land inside the ARIN National Internet Park...there will be other solutions... I think that ARIN has to address what they are going to do about "land" inside the boundaries they claim. Can the ARIN founders please describe the "cyber land" you intend to claim for the ARIN National IP ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 13:06:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:06:50 -0600 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <01BC2A26.E02CFDA0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 11:54 AM, Nicholas Lordi Jr[SMTP:nlj at bellcore.com] wrote: @ @ @ As far as Bellcore ownership is concerned, I'm not sure what @ your question is leading to, or how it is pertinent to the @ discussion at hand. If you need more information on Bellcore or SAIC, @ visit their home pages on the web. @ The claim is that ARIN is being funded by Network Solutions, Inc. They are owned by SAIC. You are speaking from a bellcore.com "domain" or podium ....peoplecan read the following to see if there is any connection between Bellcore and SAIC... http://www.bellcore.com/SALE/index.html -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From randy at PSG.COM Thu Mar 6 13:05:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 10:05 PST Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list References: Message-ID: i delegate 1/3 of my quota to kim and 1/3 to john and 1/3 to scott, reserving one message a week for myself. and this one is it for this week. there has been nothing on this list to which i can constructively comment. the bs level has only blocked the intelligent from comment while arin, of necessity, moves ahead. one must presume that this was jim's real goal. randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Mar 6 13:13:09 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:13:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <199703061727.MAA10498@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Steve Kann wrote: > > In fact, we could auction off the entire 7-bit ascii character set! > > Hmm.. where does that leave Kim? Do we need to interview Vanna White? > This *does* put a whole new meaning to "I want to buy a vowel"... ;) I think it is rather rude of you to mention Kim and Vanna in the same message and I think you should publicly apologize to Kim. How anyone can compare an airhead like Vanna to the accomplished manager of a technical department whose job requires juggling complex policy issues in addition to the usual technical mgmt stuff, is beyond me. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:24:16 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:24:16 -0600 Subject: FW: Calling all Registries Message-ID: <01BC2A18.8C5391C0@webster.unety.net> If people allow ARIN to be set up and they have their intellectual and economic pockets picked, please refer back to this and do not complain as people NOW complain about the domain registration fees.... Many of the same arguements were used to "spin" the InterNIC into the $50 per year registration fee situation. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... Jim Fleming ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:06 AM To: edns-operators at MCS.Net; 'iquest1 at mindspring.com'; newdom at vrx.net Subject: RE: Calling all Registries On Thursday, March 06, 1997 9:53 AM, iquest1 at mindspring.com wrote: @ Now is the time . . . @ @ @ In closing, lets work together to make @ this happen. If I can be of any assistance, @ please feel free to call or email me at: @ @ Jay Fenello @ 404-250-3242 @ Iperdome, Inc. @ www.iperdome.com @ Jay, I agree the traditional "press" is important. I would also remind business people that their elected officials need to be informed. Not only the elected officials, but the people those officials have "hired" to manage some of these functions. For example, the NSF. Two sources have confirmed that Vice President Al Gore has been briefed on many of these issues. As many people know, Mr. Gore has been an advocate of expanding the Information Superhighways. I would caution some of the people on these lists that the traditional Internet "spin" about being International and having no boundaries is often used to confuse people into thinking that the economic benefits of the Internet need to be quietly exported from the United States. It is fortunate that business people and elected politicians have learned to follow the money trails. Whether you call domain name registrations fees, taxes, donations, what have you, many people boil it down to money. Whether people call fees for IP addresses, lease payments, purchases or allocation fees, it all boils down to money. If the youth of the United States allow their intellectual and econmic pockets to be picked from abroad via the Internet, then they have to answer to the generation that follows them. All the current adults can do is to try to protect the current generation of youths who can enjoy a bright future if they watch their wallets.... Jim Fleming =========== Reference List ================ President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov ===== @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/mission.html "The FNC supports the goals of the CIC, particularly those related to building the national information infrastructure (NII). It also seeks to address Federal technology transition goals and allow the operational experiences of FNC agencies to influence future Federal research agendas. It also contributes funds to important Internet infrastructure organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), and the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)." @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html Federal Networking Council George Strawn - Chairman GSTRAWN at NSF.GOV Walter Wiebe - Executive Director WWIEBE at NSF.GOV Bruce Almich ALMICH.BRUCE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Bruce Bottomley BBB at ROMULUS.NCSC.MIL Dick desJardins DESJARDI at EOS.NASA.GOV Frank Hartel HARTEL at BOX-H.NIH.GOV Craig Hunt CHUNT at NIST.GOV Pamela G. Kruzic PJK at NRC.GOV Henry Lai HENRY.LAI at GSA.GOV Fred Lee FLEE at NSF.GOV Fred Long FLONG at SUN1.WWB.NOAA.GOV Hilarie Orman HORMAN at DARPA.MIL Camillo J. Pasquariello PASQUARC at NCR.DISA.MIL Alexis Poliakoff ALEX_POLIAKOFF at ED.GOV Ken Roko KROKO at USAID.GOV Elaine Stout ESTOUT at USGS.GOV @@@@@ http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC.html The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) is chartered by the National Science Foundation to provide the FNC with technical, tactical, and strategic advice from the constituencies involved in the NREN Program..." FNCAC Members Dr. Sidney Karin KARIN at SDSC.EDU Dr. George Brandenburg BRANDENBURG at HUHEPL.HARVARD.EDU Dr. Henriette Avram AVRAM at IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU Mr. Jim Beall, Jr. BEALL at VNET.IBM.COM Mr. Alan Blatecky ALANB at MCNC.ORG Mr. Matt Blaze MAB at RESEARCH.ATT.COM Ms. Susan Estrada SESTRADA at ALDEA.COM Dr. Kenneth S. Flamm FLAMM at BROOK.EDU Dr. John Gage JOHN.GAGE at ENG.SUN.COM Ms. Carol Henderson CCH at ALAWASH.ORG Dr. Kenneth J. Klingenstein KJK at SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Mr. Richard Liebhaber 2714743 at MCIMAIL.COM Mr. Stu Loken SCLOKEN at LBL.GOV Dr. Paul Mockapetris PVM at SOFTWARE.COM Mr. Robert G. Moskowitz RGM3 at IS.CHRYSLER.COM Dr. Ike Nassi NASSI at SCRUZNET.COM Mr. Carl Edward Oliver OLIVERCE at ORNL.GOV Dr. Stewart Personick SDP at BELLCORE.COM Mr. Thomas C. Rindfleisch THOMAS_RINDFLEISCH at MEDMAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Mr. Mike Roberts ROBERTS at EDUCOM.EDU Ms. Connie D. Stout CSTOUT at TENET.EDU Brigadier General Harold Thompson THOMPSON at ICN.STATE.IA.US Dr. Stephen Wolff SWOLFF at CISCO.COM @@@@@ U.S. Senate e-mail addresses Alabama - Shelby, Richard C. (R) - senator at shelby.senate.gov Alaska - Stevens, Ted (R) - senator_stevens at stevens.senate.gov Arizona - Kyl, Jon (R) - info at kyl.senate.gov Arizona - McCain, John (R) - senator_mccain at mccain.senate.gov Arkansas - Bumpers, Dale (D) - senator at bumpers.senate.gov Arkansas - Hutchinson, Tim (D) - senator.hutchinson at hutchinson.senate.gov California - Boxer, Barbara (D) - senator at boxer.senate.gov California - Feinstein, Dianne (D) - senator at feinstein.senate.gov Connecticut - Dodd, Christopher J. (D) - sen_dodd at dodd.senate.gov Connecticut - Lieberman, Joseph I. (D) - senator_lieberman at lieberman.senate.gov Delaware - Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D) - senator at biden.senate.gov Florida - Graham, Bob (D) - bob_graham at graham.senate.gov Georgia - Coverdell, Paul (R) - senator_coverdell at coverdell.senate.gov Hawaii - Inouye, Daniel K. (D) - senator at inouye.senate.gov Idaho - Craig, Larry E. (R) - larry_craig at craig.senate.gov Idaho - Kempthorne, Dirk (R) - dirk_kempthorne at kempthorne.senate.gov Illinois - Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) - senator at moseley-braun.senate.gov Iowa - Grassley, Chuck (R) - chuck_grassley at grassley.senate.gov Iowa - Harkin, Tom (D) - tom_harkin at harkin.senate.gov Kansas - Brownback, Sam (R) - sam_brownback at brownback.senate.gov Kentucky - Ford, Wendell H. (D) - wendell_ford at ford.senate.gov Kentucky - McConnell, Mitch (R) - senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Louisiana - Breaux, John B. (D) - senator at breaux.senate.gov Maine - Collins, Susan (R) - senator at collins.senate.gov Maine - Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - olympia at snowe.senate.gov Maryland - Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) - senator at mikulski.senate.gov Maryland - Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - senator at sarbanes.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - senator at kennedy.senate.gov Massachusetts - Kerry, John F. (D) - john_kerry at kerry.senate.gov Michigan - Abraham, Spencer (R) - michigan at abraham.senate.gov Michigan - Levin, Carl (D) senator at levin.senate.gov Minnesota - Grams, Rod (R) - mail_grams at grams.senate.gov Minnesota - Wellstone, Paul D. (D) - senator at wellstone.senate.gov Mississippi - Cochran, Thad (R) - senator at cochran.senate.gov Missouri - Ashcroft, John (R) - john_ashcroft at ashcroft.senate.gov Missouri - Bond, Christopher S. (R) - kit_bond at bond.senate.gov Montana - Baucus, Max (D) - max at baucus.senate.gov Montana - Burns, Conrad R. (R) - conrad_burns at burns.senate.gov Nebraska - Kerrey, J. Robert (D) - bob at kerrey.senate.gov Nevada - Bryan, Richard H. (D) - senator at bryan.senate.gov Nevada - Reid, Harry (D) - senator_reid at reid.senate.gov New Hampshire - Gregg, Judd (R) - mailbox at gregg.senate.gov New Hampshire - Smith, Bob (R) opinion at smith.senate.gov New Jersey - Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) - frank_lautenberg at lautenberg.senate.gov New Mexico - Bingaman, Jeff (D) - senator_bingaman at bingaman.senate.gov New Mexico - Domenici, Pete V. (R) - senator_domenici at domenici.senate.gov New York - D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) - senator_al at damato.senate.gov New York - Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D) - senator at dpm.senate.gov North Carolina - Faircloth, Lauch (R) - senator at faircloth.senate.gov North Carolina - Helms, Jesse (R) - jesse_helms at helms.senate.gov North Dakota - Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - senator at dorgan.senate.gov Ohio - DeWine, Mike (R) - senator_dewine at dewine.senate.gov Oklahoma - Nickles, Don (R) - senator at nickles.senate.gov Oregon - Wyden, Ron (D) - senator at wyden.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Santorum, Rick (R) - senator at santorum.senate.gov Pennsylvania - Specter, Arlen (R) - senator_specter at specter.senate.gov Rhode Island - Chafee, John H. (R) - senator_chafee at chafee.senate.gov South Carolina - Hollings, Ernest F. (D) - senator at hollings.senate.gov South Carolina - Thurmond, Strom (R) - senator at thurmond.senate.gov South Dakota - Daschle, Thomas A. (D) - tom_daschle at daschle.senate.gov Tennessee - Frist, William H. (R) - senator_frist at frist.senate.gov Tennessee - Thompson, Fred (R) - senator_thompson at thompson.senate.gov Texas - Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - senator at hutchison.senate.gov Utah - Bennett, Robert F. (R) - senator at bennett.senate.gov Utah - Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - senator_hatch at hatch.senate.gov Vermont - Jeffords, James M. (R) - vermont at jeffords.senate.gov Vermont - Leahy, Patrick J. (D) - senator_leahy at leahy.senate.gov Virginia - Robb, Charles S. (D) senator at robb.senate.gov Virginia - Warner, John W. (R) - senator at warner.senate.gov Washington - Gorton, Slade (R) - senator_gorton at gorton.senate.gov Washington - Murray, Patty (D) - senator_murray at murray.senate.gov West Virginia - Byrd, Robert C. (D) - senator_byrd at byrd.senate.gov West Virginia - Rockefeller, John D., IV (D) - senator at rockefeller.senate.gov Wisconsin - Feingold, Russell D. (D) - senator at feingold.senate.gov Wisconsin - Kohl, Herb (D) - nator_kohl at kohl.senate.gov Wyoming - Enzi, Mike (R) - senator at enzi.senate.gov Wyoming - Thomas, Craig (R) - craig at thomas.senate.gov @@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Mar 6 13:41:53 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:41:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <01BC2A0F.BB965980@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Mar 6, 97 09:21:10 am Message-ID: <199703061841.AA043473714@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Jim Fleming supposedly said: > > On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 5:31 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote: > @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: > @ > > @ > The more people you get involved the better... > @ > @ Not necessarily true. The more people who understand the issues... > @ > > Yes...including the following issues... > > Intellectual Property Laws > Prior Use and Prior Art > Government Laws > Discrimination > Business Development > Tecno-Economic-Political Decision Making > Capitalization and Business Planning > > ...to name a few... > Thats what legal and business advisors are for. If I am going to form an organzition (or a business) I try and come up with a model for my organization, goals, a model for how I do business, etc. (For example, I didn't go to a lawyer and ask them how to run my consulting business. I decide how I wanted my business to run and then sought legal advise on how to write contracts, proposals, my liabilities etc.) Then I go to the lawyers and see if I am contrained by any of the topics (and a lot more) you list above. This is exactly what ARIN is doing. The legal aspects and by-laws, etc.. are being reviewed by legal council and hammered out into a workably complete draft form before they are posted. Likewise for the budget, except it is being reviewed by business advisors. > @ > The more ARIN-like organizations the better... > @ > > @ Very, very unclear. > @ > > What would you like clarified... > > 1. 50 States in the United States...is that clear ? > 2. 50 InterNIC clones....is that clear ? > 3. 3 TLDs per Clone...is that clear ? > 4. 3 TLDs (Infrastructure, Commercial, Free[1])...is that clear ? > 5. One /8 space to manage...is that clear ? > 6. $250,000 NSF Intellectual Infrastructure grant...is that clear ? > > [1] a "psuedo TLD" could be a TLD....for example, in the State of > Illinois, the Illinois InterNIC could have IL.US as the Free TLD. > We have all seen your proposal at least ten times more than we have seen any other proposal. I don't support it, and I doubt many (any?) other people do. I don't think plastering it in almost every post you make has helped gain you any converts. > @ > The more the Internet is distributed the better... > @ > > @ > @ Address allocation is not the Internet. It is something that needs to be > @ managed. > @ > > Yes...that is why I would like to see it managed > by companies that are insulated from failing > but provide opportunities to BOTH the commercial > and government sectors and ALL 50 States... > > ...what about this is not clear...? > Just out of curiosity (I know I shouldn't do this because all I will get back is another copy of your proposal, and if I'm lucky maybe another copy of either the Class A address assignments or the email addresses of the House and Senate members) how are you claiming the companies you are talking about are "insulated from failing"? And why is it "better" to create 50 (or pick a number if you want to include the rest of the Americas) companies and subsidize them when one non-profit can handle the job? ARIN is proposed as a single organization to do the job for cost recovery which costs the ISP's and hence the community a minimum, whereas you distributed system serves only to create a false market and effectively tax the users of the net to support it. If the NSF asks me (which I doubt they will) how to spend the money in the infrastructure fund I would tell them to use it to research high bandwidth network development or at the least use it to install some fiber into some of the more rural areas. > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 13:13:58 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:13:58 -0600 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <01BC2A27.DF3C66A0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 11:33 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ At 9:37 3/6/97, Nicholas Lordi Jr wrote: @ @ >Therefore, let me suggest a stake in the ground, a compromise between @ >the limitless opportunity to post to this list and a moderated list, @ >ie., each "member" of the list is limited to 3 posts per day. @ >A post is either an original message or a response to someone elses @ >original message. @ @ Seems quite reasonable (although it seems @ I've already reached this quota today :-) @ @ Till tomorrow, @ /John @ Have the ARIN "Trustees" voted on this...? "in chambers ?"....:-) behind closed doors...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:12:47 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:12:47 -0600 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <01BC2A16.F15D4540@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 8:37 AM, Nicholas Lordi Jr[SMTP:nlj at BELLCORE.COM] wrote: @ @ Anyone who is (was ?) on the IAHC mailing list is aware of the @ inordinate amount of traffic which did little to add to the discussion. @ In fact, a recent article in the Feb 24th edition of Network World @ by Scott Bradner entitled "Is online discussion democracy ?" @ discusses the nature of the IAHC list. @ @ Scott states in his article: @ @ "Clearly, debate is necessary in a democracy, but historically, debates @ are moderated in some way and have been used to try to build consensus. @ Unfettered debates can foster demagogurey, disinterest, and disgust, all @ at the same time." @ @ When I read this, I thought not of the IAHC list of the past, but @ the active NAIPR list in which the proponents are sincerely trying @ to work with the community. @ @ Therefore, let me suggest a stake in the ground, a compromise between @ the limitless opportunity to post to this list and a moderated list, @ ie., each "member" of the list is limited to 3 posts per day. @ A post is either an original message or a response to someone elses @ original message. @ @ If you exceed it, you're removed from the list, say for a period of @ two weeks and will not be allowed to post via pseudonyms or @ third parties either. @ @ Nick Lordi @ @ (these opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer) @ @ Did SAIC, the owner of Network Solutions, Inc. complete the purchase of Bellcore who is apparently your employer...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:17:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:17:48 -0600 Subject: Suggestions Message-ID: <01BC2A17.A4C4B320@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 8:52 AM, Justin W. Newton[SMTP:justin at EROLS.COM] wrote: @ At 04:28 AM 3/6/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: @ >> > 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...... @ @ Do you have a suggestion? I don't believe that there are many places on @ the planet with as many different people with internet clue as there is in @ the Greater Reston Area (wow, I bet that noone ever used /that/ term before @ ;). IMHO that makes it a good choice as far as where to locate ARIN. If @ you have another area that would work as well, let us know. @ I agree ARIN should be located in Virginia. Is that where people intend to incorporate ARIN ? Who will the ARIN Board of Directors be ? What will the legal name of ARIN be ? What will be the legal address of ARIN be ? What assets will be used to capitalize ARIN ? What IP addresses will ARIN have as "inventory" ? How does ARIN intend to purchase those addresses ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 10:49:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:49:11 -0600 Subject: Location, Smocation [Was: Re: Suggestions] Message-ID: <01BC2A13.A5352500@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 5:50 AM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote: @ At 08:11 PM 3/5/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: @ @ >> 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. @ > @ @ I second that thought. The metropolitan DC area is considered the @ crossroads of the Internet; several of the largest service-providers @ on this planet are located within a 5-mile radius of one another. @ Also, the Internet Society and the Corporation for National Research @ Initiatives (CNRI, the IETF Secretariat) are both located here as @ well. @ @ Plus, Kim lives right down the street. :-) @ @ - paul @ @ @ Paul, Since ARIN proposes to be involved in IP Address "management". Can you give us a break-down of how IP Addresses have been allocated to the companies at the "cross roads"...? Also, can you describe the specific IPv4 address blocks that ARIN proposes to manage ? Along, with that, can you supply proof that ARIN owns those address blocks ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at EROLS.COM Thu Mar 6 14:30:02 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 14:30:02 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970306143001.015cf4dc@justin.erols.com> I think that everyone here knows that I in no way shape or form represent the Board of Trustees, or even have any contact with them other than on this list (Actually I got maybe 4 emails this week from BoT members on topics which are unrelated to this list), but I thought I would state it publically anyway before people start asking me who "we" is and whether I represent the galactic empire or something. At 12:13 PM 3/6/97 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: >Have the ARIN "Trustees" voted on this...? I doubt it. I think if it had been a decision which was binding for the list, John would have said so instead of saying that it "Seems quite reasonable". > >"in chambers ?"....:-) > >behind closed doors...? Depending on the "chambers" where John was typing from, I certainly hope the door was closed. (Yes, this was a joke) Justin "Look a post that doesn't mention helicopters" Newton Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From waz at ENTERACT.COM Thu Mar 6 15:11:39 1997 From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Tracy Snell) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:11:39 GMT Subject: No private ARIN e-mail please... In-Reply-To: <01BC2A1C.60EE1D80@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2A1C.60EE1D80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <332424d6.75930996@smtp.enteract.com> On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:51:41 -0600, you wrote: > >Please people...do not send me private e-mail >about the ARIN discussion that should be posted >to the public discussion.... > >Please make your comments on the public discussion list. >That way, everyone will have an opportunity to respond. > Don't spam him with his on spam. Spam the list like him! -- Tracy Snell EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com (312) 248-8511 From rvega at cicese.mx Wed Mar 5 15:40:33 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:40:33 -0800 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <199703052040.MAA06882@knuth.cicese.mx> > > If these plans were "completed" last November, why wouldn't > they be available. This is March.... > > Here is a little humor... > with all the acid comments you have against arin, it looks like the born of this organization has broken a bussiness you had in mind. will you please let people work build arin here?? raymundo. From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Mar 6 17:44:35 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:44:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: FYI, humour Message-ID: <199703062244.AA102118276@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Since there is so much concern over the ARIN budget, take a look at: http://www.metrokc.gov/auction/copter.htm ---> Phil From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Thu Mar 6 19:42:59 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:42:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: from "Stephen Satchell" at Mar 6, 97 03:31:30 pm Message-ID: <199703070043.AA126705380@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Stephen Satchell supposedly said: > > At 2:06 AM -0700 3/6/97, The Innkeeper wrote: > >> 2. Proposed location(s) > > > >What in the Hades does this have to do with it??? > > Many of the issues regarding membership meetings and cost relate to the > cost of space. Also, I've seen suggestions from others that ARIN would > have to lease space at major switching points in order to provide a > wide-enough bandwidth for IN.ARPA. > > --- I think that any cost variations because of location are mostly lost in the noise. Its true that there is a large difference between space in Manhattan vs downtown podunk, but Reston is relatively average if you put it anywhere near a major metro area. As for space at the exchange points, those would be a fixed cost. If I want to plunk a machine at MAE East it doesn't cost me any more if my home office is in Va or Alaska. (If I was an ISP and routing traffic it would be a different point, but I suspect that the servers would be housed at the exchange points negating the need for dedicated lines to the exchange. > Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations > http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info > Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. > > > ---> Phil From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:41:27 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:41:27 -0600 Subject: ARIN consensus Message-ID: <01BC2A1A.F26D58E0@webster.unety.net> Is there consensus on the following...? 1. ARIN will be incorporated in the State of Virginia and the County of Fairfax. 2. The proposed Board of Directors for ARIN will be: Raymundo Vega Aguilar - CICESE - Ensenada, Mexico Randy Bush - Consultant - Seatle, Washington John Curran - BBN Planet - Cambridge, Massachusetts Scott Bradner - Harvard University - Cambridge, Massachusetts Donald N. Telage - Network Solutions, Inc. - Herndon, Virginia Jon Postel - University of Southern California - Marina Del Rey, California Kim Hubbard - Network Solutions, Inc. - Herndon, Virginia 3. ARIN will be applying for non-profit status with the United States Government Internal Revenue Service. Has this much been resolved...(i.e. set in stone) ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From sob at ACADEM.COM Thu Mar 6 22:42:14 1997 From: sob at ACADEM.COM (Stan Barber) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 21:42:14 CST Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <199703070342.VAA24373@academ.com> > >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] > >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:07 AM > > > >You are speaking from a bellcore.com "domain" or podium > > > > Are we then to infer that anything you say via Email represents the position of Unety? > -- > jfbb > > >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] > >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:07 AM > > > >You are speaking from a bellcore.com "domain" or podium > > > > Are we then to infer that anything you say via Email represents the position of Unety? > -- > jfbb > I don't know if the name of the company is Unety or Unir. Jim's signatures have Unir in them. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob at academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine. From bmanning at ISI.EDU Thu Mar 6 22:29:34 1997 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (bmanning at ISI.EDU) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:29:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: :) In-Reply-To: <01BC2A52.2EC860A0@Mallard.nap.net> from "Chris A. Icide" at Mar 6, 97 05:16:50 pm Message-ID: <199703070329.AA06981@zed.isi.edu> > >Since there is so much concern over the ARIN budget, take a look at: > > > >http://www.metrokc.gov/auction/copter.htm > > Perhaps best of all.... Pilot/co-pilot multi-function NAT intercom/radio panels NAT? NAT built in! And a Firewall.!!! -- --bill From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Thu Mar 6 23:05:06 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:05:06 -0800 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <01BC2A69.B00547C0@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Stan Barber[SMTP:sob at academ.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 7:42 PM > >> >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] >> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:07 AM >> > >> >You are speaking from a bellcore.com "domain" or podium >> > >> >> Are we then to infer that anything you say via Email represents the position of Unety? >> -- >> jfbb >> >I don't know if the name of the company is Unety or Unir. Jim's signatures >have Unir in them. Unir is a recent change, whose domain didn't resolve (at least in this galaxy/stargate/dimension) when I looked it up. Mr. Fleming's address is with Unety, and by his rules, I guess (whether they know it or not) that makes him their representative every time he posts... Mr. Fleming - Since you are always so keen on everyone else's affiliations, how about clearing this up for us? Are you employed by Unety Systems, Inc.? Do your posts reflect the position of Unety? -- jfbb From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Mar 6 17:56:16 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:56:16 -0500 Subject: FYI, humour Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970306175613.006c5d3c@lint.cisco.com> Cool. Snow baffles and a heater. Paint it black. :-) - paul At 05:44 PM 3/6/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >Since there is so much concern over the ARIN budget, take a look at: > >http://www.metrokc.gov/auction/copter.htm > >---> Phil > > From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 11:51:41 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:51:41 -0600 Subject: No private ARIN e-mail please... Message-ID: <01BC2A1C.60EE1D80@webster.unety.net> Please people...do not send me private e-mail about the ARIN discussion that should be posted to the public discussion.... Please make your comments on the public discussion list. That way, everyone will have an opportunity to respond. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From chris at NAP.NET Thu Mar 6 18:16:50 1997 From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:16:50 -0600 Subject: FYI, humour Message-ID: <01BC2A52.2EC860A0@Mallard.nap.net> Yeah, it's even got repelling points on both sides. Sliding doors, though, they didn't say if the doors could be pinned open. Looks like we'd still have to add the gun mounts... ---------- From: Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 4:56 PM To: Philip J. Nesser II Cc: naipr at arin.net Subject: Re: FYI, humour Cool. Snow baffles and a heater. Paint it black. :-) - paul At 05:44 PM 3/6/97 -0500, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: >Since there is so much concern over the ARIN budget, take a look at: > >http://www.metrokc.gov/auction/copter.htm > >---> Phil > > From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 23:43:11 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:43:11 -0600 Subject: NSF makes the call... Message-ID: <01BC2A7F.C5FF7E40@webster.unety.net> Dr. Neal Lane Director National Science Foundation Dear Dr. Lane: As you probably know, the Internet has grown well beyond the research and development prototypes the NSF helped fund. The NSF should be proud of its acheivements and has a continuing responsibility to help transition this valuable resource to all of the people of the U.S. and the world. Many commercial companies now depend on the Internet and in many ways the national defense of our nation depends on the Internet. Stability of the Internet is critical to its operations. Any transitions should focus on maintaining that stability. The NSF is now in a situation where it will be called upon to make some key decisions about the future of the Internet. I suggest that your agency make these decisions carefully, yet with urgency, because the end of the NSF's cooperative agreement with the InterNIC contractors is now in sight. The attached proposal presents a simple step-by-step outline that could be used as a base by the NSF to develop a more complete plan. Several people have asked that I expand on the plan and submit it to the NSF. Quite frankly, I hesitate to do this because I would think such an expanded plan should come from the collaborative Internet community. In order for an expanded plan to come from the Internet community, the NSF and the Internet community would have to have a mechanism to jointly develop such a plan in an open and collaborative forum. If the NSF is interested in hosting such a forum or having a group host such a forum I have a feeling you would find many ISPs who would step forward to help your agency. The NSF just has to say the word and it will be done. If you are interested in pursuing the option of expanding the following plan in the open forums of the Internet, you can reach me via e-mail at the address below. Thanks for your time, Jim Fleming Unir Corporation ============================================ 1. Keep the entire 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. Abandon the NSF plans to launch ARIN. 2. Encourage groups of cooperating commercial companies to clone the InterNIC under the watchful eye of their respective States and the Internet communities in those States, with the following Internet resources. 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names 1 Infrastructure Domain - (e.g. .NET, .NIC) 1 Commercial Domain - (e.g. .COM, .CORP) 1 FREE[1] Domain - (e.g. .ORG, IL.US) 2. One /8 IP Address Space[2] 3. Encourage this cloning via forty-nine[3] $250,000 grants from the National Science Foundation which would come from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over $15,000,000 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[4] 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. Encourage the expansion of the commercial Registry Industry by recommending that ALL government agencies (as well as Universities with NSF funding) include ALL of the new commercial Top Level Domains in their Root Name Servers. 6. Plan for the NSF to bow out of the above process in September 1998, the proud parent of up to 50 InterNICs which serve the U.S. and the world. 7. Enjoy the benefits of 50 InterNICs to coordinate a world collection of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide stability to the entire Internet without the need for NSF funding. ================================================ [1] Many people would like to make sure that future plans for domain name management include some consideration for FREE domains. In the U.S. the .US domain can be delegated to these State InterNICs to help clean up some of the recent problems that have arisen from the delegation of cities in one state to commericial registries in another, without the city's knowledge. [2] The /8 IP Address Space would be primarily for management purposes. Allocation policies would not change. Service fees could be imposed, similar to ARIN, to help fund the State's InterNIC. Each State would set its own policies based on input from their Internet Community. [3] These grants could be extended to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories as funds permit. [4] For the past year or more several companies have done extensive research, development and deployment in the creation of Top Level Domain registries. Those companies could be used to help kick start some of the activities in each State. California, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Massachusetts should easily be operational 60 days after receiving a grant. All 50 States would not be required to allow for a smooth transition from the NSF. The current InterNIC would be transitioned to the State of Virginia in September 1998 no matter how many states are active. From sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU Thu Mar 6 12:33:33 1997 From: sob at NEWDEV.HARVARD.EDU (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:33:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN Capitalization Message-ID: <199703061733.MAA00652@newdev.harvard.edu> -- ne of the ways for ARIN to be capitalized would be for the "members" to bring their IP address blocks to ARIN for "safe keeping". -- like bringing all your food to a food coop when you join? Scott From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Mar 6 20:08:40 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:08:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Also, I've seen suggestions from others that ARIN would > have to lease space at major switching points in order to provide a > wide-enough bandwidth for IN.ARPA. I believe that this will not be the case mainly because I believe that people are not fully aware of how in-addr.arpa operates. First of all, the in-addr.arpa does not have to hold pointers to one zone for every allocated IP address block. Since the address space is hierarchical it is possible to have the in-addr.arpa zone holding a pointer to the 193.in-addr.arpa zone on a separate set of nameservers. These nameservers could further delegate 25.193.in-addr.arpa to a different set of nameservers than 107.193.in-addr.arpa. In this way the load can be spread to considerably more nameservers than if in-addr.arpa were organized as a single flat zone file. I know that there are plans afoot to move the COM/ORG/NET/EDU/GOV domains off the root nameservers but I'm not sure what the plans are for IN-ADDR.ARPA. However, if IN-ADDR.ARPA stayed on the roots then this bandwidth issue would not arise. Perhaps someone who is more closely involved with root servers I, J, K and L could comment on this. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Mar 7 00:26:22 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 21:26:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: quick question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, jamie wrote: > Re: The ARIN FAQ... > question 16 states (in part) > > "This education is expected to take several forms, such as, policy and > procedure training..." > > What form will this training take? Remember, this is a FAQ, not a formal document, so don't read too much into it. One hopeful outcome of creating ARIN will be a better and more comprehensive set of website training documents and that would include explanations of ARIN's policy and procedures as well as guidelines for setting your own policy and procedures for allocating address space to your own downstream customers. Also, if you attend industry gatherings such as NANOG and presumably ISPCON http://www.ispcon.com you will get an opportunity to hear ARIN people explain these things and ask them questions. > ps- Hey micheal d. ---could you cc: the answer to me? I'm afraid it may > get lost in the noisestorm. :) I'm not the only cotributir to the FAQ ya know :-) Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jamie at COMET.NET Thu Mar 6 23:56:30 1997 From: jamie at COMET.NET (jamie) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:56:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: quick question Message-ID: Hey all-- Re: The ARIN FAQ... question 16 states (in part) "This education is expected to take several forms, such as, policy and procedure training..." What form will this training take? I ask just cuz I'm interested in the training for my own dubious purposes. I realise that policy and procedure training IS an aspect of technical ability, albeit a small one, but it'd be nice to see ARIN maintain some type of webbified archive expanding upon its recommended reading list. I hope this list returns to some semblance of a low bullshit forum. I actually used to learn from it. thanks, jamie jamie at comet.net ps- Hey micheal d. ---could you cc: the answer to me? I'm afraid it may get lost in the noisestorm. :) *************************************************************************** http://www.comet.net Charlottesville, Va. 804-295-2407 "When arguing with a fool, make sure s/he's not doing the same." Why do you need PGP? mail jamie at comet.net with Subject:GET PGPDOC For PGP public key, mail jamie at comet.net with Subject:GET KEY From perry at PIERMONT.COM Thu Mar 6 17:52:41 1997 From: perry at PIERMONT.COM (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:52:41 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 1997 16:51:34 PST." Message-ID: <199703062252.RAA07176@jekyll.piermont.com> Will someone out there please start moderating ARIN? steve writes: > 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 Fri Mar 7 01:26:24 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 01:26:24 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: At 23:05 3/6/97, Jim Browning wrote: >Mr. Fleming - Since you are always so keen on everyone else's affiliations, >how about clearing this up for us? Are you employed by Unety Systems, >Inc.? Do your posts reflect the position of Unety? I'm not certain that Mr. Fleming is tracking this mailing list anymore, so I'd recommend taking the question to private email if an answer is desired. /John From waz at ENTERACT.COM Thu Mar 6 11:53:50 1997 From: waz at ENTERACT.COM (Tracy Snell) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 16:53:50 GMT Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: <01BC2A11.E05F8BE0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2A11.E05F8BE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <3320f661.64037022@smtp.enteract.com> On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:36:31 -0600, you wrote: >On Thursday, March 06, 1997 2:52 AM, The Innkeeper[SMTP:the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET] wrote: > >@ > >@ > 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 > > >In my opinion, some of the ARIN founders falsely gave >people the impression that ARIN was a "concept" in the >early stages of formation...what people seem to be >indicating is that ARIN is very mature and only minor >comments are now required... > >Thanks for helping to make this clear...good luck with ARIN... Does this mean your leaving?! >-- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation > >e-mail: >JimFleming at unety.net >JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > -- Tracy Snell EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicagoland Internet Connectivity www.enteract.com, tjs at enteract.com (312) 248-8511 From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 5 17:30:15 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 17:30:15 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: >Given that Kim would be doing the ordering, I would >suspect that we are talking pastels here... There are certain traditions that must be respected... Helicopters are black (as in "under cover of darkness") ;-) /John From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Thu Mar 6 16:33:44 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:33:44 -0800 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <01BC2A33.043C7160@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 1997 10:07 AM > >You are speaking from a bellcore.com "domain" or podium > Are we then to infer that anything you say via Email represents the position of Unety? -- jfbb From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Thu Mar 6 17:31:30 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:31:30 -0700 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <199703060900.EAA07888@info.netsol.com> Message-ID: At 2:06 AM -0700 3/6/97, The Innkeeper wrote: >> 2. Proposed location(s) > >What in the Hades does this have to do with it??? Many of the issues regarding membership meetings and cost relate to the cost of space. Also, I've seen suggestions from others that ARIN would have to lease space at major switching points in order to provide a wide-enough bandwidth for IN.ARPA. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Mar 6 12:39:06 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:39:06 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Mar 1997 09:36:31 CST." <01BC2A11.E05F8BE0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2A11.E05F8BE0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703061739.MAA10706@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 09:36:31 CST, Jim Fleming said: > The real discussion which is how does the IPv4 Address > Space get placed under proper management in light of > the coming transition in 1998 of the National Science > Foundation out of the "registration" business...is NOT here... Hmm.. it must be on a mailing list run off a microVax in the back of one of those black helicopters, and hidden from view so only the "in" people can subscribe ;) Would do wonders for the signal/noise ratio. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Tue Mar 4 21:55:04 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:55:04 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: At 20:24 3/4/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >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.... You should be able to check with NSI, but I believe they reorganized at one point so that the folks doing IP registrations are distinct from those handling DNS activities. /John From matt at netmeg.net Fri Mar 7 13:29:00 1997 From: matt at netmeg.net (Matt Magri) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 13:29 EST Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: John Curran wrote: >I'm not certain that Mr. Fleming is tracking this >mailing list anymore, so I'd recommend taking the >question to private email if an answer is desired. If this turns out to be the case, and if folks feel that there's still more ARIN issues to resolve in this forum, then an announcement may be in order since I know there are folks who left this list during its Fleming stage. They'd probably like to know that it's safe to return now. Matt From usdh at mail.ccnet.com Fri Mar 7 20:57:40 1997 From: usdh at mail.ccnet.com (steve) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:57:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: Perry writes: >Will someone out there please start moderating ARIN? > >steve writes: >> 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) I am monitoring the list insuring "balanced perspectives" when they need to be addressed, if situations arise which seem to veer toward censorship of expression which seems relevant to the topic. If this willingness to defend free thought and speech on a list where people are being called on to 'filter' someone's viewpoint, a defense seems appropriate. It does not seem to do the ARIN list discussers any favors if they fear for sensorship of their ideas. Sensoring or filtering anyone who mentions anything peripheral to the topic is wrong. Just because narrow foci work well for some people, does not mean that everyone thinks the same way. Celebrate the diversity of others' opinions. Steve >> >> >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 pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Mar 6 10:02:30 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:02:30 -0500 Subject: Suggestion to partially moderate NAIPR list Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970306100227.00716fd4@lint.cisco.com> At 09:37 AM 3/6/97 -0500, Nicholas Lordi Jr wrote: > >Anyone who is (was ?) on the IAHC mailing list is aware of the >inordinate amount of traffic which did little to add to the discussion. >In fact, a recent article in the Feb 24th edition of Network World >by Scott Bradner entitled "Is online discussion democracy ?" >discusses the nature of the IAHC list. > >Scott states in his article: > >"Clearly, debate is necessary in a democracy, but historically, debates >are moderated in some way and have been used to try to build consensus. >Unfettered debates can foster demagogurey, disinterest, and disgust, all >at the same time." > I read Scott's article and I couldn't agree more. - paul From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 10:23:33 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:23:33 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2A10.10BD0E40@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 3:31 AM, The Innkeeper[SMTP:the_innkeeper at sols.net] wrote: @ > 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 @ @ Do you mean those who are selected by the BoT John???? @ @ << Ducking the choppers >> @ No, I think he means the ones selected by the people in each State in conjunction with their U.S. Senator and the State Governor.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 12:44:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:44:14 -0600 Subject: ARIN Capitalization Message-ID: <01BC2A23.B7BD7500@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 06, 1997 6:33 AM, Scott Bradner[SMTP:sob at newdev.harvard.edu] wrote: @ -- @ ne of the ways for ARIN to be capitalized would @ be for the "members" to bring their IP address blocks @ to ARIN for "safe keeping". @ -- @ @ like bringing all your food to a food coop when you join? @ Yes...or like people who have properties with borders in common and who decide to create a public park... they pull back their property lines, deed over the property to trustees and then they have to live with a public park or forest behind them, but that may be better than a toxic waste dump... In the case of parks, people trade-off long-term control for long-term stability. In some cases, it might increase their property value because a buyer of the private property might appreciate the fact that the park will always be the park...unless of course there is a war or change in government policy... For people with 50,331,648 acres, they may be willing to donate 16,777,216 of those acres to make sure they get to keep the other part. Also, the taxes on the entire property might get to be too much. When the land is given away, the tax liabilities go with it. If you like you can study this type of transition all along the Hudson River in New York. People in mansions turn the surrounding property over to the "public" and they can continue to enjoy the view that does not change because the rules are written so that the public can not use the property. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 6 10:21:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:21:10 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC2A0F.BB965980@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 5:31 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote: @ Jim Fleming supposedly said: @ > @ > The more people you get involved the better... @ @ Not necessarily true. The more people who understand the issues... @ Yes...including the following issues... Intellectual Property Laws Prior Use and Prior Art Government Laws Discrimination Business Development Tecno-Economic-Political Decision Making Capitalization and Business Planning ...to name a few... @ > @ > The more people with diverse backgrounds the better... @ > @ With the caveat above... @ Agreed...[with the comments above]... @ > The more ARIN-like organizations the better... @ > @ Very, very unclear. @ What would you like clarified... 1. 50 States in the United States...is that clear ? 2. 50 InterNIC clones....is that clear ? 3. 3 TLDs per Clone...is that clear ? 4. 3 TLDs (Infrastructure, Commercial, Free[1])...is that clear ? 5. One /8 space to manage...is that clear ? 6. $250,000 NSF Intellectual Infrastructure grant...is that clear ? [1] a "psuedo TLD" could be a TLD....for example, in the State of Illinois, the Illinois InterNIC could have IL.US as the Free TLD. @ > The more the Internet is distributed the better... @ > @ @ Address allocation is not the Internet. It is something that needs to be @ managed. @ Yes...that is why I would like to see it managed by companies that are insulated from failing but provide opportunities to BOTH the commercial and government sectors and ALL 50 States... ...what about this is not clear...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From justin at erols.com Thu Mar 6 09:52:41 1997 From: justin at erols.com (Justin W. Newton) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 09:52:41 -0500 Subject: Suggestions Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970306095240.0118e890@justin.erols.com> At 04:28 AM 3/6/97 -0500, The Innkeeper wrote: >> > 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...... Do you have a suggestion? I don't believe that there are many places on the planet with as many different people with internet clue as there is in the Greater Reston Area (wow, I bet that noone ever used /that/ term before ;). IMHO that makes it a good choice as far as where to locate ARIN. If you have another area that would work as well, let us know. >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 ..... What organization are you recommending? BTW, while I have certainly had my disagreements with certain people at NSI, and even people involved in this proposal, I would /not/ characterize them as out of touch as to what it is like "out here". They may have a different perspective, but they do remain in touch with whats going on. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From rvega at cicese.mx Thu Mar 6 13:03:48 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:03:48 -0800 Subject: Suggestions Message-ID: <199703061803.KAA07263@knuth.cicese.mx> > 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. > if there is no need to move it, then ..... > > 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. > i think it is not wise to put arin in any other place but its own, it will increase costs, but it also avoids the sense of ownership that the host org. may have. > > 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 > raymundo From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:31:15 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:31:15 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <199703060925.EAA08086@info.netsol.com> > 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 Do you mean those who are selected by the BoT John???? << Ducking the choppers >> - Steve - From pferguso at CISCO.COM Thu Mar 6 06:50:23 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 06:50:23 -0500 Subject: Location, Smocation [Was: Re: Suggestions] Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970306065020.0071e0c4@lint.cisco.com> At 08:11 PM 3/5/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >> 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. > I second that thought. The metropolitan DC area is considered the crossroads of the Internet; several of the largest service-providers on this planet are located within a 5-mile radius of one another. Also, the Internet Society and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI, the IETF Secretariat) are both located here as well. Plus, Kim lives right down the street. :-) - paul From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:06:39 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:06:39 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <199703060900.EAA07888@info.netsol.com> > >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 No budget to say as of yet for justification of their non-profit status.... > 2. Proposed location(s) What in the Hades does this have to do with it??? > 3. Alternatives using existing not-for-profits with Registry and Internet > experience VERY good point m'friend.... > 4. Bylaws (strawman would be fine) A MUST (along with the budget)....That is unless this is planned when they just start everything up and ask for my check??? ..... 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 > --- > Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations > http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info > Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions. > From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:03:30 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:03:30 -0500 Subject: Budget Breakdown?? Message-ID: <199703060858.DAA07841@info.netsol.com> Suggestions have been previously posted (as Steve so aptly expresses)..... The kicker is (as Steve says)....Will it help????? Interesting question since the BoT is already in place :-) <<<< Looking for the choppers .....>>>>>>> - Steve - ---------- > 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? From michael at MEMRA.COM Tue Mar 4 21:02:31 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:02:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Budget Breakdown?? In-Reply-To: <199703042341.AA126638865@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Philip J. Nesser II wrote: > 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. Great idea. You can read about the IETF at http://www.ietf.org and read the specific RFC mentioned above, which is actually called the Tao of IETF, at http://www.ietf.org/tao.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET Thu Mar 6 04:00:59 1997 From: the_innkeeper at SOLS.NET (The Innkeeper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 04:00:59 -0500 Subject: Threats of Censorship? Message-ID: <199703060858.DAA07839@info.netsol.com> > 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) Censorship is not acceptable sir......But even I am tiring of Mr. Flemming's posts sinse it is starting to be total nonsense and diverting folks attentions from the issues we are here to discuss..... He is bringing things into the list that do not belong here.....They do belong in other lists which are pertinent....But we ARE here to discuss ARIN and what is being proposed......That is what I have been here to discuss and learn of from the get-go.....Some of Jim's comments are pertinent....But the majority of them are BS.....If we are here to discuss a subject then let us stick to that subject.....NOT all of the other ramblings of assholes (I apologize for my language folks)..... - Steve - > >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. From jcurran at bbnplanet.com Thu Mar 6 11:20:39 1997 From: jcurran at bbnplanet.com (John Curran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:20:39 -0500 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: At 18:16 3/5/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >What if you delegated the space with the requirement that >the net gain/loss on the router tables had to be zero ? Justin is right; this is more appropriate to the pagan mailing list. If you have a viable plan on how to make this actually work, please post it there. Thanks! /John From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 5 17:10:39 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:10:39 -0600 Subject: What triggered ARIN ? Message-ID: <01BC297F.C5781D20@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 05, 1997 4:01 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ 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? @ The more people you get involved the better... The more people with diverse backgrounds the better... The more ARIN-like organizations the better... The more the Internet is distributed the better... -- 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 14:53:13 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:53:13 -0600 Subject: How can a consensus emerge... Message-ID: <01BC28A3.678E71A0@webster.unety.net> Ivan, If you check the archives for the ARIN discussion list, you will see that some of these topics have been discussed. Also, there are people at the NSF you can contact. National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov Your inputs are valuable to the process. If you take a look at the InterNIC's web site, you will note many changes that have occurred. The NSF controls the InterNIC...talk to them... Jim Fleming @@@@@ http://www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/mail-archive/2138.html Re: So what have we learned from this? Ivan Pope (ivan at netnames.com) Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:47:34 +0000 >>Most recently, NSI was taken to task in a Washington Post article for its >>failure to spend the money set aside for the infrastructure fund and for >>refusing to explain why. The $13 million earmarked for this purpose sits in >>a bank account earning around 5 percent interest, according to Telage. >> >>For their part, NSI and the NSF say the reason for the delay is that a >>consensus on how to use that money still has not emerged; but the NSF said >>it will likely stop charging this infrastructure fee in the future, thus >>reducing NSI's domain name registration fee by as much as 30 percent, >>according to NSF spokesman Donald Mitchell. How can a consensus emerge if you don't have a discussion. I'd like to know what proposals NSI have put out, what the response has been, who has been consulted. I've never seen any proposals from NSI about this. I am insulted that my clients pay an extra 30% so that it can sit in a bank account. 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 pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Mar 9 16:26:34 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 16:26:34 -0500 Subject: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970309161756.006ae36c@lint.cisco.com> [redirected to NAIPR] At 01:59 PM 3/9/97 -0500, Lon R. Stockton, Jr. wrote: > >So, since I paid money for my car registration & license plates, I should >be able to sell my plates to someone else to put on their car? > > Another bad anaolgy. Certainly not. But the registration mechanisms are in place to allow you to transfer these titles. - paul From pferguso at CISCO.COM Sun Mar 9 16:26:28 1997 From: pferguso at CISCO.COM (Paul Ferguson) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 16:26:28 -0500 Subject: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970309161755.006ae36c@lint.cisco.com> [distribution *changed* to NAIPR] At 12:26 PM 3/9/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > >Been there, read that, and I still say they're selling space, leasing space, >auctioning space, etc. Fact of the matter is they are _CHARGING MONEY_ (not >bannana peels) for services rendered. Their services are to hand out IP >space and maintain databases, therefor they are SELLING space. > *sigh* I had hoped to absolve myself of the need to feel compelled to respond to anything in this forum, but I obviously do not have the self-control I once thought I did. Irregardless of whether you *feel* that ARIN is *selling* IP address space, this is not the case. They are charging fees for registry services. Please resolve yourself to this fact. > >The last time I checked RFC's were not GOSPEL, they are a good idea to >follow but are NOT mandatory. I could turn around tomorrow and create an MUA >that doesn't follow the SMTP RFC except in the most remote cases and whats >going to happen? _NOTHING_, why? because RFCs simply are not the GOSPEL, and >lets face it, stupid traditions are just that, stupid traditions, this is no >longer your cozy little lounge, there are millions of people here and just >because you got here first doesn't mean you're allowed to make decisions for >the rest of them. > Go ahead and ignore the RFC's (especially the ones called 'Best Current Practice') and see how far that gets you in the Real World (tm). - paul >Since I've already gone over the fact that RFCs can be treated just like >toilet paper (ie. Netscape, MSIE, and countless thousands of other products) >I'll ignore your primary argument as worthless. > Again, please feel free to ignore RFC compliance. The rest of us will just continue conducting business as usual. - paul From brian at system.co.za Mon Mar 10 07:29:00 1997 From: brian at system.co.za (Brian Macdougall) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 07:29 SAT Subject: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970310072125.00913ab0@thor.system.co.za> At 04:26 PM 3/9/97 -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote: >[distribution *changed* to NAIPR] > >At 12:26 PM 3/9/97 -0600, Brett L. Hawn wrote: > >> >>Been there, read that, and I still say they're selling space, leasing space, >>auctioning space, etc. Fact of the matter is they are _CHARGING MONEY_ (not >>bannana peels) for services rendered. Their services are to hand out IP >>space and maintain databases, therefor they are SELLING space. >> > >*sigh* > >I had hoped to absolve myself of the need to feel compelled to >respond to anything in this forum, but I obviously do not have >the self-control I once thought I did. > >Irregardless of whether you *feel* that ARIN is *selling* >IP address space, this is not the case. They are charging fees >for registry services. Please resolve yourself to this fact. > They are also charging what may be a manageable fee in USA, but is out of the question in a non-NIC country like South Africa.... US$2500 for a class C is beyond our reach, and will make a substantial dent in our profitability... we are after all in business as well. The registry services may need to be billed, but at the price quoted?? We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL be done. I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible - give us an option (even in the short term) to create a nuetral registration body for the African continent to relieve ARIN of the *onorous* task of supporting our little backwater. The same would follow for all non-USA territories, where no thought has been given to the affordability or responsibility for THEIR networks. -- | Brian Macdougall | Planet Pinnacle | | brian at system.co.za | The Internet Company | | | | TUCOWS and RedHat Linux 4.1 mirror site | | | From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Mar 10 09:20:48 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:20:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: South Africa In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970310072125.00913ab0@thor.system.co.za> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Brian Macdougall wrote: > >Irregardless of whether you *feel* that ARIN is *selling* > >IP address space, this is not the case. They are charging fees > >for registry services. Please resolve yourself to this fact. > They are also charging what may be a manageable fee in USA, but is out of > the question in a non-NIC country like South Africa.... US$2500 for a class > C is beyond our reach, and will make a substantial dent in our > profitability... No it won't, because you will not ever have to pay US$2500. If you need another /24 you just get it from your upstream provider. > We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and > steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, > but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL > be done. Are you talking about SACK and FACK? Why do you say that the USA is dictating this to anybody? If South African universities want to be involved in this kind of research, nobody is stopping them. Quite frankly, I don't care what country works on improving IPv4 just so long as somebody keeps studying it in the wild and improving it. > I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible - give us > an option (even in the short term) to create a nuetral registration body > for the African continent to relieve ARIN of the *onorous* task of > supporting our little backwater. Some might consider your message to be an abuse of moral responsibility considering that you have not done your research. The option for an AfricNIC has existed for quite some time. As soon as a group of people from African countries can agree to work together to support such a NIC and service all countries on the continent, it can be done. > The same would follow for all non-USA territories, where no thought has > been given to the affordability or responsibility for THEIR networks. http://www.ripe.net http://www.apnic.net Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From rvega at cicese.mx Mon Mar 10 11:56:16 1997 From: rvega at cicese.mx (Raymundo Vega Aguilar) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 08:56:16 -0800 Subject: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Message-ID: <199703101656.IAA11698@knuth.cicese.mx> > > They are also charging what may be a manageable fee in USA, but is out of > the question in a non-NIC country like South Africa.... US$2500 for a class make it 32 former C class networks for $2500 registration fee. or pay a smaller fee to your upstream provider for a portion of this block. > C is beyond our reach, and will make a substantial dent in our > profitability... we are after all in business as well. The registry > services may need to be billed, but at the price quoted?? > > We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and > steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, > but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL > be done. I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible - give us > an option (even in the short term) to create a nuetral registration body > for the African continent to relieve ARIN of the *onorous* task of > supporting our little backwater. unfortunatelly the ipv6 is like the wolf story, has been coming last couple of years and who knows when it will become a reality. raymundo > > The same would follow for all non-USA territories, where no thought has > been given to the affordability or responsibility for THEIR networks. > > > -- > | Brian Macdougall | Planet Pinnacle | > | brian at system.co.za | The Internet Company | > | | > | TUCOWS and RedHat Linux 4.1 mirror site | > | | From satchell at ACCUTEK.COM Mon Mar 10 12:51:07 1997 From: satchell at ACCUTEK.COM (Stephen Satchell) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:51:07 -0800 Subject: Costing (was Class "B" forsale) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970310072125.00913ab0@thor.system.co.za> Message-ID: At 11:29 PM -0800 3/09/97, Brian Macdougall wrote: >They are also charging what may be a manageable fee in USA, but is out of >the question in a non-NIC country like South Africa.... US$2500 for a class >C is beyond our reach, and will make a substantial dent in our >profitability... we are after all in business as well. The registry >services may need to be billed, but at the price quoted?? > >We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and >steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, >but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL >be done. I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible - give us >an option (even in the short term) to create a nuetral registration body >for the African continent to relieve ARIN of the *onorous* task of >supporting our little backwater. > >The same would follow for all non-USA territories, where no thought has >been given to the affordability or responsibility for THEIR networks. I find it interesting that in all the disussions about revenue streams that no one has brought up this question before. Now we have the spectre of the cost of currency exchange and the ability for the Central- and South-American countries to use the service. Perhaps someone could justify the addressed-size-based fee scheme for reasons *other* than affordability? In particular, how does allocating a /12 differ in effort on the part of the Registry from allocating a /19? --- Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations} for contact and other info Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions. From justin at EROLS.COM Mon Mar 10 14:21:41 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:21:41 -0500 Subject: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970310142141.015970ac@justin.erols.com> At 08:56 AM 3/10/97 -0800, Raymundo Vega Aguilar wrote: >unfortunatelly the ipv6 is like the wolf story, has been coming >last couple of years and who knows when it will become a reality. sed -e 's/when/if/g' Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From michael at MEMRA.COM Mon Mar 10 14:05:37 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:05:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Costing (was Class "B" forsale) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote: > >The same would follow for all non-USA territories, where no thought has > >been given to the affordability or responsibility for THEIR networks. > I find it interesting that in all the disussions about revenue streams that > no one has brought up this question before. Now we have the spectre of the > cost of currency exchange and the ability for the Central- and > South-American countries to use the service. Companies in South America don't ever have to join ARIN. They have the option of joining ARIN and using its services. However, they also have the option of creating their own CIR (Centro de Informaci?n de la Red, Centro de Informa??o da Red) at any time. If the membership and subscription fees for ARIN seem excessive by South American standards then that's just one more reason for them to get organized. Perhaps they are just waiting and watching how ARIN works out so they can learn from our experiences. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From mikel at AGISGATE.AGIS.NET Mon Mar 10 23:48:47 1997 From: mikel at AGISGATE.AGIS.NET (Michael Lucas) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:48:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: IPv6 & ARIN (was Re: Class "B" forsale) In-Reply-To: <199703101656.IAA11698@knuth.cicese.mx> from "Raymundo Vega Aguilar" at Mar 10, 97 08:56:16 am Message-ID: <199703110448.XAA23000@agisgate.agis.net> > > We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and > > steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, > > but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL > > be done. I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible - give us > > an option (even in the short term) to create a nuetral registration body > > for the African continent to relieve ARIN of the *onorous* task of > > supporting our little backwater. > unfortunatelly the ipv6 is like the wolf story, has been coming > last couple of years and who knows when it will become a reality. I've heard a few times that IPv6 is going to change the whole IP address shortage and registry schemes. ARIN will lighten up or become unnecessary, everyone will be able to get sixteen host bits, and angels will sing. Even with provider-based prefixes, someone has to maintain records for IP space, root servers, and so on. With that much space, we'll probably need a far greater number of whois servers just to handle IP space queries. I'd also guess and hope that the requirements for IP space won't loosen all that much once all this space becomes available. We've all probably heard the (apocryphal?) horror stories about companies with six machines on the Net that have a /8. Imagine an ISP in 2030 AD: "Yeah, the NIC won't even give us thirty host bits, and there's folks out there with four thousand machines on the net and eighty host bits they got back in 2002!" :) I dislike double-checking SWIPs and keeping track of network host counts as much as anyone. It's a necessary evil, though, if we're going to avoid another IP address conversion scheme generation. With the changes that have been made, ARIN seems to be a definite candidate for that role. Hopefully, we *will* have AfriNIC/SouthAmNic/AntarcticNIC/whateverNIC by then. IMHO, we should look at ARIN as something that is going to be around for a long time (or, alternately, the ancestor to something that's going to be around for a long time). Regards, Michael -- Michael Lucas, AGIS DNS Administrator & Midnight Engineer From apb at IAFRICA.COM Tue Mar 11 06:36:52 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:36:52 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: Class "B" forsale In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970310072125.00913ab0@thor.system.co.za> Message-ID: > They are also charging what may be a manageable fee in USA, but is out of > the question in a non-NIC country like South Africa.... US$2500 for a class > C is beyond our reach, and will make a substantial dent in our > profitability... Why do you think you would need to pay $2500? Please study the archives. As a small single-homed provider, you would get your address space from your upstream provider. > We also understand that the IPv4 system is subject to change soonish, and > steps need to be taken to make this as comfortable to manage as possible, > but the USA is (as usual) dictating to the rest of the planet how it WILL > be done. I find this abuse of moral responsibilty reprehensible ROTFL. --apb (Alan Barrett) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 11:59:33 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:59:33 -0600 Subject: InterNIC 2000 - v1.0 Message-ID: <01BC2ED4.787F89E0@webster.unety.net> On Tuesday, March 11, 1997 11:31 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 18:53 3/11/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >@ >@ o Issue allocations based on need, not $ (lest @ >@ >@ we watch the entire address space disappear @ >@ >@ in the first few weeks) @ >@ >@ @ > @ >Regional ISPs need Provider Independent space @ >to be able to compete with companies like BBN Planet. @ @ Yep. I believe this is one of the first topics to be @ considered by the Advisory Council (changing min. to @ /18) @ John, It would be nice if that Advisory Council had representatives from the 10 SBA Regions. In the alternative plan to ARIN, the creation of 10 InterNIC clones, this will happen as a natural result of the cooperative nature of the cooperative IS, DS, RS structures that would be enforced. The "Advisory Council" would have a representative from each Region. Region I - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont ... Region II - New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands ... Region III - Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia ... Region IV - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee ... Region V - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin ... Region VI - Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ... Region VII - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska ... Region VIII - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming ... Region IX - Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada ... Region X - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington @ >Why does the Internet keep trying to build everything @ >around the same handful of people...? @ @ Proven Success? I am not sure I would call dropping $50,000,000 in billings a proven success. $15,000,000 belongs to the NSF and the U.S. Government and the U.S. taxpayers. That money is supposed to be used to help create more Internet Infrastructure. @ >http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,8704,00.html @ > @ @ "Network Solutions officials have said the lag @ in collections has been a conscious @ trade-off. In order to keep up with the @ overwhelming demand for domain name @ registrations, the company abandoned last @ summer's policy of shutting down @ deadbeats' domains, putting the welfare of @ the Net above its own profit. The millionth @ registration comes at a time when the @ company is under pressure from would-be @ competitors and would-be regulators who @ are scrutinizing how Internet resources are @ handed out." Part of the reason this occurred is because the IS company was not replaced in the IS, DS, RS InterNIC "model". Instead, much of the IS load shifted to the RS contractor, NSI. This has helped to cause NSI to be distracted and overwhelmed. This has resulted in lost billings and funds to the NSF, the U.S. Government and the U.S. taxpayers. While it is nice to see that the InterNIC has hit the one million domain name mark, and feels it has handled the growth well. There are some things that do not match. For example, people keep hearing reports that the InterNIC is losing money and that ARIN needs to be launched because the InterNIC can not afford to pay for the activity. This does not seem to be what businesses would call a "proven success". @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/mar97/million.html "One Million Names and Counting..." "This significant event illustrates not only how fast the Internet has grown in recent months, but also how well Network Solutions has handled this extraordinary growth. The challenges that the InterNIC's Registration Services faced over the last 18 months appeared insurmountable at times, but thanks to the hard-working and dedicated professionals who make the Internet Registry function, Network Solutions has been able to leap over obstacles to facilitate the growth of the Internet. "One million active domain names is an important milestone in the history of the Internet," said Gabe Battista, CEO, Network Solutions." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Another thing that does not seem to match is that while $50,000,000 in billings are being dropped the InterNIC has had the time to go off an add additional functions that were never part of the original mission. Digitial Certificates as an example. @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/mar97/shoppingcart.html "From Domain Name to Digital ID: Network Solutions and VeriSign Streamline Path to Secure Transactions" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Again, in my opinion, rather than focusing on the same few individuals, why not get MORE people involved and MORE Regions involved ? The following plan focuses on the long-term growth of the InterNIC and the plan is self-funded from the money that is waiting to be collected and applied to building more Internet Infrastructure. Here is the current version of the plan with some recent modifications... 1. Keep the entire 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. Abandon the NSF plans to launch ARIN. 2. Fully document the InterNIC IS, DS, RS structure, the history, and the line of products and services which currently includes: Domain Registrations IP Address Allocations Digital Certificates (see above) Make this documentation available to the 10 Regional (SBA) InterNIC clones to help them attract the right companies to handle their IS, DS. and RS Cooperative Agreements. Suggest that staggered agreements be used to help provide better stability and continuity. IS - 2 Year Agreement DS - 3 Year Agreement RS - 4 Year Agreement 3. Encourage groups of cooperating commercial companies to clone the InterNIC under the watchful eye of their respective States and the Internet communities in those States, with the following Internet resources. 1. 3 Top Level Domain Names 1 Infrastructure Domain - (e.g. .NET, .NIC) 1 Commercial Domain - (e.g. .COM, .CORP) 1 FREE[1] Domain - (e.g. .ORG, IL.US) 2. One /8 IP Address Space[2] 4. Focus the InterNIC on collecting the $50,000,000 in billings and get the InterNIC clones to help with this collection process by shifting the billing to the 10 Regional (SBA) InterNIC clones. This will provide them with an instant revenue stream and will help the NSF recover some of the lost $15,000,000. 5. Help accelerate this cloning via forty-nine[3] $250,000 grants from the National Science Foundation (working with the SBA) which would come from the Internet Infrastructure fund which has over $15,000,000 for this type of purpose. 6. Allocate one grant to each state and direct the U.S. Senators to work with the Governor to select THREE companies[4] 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. 7. Encourage the expansion of the commercial Registry Industry by recommending that ALL government agencies (as well as Universities with NSF funding) include ALL of the new commercial Top Level Domains in their Root Name Servers. 8. Plan for the NSF to bow out of the above process in September 1998, the proud parent of up to 50 InterNICs which serve the U.S. and the world. 9. Enjoy the benefits of 50 InterNICs to coordinate a world collection of Root Name Server confederations to provide world-wide stability to the entire Internet without the need for NSF funding. ================================================ [1] Many people would like to make sure that future plans for domain name management include some consideration for FREE domains. In the U.S. the .US domain can be delegated to these State InterNICs to help clean up some of the recent problems that have arisen from the delegation of cities in one state to commericial registries in another, without the city's knowledge. [2] The /8 IP Address Space would be primarily for management purposes. Allocation policies would not change. Service fees could be imposed, similar to ARIN, to help fund the State's InterNIC. Each State would set its own policies based on input from their Internet Community. [3] These grants could be extended to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories as funds permit. [4] For the past year or more several companies have done extensive research, development and deployment in the creation of Top Level Domain registries. Those companies could be used to help kick start some of the activities in each State. California, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and Massachusetts should easily be operational 60 days after receiving a grant. All 50 States would not be required to allow for a smooth transition from the NSF. The current InterNIC would be transitioned to the State of Virginia in September 1998 no matter how many states are active. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 15:51:09 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:51:09 -0600 Subject: InterNIC 2000 - v1.0 Message-ID: <01BC2EF4.D30D66A0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 9:44 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at internic.net] wrote: @ > @ > While it is nice to see that the InterNIC has hit the one @ > million domain name mark, and feels it has handled the @ > growth well. There are some things that do not match. @ > For example, people keep hearing reports that the @ > InterNIC is losing money and that ARIN needs to be @ > launched because the InterNIC can not afford to pay @ > for the activity. This does not seem to be what businesses @ > would call a "proven success". @ @ The only place people keep hearing this report is from you, over and @ over again. Your assertion that InterNIC/NSI cannot afford to pay @ for IP registration is false. @ I have never made this claim....why would I...? I dispute the claim... I claim that the InterNIC should have plenty of money to fund these activities... That is why I suggest that the InterNIC remain as one unit and be cloned as a unit. I suggest that you check with your "Board" and other vocal members of the Internet community who keep telling people that NSI no longer wants to fund these activities, because NSI wants to position itself for an IPO and enter the high stakes competitive world of TLD registries with a huge advantage, lead and market share... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Wed Mar 12 15:44:22 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:44:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: InterNIC 2000 - v1.0 In-Reply-To: <01BC2ED4.787F89E0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Mar 12, 97 10:59:33 am Message-ID: <199703122044.PAA23663@jazz.internic.net> > > While it is nice to see that the InterNIC has hit the one > million domain name mark, and feels it has handled the > growth well. There are some things that do not match. > For example, people keep hearing reports that the > InterNIC is losing money and that ARIN needs to be > launched because the InterNIC can not afford to pay > for the activity. This does not seem to be what businesses > would call a "proven success". The only place people keep hearing this report is from you, over and over again. Your assertion that InterNIC/NSI cannot afford to pay for IP registration is false. Please read the ARIN proposal, it clearly states why ARIN is being proposed. Kim Hubbard From markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET Wed Mar 12 07:57:49 1997 From: markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET (Mark Richmond) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:57:49 -0000 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2EE4.FDE81D80@tcsd.k12.ca.us> I noted with interest todd Wallaces' article on page one of Network World this week (3/10/97). The NSF Inspector General thinks they should reclaim the rights to dole out domain names, due to the massive revenue stream generated. They think they could recoup some of the US.gov initial 'net development costs. Apparently NSI has been unable to make money, taking in only about $50 Million dollars a year. Uncle Sam thinks he can do better. Could it be that there is an organization more wasteful and reckless with money than Uncle? All this, of course, leads us back to ARIN. If NSI wants to drop number assignments, but loses the contract next year, who decides? Do we go through all this as an exercise, then scrap it when the new regime takes over? If there is a new regime . . . From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 16:21:12 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:21:12 -0600 Subject: InterNIC 2000 - v1.0 Message-ID: <01BC2EF9.05AEAFC0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 2:23 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ o As noted, the difficulty of ISP's getting @ non-portable allocations is something that @ I expect the AC should look into it and give @ some direction. @ Fine...the Regional InterNICs can help with that... @ o With respect to AC composition, these folks @ will be selected by the membership. I don't @ know about the startup condition, but would @ expect folks to be selected based on their @ qualifications not position/organization. @ In my opinion they should be selected from the Internet community and the regional communities @ o The Internet is a success that we'd like to @ continue, and hence capricious changes to @ the operational model are generally not @ encouraged. If you've got a viable change @ which addresses a real problem, then I'd @ definitely let folks know about it. @ John, Can you explain who we is in "we'd like to continue..."? Does your statement above imply that there is small circle of people that have everything worked out and really do not want input ?...and input is labeled "capricious"...? For your information, I am not suggesting "capricious changes". In fact, just the opposite is the case. I am suggesting that people stop, step back, develop a plan and not jump into something like ARIN which I find to be capricious and self serving of not only the people founding ARIN but also Network Solutions, Inc. Let's review the facts. 1. Network Solutions, Inc. is profiting from domain registrations and their monopoly arrangement provided by the U.S. Government and the National Science Foundation (NSF) they have recently crossed the one million domain mark. Unfortunately, they are having trouble keeping track of who has paid and who has not paid. It has been clear to many people that the growth needed to be distributed but Network Solutions, Inc., the IANA and the NSF did not forge ahead and make anything happen months or now years ago when they were warned by many of the companies still here waiting to be recognized as TLD registries. 2. Since October of 1992 Network Solutions, Inc. has wanted to be the "single contractor" handling everything. "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." The NSF wisely chose THREE companies to work together. These three companies formed the InterNIC. Network Solutions, Inc. is not the InterNIC. The InterNIC is currently AT&T and NSI the two companies that remain. 3. Mr. Jon Postel (the IANA) was listed as a subcontractor to Network Solutions, Inc. on their proposal which is on their web site. "Network Solutions proposes Mr. Jon Postel as the IANA Manager and Chairman of the Advisory Panel for the NREN NIS Manager project. He will provide services as an employee of USC's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), subcontractor to Network Solutions." 4. Mr. Postel's decisions and/or lack of decisions have helped to delay the progress thus allowing Network Solutions to increase their market share and further enjoy their monopoly arrangement. Several people have experienced several iterations of discussions, proposals, hand-offs, policy changes, etc. with no clear decisions being made causing the potential participants to be hand-cuffed by this indecision from groups that have U.S. Government backing and funding. 5. Mr. Postel was instrumental in forming the IAHC and in selecting the people he wanted to assist the IAHC. It is likely that he had some idea of what they would produce. He obviously did not select random people or people who were known to represent a broader consensus. Many of the people selected, including the ISOC CEO and the Chair of the IAHC were very inexperienced and did not understand the complex issues of the domain name system or the history of the committee members selected for the IAHC. 6. For months, Mr. Postel has been seeking a "legal umbrella" to protect himself. The ISOC was selected in the Spring/Summer of 1996 and as you can see, the IAHC chaired by the CEO of the ISOC, Mr. Donald Heath, is well represented by the legal profession. Mr. Postel and Mr. Heath are now named as defendants in the following lawsuit resulting from the apparently inexperienced decision making by the IAHC. 7. The IAHC report has not threatened Network Solutions, Inc.'s future in any way and if anything has delayed the process even more, once again allowing Network Solutions, Inc. to increase market share and further enjoy their monopoly. Despite claims that NSI is losing money and can no longer fund all the contracted NSF services such as IP address allocations, NSI is able to fund new services such as Digital Certificates. In January of 1997 the NSF paid NSI more money... 8. While the IAHC and other companies were "busy", Mr. Postel and Network Solutions, Inc. have also been busy deploying more Root Name Servers. Mr. Postel evidently spent very little time with the IAHC. He invested his time in other ways. These Root Name Servers compete with the recently announce eDNS Root Name Servers. Some of the servers are located at NSI and some at ISI. The claim is they will be moved to other locations. 9. While companies have been "on-hold" waiting for these elaborate decision-making processes other significant events have occurred: Mr. Jon Postel was appointed to the Board of Directors of Genuity a subsidiary of Bechtel In November of 1996, the National Science Foundation awarded USC/ISI another $1.5 million dollars. In January 1997, plans were announced by NSI to launch ARIN to charge for IP addresses Mr. Jon Postel is listed as a proposed Board member of ARIN. 10. Despite claims of cooperation of the IAHC and NSI on the original ISOC/IAHC Press Release, Network Solutions, Inc. has clearly invested their time and energy in other ways. A summary of NSI's progress can be found at... Information on the 1,000,000th domain registration is at... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Here are the real problems....InterNIC 2000 helps address these... 1. Internet resources are not being distributed in a fair and equitable manner. 2. Companies are being prevented from participating in the industry on a level playing field. Simple decisions and changes could open up huge markets and opportunities but only one or two people can make the decisions and they do not. They instead make what I consider to be "capricious" decisions. 3. The Internet Registry Industry is not expanding as rapidly as it could because control is constantly centralized in a few geographic areas and educational programs and community outreach are not being encouraged. Instead the focus is on building a company to take public. 4. Customers are not satisfied with the services that NSI provides. This holds for the domain name registration side of the business as well as the IP Address Allocation part. There are many, many reasons for this dissatisfaction, the most important being: A. Lack of ability to handle volume billing accurately. B. Lack of understanding and sensitivity to ISP-customer relationships. C. Double billing and refund policies. D. Added regional costs of doing business with a company in Fairfax County Virginia. (travel, phones, consultants, etc.) 5. The notion of the InterNIC is being lost. People now assume the InterNIC equals Network Solutions, Inc. Even Network Solutions, Inc. uses the names interchangably on the InterNIC web site and AT&T is rarely mentioned. This is not a service to the Internet community. The ONLY reason that the InterNIC has been successful is because the average user assumes it is an agency of the U.S. Government similar to the FCC or FAA. 6. The IS, DS, RS stable three-legged stool structure is being lost. When the IS company was ejected by the NSF, another company should have been selected. Instead the IS functions and RS functions were merged. This left NSI to watch over the operations because AT&T is too big to pay proper attention and the NSF seems unwilling to be active program managers because they are supposed to fund "science" and not "business". 7. More efforts are needed to look at the long term need to merge the Internet and standard Government bodies. This continued view that a separate Internet republic can be created that is above the law does not scale and is not in the best interest of the people who have funded much of the Internet development. ARIN's solution appears to be to have a small circle of friends take important Internet Resources into their private non-profit company to allocate as they see fit without any checks and balances, guarantee of stability, or ability of the people to shape the outcome. ARIN has not addressed... ...the fairness issue (#1 above) ...the level playing field issue (#2 above) ...the NIC expansion issue (#3 above) ...the customer service issues (#4 above) ...the InterNIC/government relationship issues (#5 above) ...the stability of cooperative IS, DS, RS structures (#6 above) ...the need to find a place in government issue (#7 above) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 16:54:14 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:54:14 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2EFD.A3013460@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 6:57 AM, Mark Richmond[SMTP:markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET] wrote: @ I noted with interest todd Wallaces' article on page one of Network World this week (3/10/97). The NSF Inspector General thinks they should reclaim the rights to dole out domain names, due to the massive revenue stream generated. They think they could recoup some of the US.gov initial 'net development costs. @ @ Apparently NSI has been unable to make money, taking in only about $50 Million dollars a year. Uncle Sam thinks he can do better. Could it be that there is an organization more wasteful and reckless with money than Uncle? @ @ All this, of course, leads us back to ARIN. If NSI wants to drop number assignments, but loses the contract next year, who decides? Do we go through all this as an exercise, then scrap it when the new regime takes over? If there is a new regime . . . @ @ @ I suggest that you reserve judgement until you read the report, read the required response to the report from the Director Dr. Neal Lane AND you evaluate the solutions the NSF and possibly other U.S. Government agencies and the Internet community develop. If you need some comments to research the situation before you draw conclusions, I suggest that you start with.... President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore http://www.whitehouse.gov National Science Board (NSB) http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm The NSB has dual responsibilities as: . National science policy advisor to the President and the Congress . Governing body for the National Science Foundation Chairman NSB - Dr. Richard N. Zare, Stanford University rnz at chemistry.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Zarelab/ Office of Inspector General of the NSF (also links to Congress) http://www.nsf.gov/oig/oig.htm Inspector General - Linda G. Sundro - lsundro at nsf.gov Investigator - Clara Kuehn - ckuehn at nsf.gov National Science Foundation Neal Lane - nlane at nsf.gov Juris Hartmanis - jhartman at nsf.gov George Strawn - gstrawn at nsf.gov Don Mitchell - dmitchel at nsf.gov @@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 16:59:54 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:59:54 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2EFE.6DC18060@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 6:57 AM, Mark Richmond[SMTP:markr at LIGHTSPEED.NET] wrote: @ I noted with interest todd Wallaces' article on page one of Network World this week (3/10/97). The NSF Inspector General thinks they should reclaim the rights to dole out domain names, due to the massive revenue stream generated. Have you ever heard the debate about the glass being half empty or half full...? Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to reclaim rights because of the massive revenue stream that apparently is NOT being generated...? @@@@ http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,8704,00.html A million domains, half unpaid By Margie Wylie March 11, 1997, 2:15 p.m. PT "On the Net there are a million names, but apparently only half of them are paid for." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ A revenue stream is not a revenue stream unless it is collected.... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 17:18:08 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:18:08 -0600 Subject: InterNIC 2000 - v1.0 Message-ID: <01BC2F00.FA31BB80@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 9:44 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] wrote: @ > @ > While it is nice to see that the InterNIC has hit the one @ > million domain name mark, and feels it has handled the @ > growth well. There are some things that do not match. @ > For example, people keep hearing reports that the @ > InterNIC is losing money and that ARIN needs to be @ > launched because the InterNIC can not afford to pay @ > for the activity. This does not seem to be what businesses @ > would call a "proven success". @ @ The only place people keep hearing this report is from you, over and @ over again. Your assertion that InterNIC/NSI cannot afford to pay @ for IP registration is false. @ @ Please read the ARIN proposal, it clearly states why ARIN is being proposed. @ Let's look at the comments below...before we get to other people's comments in other forums... "The US government no longer provides funding to the InterNIC" FALSE: January 1997 $74,617 in legal fees $253,300 for domain registrations in .EDU and .GOV "For the past sixteen months the IP allocation functions have been subsidized by domain name registration fees." MISLEADING: The InterNIC is the InterNIC.There is a job to do. Revenues hopefully offset expenses. What about the millions that were poured into the InterNIC prior to domain name charging? Were those "purple dollars" and now domains are paid with "blue dollars" ? Businesses can not take all cost centers and toss them out and only keep the profit centers. The business has to be taken as a whole. Also, Network Solutions, Inc. does private consulting. Someone reported $15,000,000 per year, is that correct? How much of that consulting revenue is a result of the fact that Network Solutions hands out IP addresses ? [1] @@@@ http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html "2. Why is the proposal happening now? The US government no longer provides funding to the InterNIC for handling IP allocation functions. For the past sixteen months the IP allocation functions have been subsidized by domain name registration fees. During the past year, Internet infrastructure meetings and various discussions in the Internet community have reached general consensus that the management of domain names and IP numbers should be separated. The ARIN proposal is an effort to achieve this separation and put the management of IP numbers in the hands of the Internet community." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ According to the above, "general consensus" has been reached. Can you chronicle a history of this with the names of the people and references to where they reached this consensus ? Also, who at the NSF has endorsed ARIN ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Wed Mar 12 17:26:52 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:26:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: <01BC2EE4.FDE81D80@tcsd.k12.ca.us> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Mark Richmond wrote: > All this, of course, leads us back to ARIN. If NSI wants to drop number > assignments, but loses the contract next year, who decides? Do we go > through all this as an exercise, then scrap it when the new regime takes > over? If there is a new regime . . . Nope. Once ARIN takes over IP allocation responsibilities for North America it is permanent unless and until the ARIN members want to change it. The US government has only one slender shred of a connection to this activity now and the creation of ARIN will cleanly snip that connection. After that point, what happens in the National Science Foundation is not terribly relevant to IP allocations. This may seem to be an overly strong statement coming from somone who is not on the BoT, not on the FNC, not affiliated in any way with NSF or any US government activity. But I make this statement based on one single simple fact. IP allocations need to be done based on topology and topology does not pay attention to national borders. Most especially, topology does not pay attention to the US-Canada border. If IP allocations policies are to be primarily based on technical criteria then they must be done in an international venue. This means that the agencies of a single government really have no place at the table other than as observers or as peer participants on equal footing with all other ARIN members. The moment any sort of US government oversight of ARIN is attempted, the whole technical underpinning disappears. IP addresses are now primarily allocated on the basis of national politics. The rules are negotiated in another round of NAFTA negotiations. In the interim, people either start using IPv6, renumber like mad with RFC1918 proxies, or use OSI and X.25 instead of IP. But I think that some fairly senior people in the US government already understand this so there is no real possibility of it happening. What you see now in the media is caused by the fact that the low-level people (politically speaking) like network operators understand why RFC2050 is the way it is and understand why ARIN, APNIC and RIPE NCC are the best way we know how to handle IP allocations for the forseeable future. Some of these people are highly respected at senior levels of the US government for their technical abilities and the people at those senior levels know from fairly direct communications that things like ARIN are the right way to go. However, this stuff has completely bypassed the junior and senior levels of the bureaucracy. Many people within the bureaucracy are only now learning what the Internet is and struggling to understand it. It's not surprising that they are coming to some ludicrously wrong conclusions. But since the senior levels of government already understand the Internet and where it fits into the big picture, these bureacrats have virtually no influence that matters. So I don't think we need to seriously worry about the government stepping in and taking over. If we do a good job at creating ARIN with a fair and workable structure then ARIN will be allowed to do the job it was created to do. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 12 17:42:29 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:42:29 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: At 16:54 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > >If you need some comments to research the situation >before you draw conclusions, I suggest that you >start with.... > >President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore > http://www.whitehouse.gov > >National Science Board (NSB) > http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/nsb.htm ... Please, Jim, can you not repeatedly post the same information? Perhaps a weekly posting of the Fleming documents would suffice for most lists? /John From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Wed Mar 12 17:42:33 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:42:33 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: At 16:59 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to >reclaim rights because of the massive revenue >stream that apparently is NOT being generated...? Given that paying for DNS names is a relatively new concept, I can understand the desire to be somewhat cautious before dropping registrations for lack of payment (I'd certainly be concerned if the long-term intention was to have only a 50% payment rate, but that's unlikely to be the situation). /John p.s. My third post of the day; everyone enjoy the peace (till tomorrow :-) From karl at MCS.NET Wed Mar 12 17:50:34 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:50:34 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: ; from John Curran on Wed, Mar 12, 1997 at 05:42:33PM -0500 References: Message-ID: <19970312165034.23056@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Wed, Mar 12, 1997 at 05:42:33PM -0500, John Curran wrote: > At 16:59 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > > >Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to > >reclaim rights because of the massive revenue > >stream that apparently is NOT being generated...? > > Given that paying for DNS names is a relatively > new concept, I can understand the desire to be > somewhat cautious before dropping registrations > for lack of payment (I'd certainly be concerned > if the long-term intention was to have only a > 50% payment rate, but that's unlikely to be the > situation). > > /John > > p.s. My third post of the day; everyone enjoy > the peace (till tomorrow :-) I'd agree with you if I didn't find 32% of the registrations in COM to have bogus nameservers (ie: NS records for which the NAMESERVER failed to resolve to an IP address!) -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 18:49:18 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:49:18 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2F0D.B6854980@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 4:42 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: @ At 16:59 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ >Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to @ >reclaim rights because of the massive revenue @ >stream that apparently is NOT being generated...? @ @ Given that paying for DNS names is a relatively @ new concept, I can understand the desire to be @ somewhat cautious before dropping registrations @ for lack of payment (I'd certainly be concerned @ if the long-term intention was to have only a @ 50% payment rate, but that's unlikely to be the @ situation). @ John, The issue is not caution about dropping names. The issue is that Network Solutions, Inc. has been working on other projects (like ARIN) and they have not gotten the basics working. Now they are outsourcing much of the work to try to salvage the situation. This situation was predicted months ago. When the InterNIC was started THREE functions were defined, IS, DS, and RS. When the IS company was removed from the picture some of those IS functions had to be shifted to the RS contractor which is Network Systems, Inc. Apparently, the DS contractor, AT&T, did not pick up any extra work because the IS funding was shifted to Network Solutions, Inc. The NSF should have advertised for an IS contractor. Since you have been involved from the beginning maybe you can help describe why the IS company was not replaced. Why did the RS company take on the duties of IS and RS, when they could barely handle RS ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Wed Mar 12 19:59:10 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:59:10 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2F17.78FF93E0@webster.unety.net> On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 8:26 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Mark Richmond wrote: @ @ > All this, of course, leads us back to ARIN. If NSI wants to drop number @ > assignments, but loses the contract next year, who decides? Do we go @ > through all this as an exercise, then scrap it when the new regime takes @ > over? If there is a new regime . . . @ @ Nope. Once ARIN takes over IP allocation responsibilities for North @ America it is permanent unless and until the ARIN members want to change @ it. The US government has only one slender shred of a connection to this @ activity now and the creation of ARIN will cleanly snip that connection. @ @ After that point, what happens in the National Science Foundation is not @ terribly relevant to IP allocations. @ @ This may seem to be an overly strong statement coming from somone who is @ not on the BoT, not on the FNC, not affiliated in any way with NSF or any @ US government activity. But I make this statement based on one single @ simple fact. IP allocations need to be done based on topology and topology @ does not pay attention to national borders. Most especially, topology does @ not pay attention to the US-Canada border. If IP allocations policies are @ to be primarily based on technical criteria then they must be done in an @ international venue. This means that the agencies of a single government @ really have no place at the table other than as observers or as peer @ participants on equal footing with all other ARIN members. @ Yes Michael, that is a strong statement from a Canadian with apparently no concern for: 1. The national defense of the U.S. I prefer not to go into those issues here but I assure you the are #1 and there is a distance before you get to #2...(as shown here) 2. The local civil defense of U.S. communities. IP addresses could easily be handled like community service organization licensing. ISPs could be required be required to have some certification or credentials before they are allocated a block. This may occur as more people's lives depend on the Internet and functions such as 911 move in that direction. 3. World economic development issues which must be dove-tailed with U.S. foreign policies. ARIN can not hope to track these issues and I can not imagine that the U.S. Government wants its citizens and U.S. businesses to discover that it is easier to get IP addresses as a dictator on an island in the Caribbean than as the CEO of an ISP. 4. The intellectual property value of IP addresses to schools, universities, research institutions, etc. 5. The value of the IP Address Registry industry to U.S. citizens in terms of jobs, etc. This along with the domain name registry business is a multi-billion dollar per year industry and the U.S. is not going to allow that to walk away. 6. Fairness issues regarding who gets addresses and who does not. As addresses become scarce and as more people get on-line, issues such as discrimination, EEO, and affirmative action will become more significant. 7. Business issues regarding the EXTRA cost burden placed on a small company that large companies do not incur, when there is address space sitting idle and a new company will cause router entries either way. 8. IRS issues regarding how IP addresses should be handled as assets and how they can be transferred from one organization to another. 9. Prior claims of ownership or grandfathered rights of allocations made to companies that may not be using the resources or want to be taxed on those assets. 10. Current allocations to the U.S. Government and their internal management of IP allocations. 11. Internet II and its addressing needs as well as the evolution of IPv4 to IPv6. @ The moment any sort of US government oversight of ARIN is attempted, the @ whole technical underpinning disappears. IP addresses are now primarily @ allocated on the basis of national politics. The rules are negotiated in @ another round of NAFTA negotiations. In the interim, people either start @ using IPv6, renumber like mad with RFC1918 proxies, or use OSI and X.25 @ instead of IP. @ "U.S. government oversight of ARIN is attempted..." Do you own ARIN ? Are you compensated by Network Solutions, Inc. ? Maybe this should be reversed. Any attempt by ARIN to walk off with the /8s that belong to the U.S. Government, the DOD, and/or the U.S. taxpayers will bring ARIN into a spotlight brightter than anything you probably have ever seen out there in British Columbia. @ But I think that some fairly senior people in the US government already @ understand this so there is no real possibility of it happening. What you @ see now in the media is caused by the fact that the low-level people @ (politically speaking) like network operators understand why RFC2050 @ is the way it is and understand why ARIN, APNIC and RIPE NCC are the best @ way we know how to handle IP allocations for the forseeable future. Some @ of these people are highly respected at senior levels of the US government @ for their technical abilities and the people at those senior levels know @ from fairly direct communications that things like ARIN are the right way @ to go. However, this stuff has completely bypassed the junior and senior @ levels of the bureaucracy. Many people within the bureaucracy are only now @ learning what the Internet is and struggling to understand it. It's not @ surprising that they are coming to some ludicrously wrong conclusions. @ But since the senior levels of government already understand the Internet @ and where it fits into the big picture, these bureacrats have virtually @ no influence that matters. @ Interesting...your comments about the "senior people" in Canada are usually just the opposite. How are you so clued into the "senior people" in the U.S. ? You often seem proud that you do not own a T.V. and live in an isolated area with very few neighbors. As we have seen in the other forums such as the IAHC, the "senior people" in government are not on the Internet and for that matter not even what you call the "junior" levels. Where do you get these visions up there isolated in Canada ? @ So I don't think we need to seriously worry about the government stepping @ in and taking over. If we do a good job at creating ARIN with a fair and @ workable structure then ARIN will be allowed to do the job it was created @ to do. @ You obviously have a very different picture of the real world. That is easy to do, when the Internet is your main source of information. I have a feeling we will be revisting your above comments as well as others, before the people of the U.S. make some important decisions about #1 to #11 above. As in past forums, I recommend that you work with the "senior people" in Canada to make sure they have your input. Those will likely be the people down the road who will have to work with the U.S. on coordinating on some of #1 to #11. I have a feeling they have many of the same issues and do not put technical topology at the top of a list with only one item. Your gross oversimplification of these complex problems will not likely play well in Canada and I can certainly tell you that it will not get far down here in the U.S. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Thu Mar 13 11:43:49 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:43:49 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: At 18:49 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >On Wednesday, March 12, 1997 4:42 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM] wrote: >@ At 16:59 3/12/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >@ >@ >Has it occurred to you that the NSF may have to >@ >reclaim rights because of the massive revenue >@ >stream that apparently is NOT being generated...? >@ >@ Given that paying for DNS names is a relatively >@ new concept, I can understand the desire to be >@ somewhat cautious before dropping registrations >@ for lack of payment (I'd certainly be concerned >@ if the long-term intention was to have only a >@ 50% payment rate, but that's unlikely to be the >@ situation). >@ > >John, > >The issue is not caution about dropping names. >The issue is that Network Solutions, Inc. has been >working on other projects (like ARIN) and they >have not gotten the basics working. >... Jim, I've been trying to stay out of the DNS registry discussion as I don't see it as relevant, but alas, you've succeeeded in drawing a response. Your assumption above ("NSI has been working on other things, like ARIN, and hence hasn't gotten the basics working") is so far out of touch with reality that it can't go unanswered. I'm certain there are things that could be done better in the current DNS operations at the InterNIC (remember, I get to use this service fairly frequently in the course of adding new customers), but frankly, it works. I know that they sent out lengthy lists of domains that were unpaid and subject to removal; there is not an issue with knowing what to do, only how to phase in payments for these domains to an Internet community which has in the past received these services for free. Do I think that improvements can be made in the DNS registration services? Yes (particularly in the area of ongoing DNS integrity). Would the eDNS folks or those who offer services as a result of IAHC do a better job overall? I don't know. Am I trying to stay open-minded since I haven't yet had the time to research the situation thoroughly? Yes. >This situation was predicted months ago. When >the InterNIC was started THREE functions were >defined, IS, DS, and RS. There was an NSF review panel which assessed the performance of the InterNIC overall and by the specific contractors. I believe this led to changes in the award tasking, but as I was not involved, this is entirely supposition on my part. Before leaping to conclusions about the IS phaseout, you might want to hunt down the review panel report. I would doubt if the IS change has had any material impact on performance of the other tasking. /John From denny at RNS.NET Thu Mar 13 11:53:04 1997 From: denny at RNS.NET (Douglas Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:53:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: <01BC2F17.78FF93E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: Mr. Fleming > Interesting...your comments about the "senior people" > in Canada are usually just the opposite. > > How are you so clued into the "senior people" in the U.S. ? I have tolerated your rants for more than a month now, and on occasion I have regarded your comments in the fairest light possible. Unfortunately, your endless type-written garbage is insulting to anyone with any knowledge of Internet workings, and you are a destructive, dividing force. I am personally offended that you feel that you know 'The Way' and are hereby granted license to preach 'The Word'. Much to my dismay, I defended your right to have equal input into the process. (Sorry Michael) I am now asking you to act in a way that is both productive and useful, otherwise remove yourself from this list or I will petition your removal from the list owners. -Doug -- Douglas A. Denny denny at rns.net Network Operations Specialist DIRECT: +1 416 443 7941 Rogers Network Services TOLL-FREE: +1 800 267 DATA From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 11:57:07 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:57:07 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2F9D.4B910F20@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 10:43 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ >This situation was predicted months ago. When @ >the InterNIC was started THREE functions were @ >defined, IS, DS, and RS. @ @ There was an NSF review panel which assessed the @ performance of the InterNIC overall and by the @ specific contractors. I believe this led to @ changes in the award tasking, but as I was not @ involved, this is entirely supposition on my part. @ @ Before leaping to conclusions about the IS phaseout, @ you might want to hunt down the review panel report. @ I would doubt if the IS change has had any material @ impact on performance of the other tasking. @ John, I think that you can dispense with words like "leaping" and "capricious". I have read the review panel report many, many times. I have also studied all of the NSF InterNIC documents carefully during the past 16 months. You might be interested to know that the documents used to be easy to find on the InterNIC's web site. Sometime back in the late 1995, the site was reorganized to showcase more of the AT&T presence and the hypertext links to the key documents disappeared from the obvious places and still appear in obscur places. Here is a piece of the review. I think it is very kind to the NSF. Note that the bottom line is that the NSF was advised to hire experts and not to wait 2 years to make a decision. Once again, we are approaching the 2 year mark from the time that charging for domain names heated up, just after SAIC bought NSI. Midterm Evaluation "The InterNIC awards set the precedent of requiring significant self-coordination among a team of awardees, and requiring outreach to other Network Information Centers. The panel suggests that the NSF critically consider whether it is viable to expect significant self-coordination among a team of awardees in future awards. The panel also notes that the NSF's program management was not able to correct GA's problems early on despite excellent efforts by the NSF staff, primarily because the NSF staff were overextended by monitoring at least two major projects (the InterNIC and the NSFNET backbone) at once. The panel recommends that for future large scale efforts in the rapidly changing Internet environment, the NSF should form an ongoing advisory panel of outside experts or employ some external consultants to help manage such cooperative agreements, rather than waiting two years to call for a review." With respect to IS, DS, and RS. I would suggest that you closely study the merits of that InterNIC "model". I have. Also, you might want to ask people at the InterNIC about that model. You might be surprised to find that some do not even know it exists. Why ? Because RS has essentially taken over the entire operation which was not the original intent. That was clearly NSI's recommendation back in 1992. Again, I assume that you have read all of the NSF InterNIC documents. "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to a single contractor." The issues at play in these forums are not about the technical differences in domain names and IP addresses. The issues are about the business management of the key Internet resources that companies need to make the "net work". In order to understand those management issues you have to study contracts and agreements and business documents and business management not RFCs. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Thu Mar 13 12:01:58 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:01:58 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:59:10 CST." <01BC2F17.78FF93E0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC2F17.78FF93E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703131701.MAA16876@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:59:10 CST, Jim Fleming said: > Maybe this should be reversed. Any attempt by ARIN > to walk off with the /8s that belong to the U.S. Government, > the DOD, and/or the U.S. taxpayers will bring ARIN into > a spotlight brightter than anything you probably have > ever seen out there in British Columbia. Hmm.. my crock detector went off here. I mean, how could ARIN *POSSIBLY* dare to try such a thing, after the enormous publicity that was created when *FOREIGN ORGANIZATIONS* (to wit, RIPE and APNIC) stole integers and TOOK THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY??? /Valdis (who has never actually seen a 32-bit integer that was stamped "US Government Property - Do Not Duplicate"). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 12:01:27 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:01:27 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2F9D.E6AE8820@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 11:01 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:59:10 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > Maybe this should be reversed. Any attempt by ARIN @ > to walk off with the /8s that belong to the U.S. Government, @ > the DOD, and/or the U.S. taxpayers will bring ARIN into @ > a spotlight brightter than anything you probably have @ > ever seen out there in British Columbia. @ @ Hmm.. my crock detector went off here. @ @ I mean, how could ARIN *POSSIBLY* dare to try such a thing, @ after the enormous publicity that was created when *FOREIGN @ ORGANIZATIONS* (to wit, RIPE and APNIC) stole integers and @ TOOK THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY??? @ @ /Valdis (who has never actually seen a 32-bit integer that was @ stamped "US Government Property - Do Not Duplicate"). @ Can someone identify the ONE /8 that ARIN intends to manage...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 12:14:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:14:17 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2F9F.B1A33520@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 5:53 AM, Douglas Denny[SMTP:denny at rns.net] wrote: @ @ @ I am now asking you to act in a way that is both productive and @ useful, otherwise remove yourself from this list or I will petition your @ removal from the list owners. @ If you do not think that it is productive for U.S. citizens to protect a $5 plus billion dollar Registry Industry then you are mistaken. If the U.S. Government sanctioned and supported InterNIC allows a few vocal Canadians, with apparently zero support from the elected officials in Canada, to shape the Registry Industry and does not take into account some of the factors mentioned, then they are going to be held accountable by U.S. citizens and taxpayers. Again, I suggest that you work with your Canadian government to first establish one InterNIC-like agency. If you like you could follow some of the suggestions of the InterNIC 2000 plan. Until Canada has taken at least those steps, then it is hard to consider your other "petitions". If you do get the U.S. Government's NSF to follow your petitions from Ontario, Canada then please let me know. Thanks for your time... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ROGERS NETWORK SERVICES (RNS2-DOM) 1 Valleybrook Drive Don Mills, Ontario M3B 2S7 Canada Domain Name: RNS.NET Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Oattes, Lee M. (LO11) oattes at RNS.NET +1 416 391 7261 (FAX) +1 416 447 5839 Billing Contact: Tam, Bill (BT358) btam at RCI.ROGERS.COM (416) 443-5457 Record last updated on 14-May-96. Record created on 29-Nov-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS1.RNS.NET 206.222.68.4 NS1.GSL.NET 204.59.144.222 NS2.RNS.NET 24.113.1.5 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 12:48:41 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 11:48:41 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FA4.803AA400@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 10:43 AM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ I've been trying to stay out of the DNS @ registry discussion as I don't see it as @ relevant, but alas, you've succeeeded in @ drawing a response. Your assumption above @ ("NSI has been working on other things, like @ ARIN, and hence hasn't gotten the basics @ working") is so far out of touch with reality @ that it can't go unanswered. @ John, You keep repeating this "technical view" that domain names and IP addresses are different. Please understand that the issues here are not technical. The issues are policy and business related. Just because ARIN has a proposed Board full of technical people, that does not change the issues. The InterNIC is a business...it is a lucrative business... The InterNIC is structured as follows: U.S. Government National Science Foundation (NSF) InterNIC IS - Network Solutions, Inc. DS - AT&T RS - Network Solutions, Inc. Cloning the InterNIC means cloning the IS, DS, RS cooperative structure. Cloning the InterNIC does not mean cloning Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) NSI is a private company that just happens to have some contracts, which expire next year, with the U.S. Government's National Science Foundation (NSF). Network Solutions, Inc. is at . As shown in the following, Network Solutions, Inc. is able to continue its own growth along with other private companies (such as VeriSign) while it has a contract with the NSF. @@@@ http://rs.internic.net/nic-support/nicnews/mar97/shoppingcart.html "Network Solutions, Inc., the company who operates the InterNIC Registration Services, and VeriSign, Inc. have teamed up to make the path to secure Internet transactions much easier. Beginning this month, Network Solutions' customers wanting to establish a secure web site have access to "one-stop shopping" for both domain name registration and a VeriSign server Digital IDSM." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ For people that assume that Network Solutions, Inc. and the InterNIC are one and the same, these sorts of relationships can be confusing. These relationships are not between technical components they are between business units and government agencies. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From michael at MEMRA.COM Thu Mar 13 12:48:25 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:48:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: <01BC2F17.78FF93E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Yes Michael, that is a strong statement from a Canadian > with apparently no concern for: > > 1. The national defense of the U.S. It is in the national defense interests of the USA for the Internet to exist, for it to operate reliably and for all nations to cooperate in managing the infrastructure. Defense is about preventing wars and the escalation that leads up to them. Good communications and strong economic ties between nations are good for the defense of the United States. And Canada. And most other places too. > 3. World economic development issues which must be > dove-tailed with U.S. foreign policies. ARIN > can not hope to track these issues and I can > not imagine that the U.S. Government wants > its citizens and U.S. businesses to discover > that it is easier to get IP addresses as a dictator > on an island in the Caribbean than as the CEO > of an ISP. Under the ARIN plan, the dictator of an island in the Caribbean would have no special status and would have to get IP addresses from his upstream provider just like the high-school kid in Cincinnati who has permission from his parents to put 4 modems in his bedroom and start an ISP. > 5. The value of the IP Address Registry industry to U.S. > citizens in terms of jobs, etc. This along with > the domain name registry business is a > multi-billion dollar per year industry and the > U.S. is not going to allow that to walk away. Then you must support the plan to transfer IP allocation services to ARIN in Fairfax County, VA with the same staff (i.e. jobs) being maintained. > "U.S. government oversight of ARIN is attempted..." > > Do you own ARIN ? > Are you compensated by Network Solutions, Inc. ? No, and no. > Maybe this should be reversed. Any attempt by ARIN > to walk off with the /8s that belong to the U.S. Government, > the DOD, and/or the U.S. taxpayers will bring ARIN into > a spotlight brightter than anything you probably have > ever seen out there in British Columbia. Fortunately ARIN has no such plans. The only group that does appear to have such plans is the one you have recently started. > You often seem proud that you do not own a T.V. and > live in an isolated area with very few neighbors. > Where do you get these visions up there isolated > in Canada ? People who don't watch TV have a lot more time to read. You can learn more about what is going on in the world by reading newspapers and magazines and even some Internet content. Also, we have CBC radio available which is the best information source in the world. > Your gross oversimplification of these complex problems will not likely > play well in Canada and I can certainly tell you that it will not get > far down here in the U.S. When explaining something to people who don't have a lot of background information it is often useful to write a summary that explains the key elements and provides a framework that the details can be plugged in as the reader learns more. There is nothing gross about this. In the future when you are writing messages to put one over on the bureaucrats in the National Science Foundation, it would be nice if you would not include us in the address list since we are smart enough to know that you are intended to mislead, not to inform. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Thu Mar 13 13:28:13 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:28:13 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: At 11:57 3/13/97, Jim Fleming wrote: > >Here is a piece of the review. I think it is very kind >to the NSF. Note that the bottom line is that the NSF >was advised to hire experts and not to wait 2 years to >make a decision. Hiring outside consultants to manage a complex, multi-party award seems to make perfect sense (although I have no idea what it has to do with the discussion of ARIN on this list.) ARIN will be one entity, complete with dedicated mgmt and an advisory committee to guide it. This is a very different situation than the past triad of InterNIC awardees. I do believe you're advocating to reproduce the multi-awardee management challenge 10 or more times with your plan, no? Do you know how many consultants will be necessary to provide the recommended oversight? >With respect to IS, DS, and RS. I would >suggest that you closely study the merits >of that InterNIC "model". I have. I'm very familiar with it, and don't see how it applies in the least. Frankly, I prefer that critical Internet funcions be performed by a single organization in straightforward manner rather than multiple interlocking awards and the coordination/management issues that result. >Again, I assume that you have read all of the >NSF InterNIC documents. > > "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met > most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to > a single contractor." >... >In order to understand those management issues >you have to study contracts and agreements and >business documents and business management >not RFCs. Absolutely. It helps even more if you'd read them when they first came out and had sufficient background on the circumstances when they were written (for example, several of the information services bidders submitted individual proposals which had them doing the majority of the tasks _and_ then also participated in one or more team proposals). BBN was in some (as we ran the NNSC at the time) and I heard that some of the commerical ISP's of that day had submitted some interesting options. I've never heard of a Unety or Fleming proposal, but they only tend to release those which are awarded. No need to worry - I've both read and written these documents in addition to RFCs. Are you really going to advocate a structure (IS, DS, RS) of which you only have second-hand knowledge? You have a tendency to include text (such as the NSI proposal above) showing a remarkable lack of context. /John p.s. Apologies to all; take comfort in the fact that there's only 1 more message (from me :-) today. From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 13:37:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 12:37:17 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FAB.49EFD9E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 12:28 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran at bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ At 11:57 3/13/97, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ >Here is a piece of the review. I think it is very kind @ >to the NSF. Note that the bottom line is that the NSF @ >was advised to hire experts and not to wait 2 years to @ >make a decision. @ @ Hiring outside consultants to manage a complex, @ multi-party award seems to make perfect sense @ (although I have no idea what it has to do with @ the discussion of ARIN on this list.) @ As I have said, ARIN could be one of the 10. There is a need in the Northeast area of the U.S. for some group to step in. I think the Fairfax County Virginia area is already covered. @ ARIN will be one entity, complete with dedicated @ mgmt and an advisory committee to guide it. This @ is a very different situation than the past triad of @ InterNIC awardees. I do believe you're advocating @ to reproduce the multi-awardee management challenge @ 10 or more times with your plan, no? Do you know @ how many consultants will be necessary to provide @ the recommended oversight? @ The NSF would NOT be doing the oversight... Please read the proposal... Also, as the Internet expands, more people will be needed and will be involved. Now, you might not personally know all of those people or have approved them in advance, but no one can solve that problem. @ >With respect to IS, DS, and RS. I would @ >suggest that you closely study the merits @ >of that InterNIC "model". I have. @ @ I'm very familiar with it, and don't see how it @ applies in the least. Frankly, I prefer that @ critical Internet funcions be performed by a single @ organization in straightforward manner rather @ than multiple interlocking awards and the @ coordination/management issues that result. @ John, You are a smart guy, please try to be objective. Take any critical resource in the universe and look at how it is first distributed to regions of the world and then to groups of people that can manage the resources. You are trying to use the model of the diamond mines of South Africa and the Dutch distribution centers and the New York outlets. I hate to tell you but that model is no longer in vogue. @ >Again, I assume that you have read all of the @ >NSF InterNIC documents. @ > @ > "Network Solutions believes NSF's objectives will be met @ > most effectively by the award of the bulk of the services to @ > a single contractor." @ >... @ >In order to understand those management issues @ >you have to study contracts and agreements and @ >business documents and business management @ >not RFCs. @ @ Absolutely. It helps even more if you'd read them when @ they first came out and had sufficient background on the @ circumstances when they were written (for example, several @ of the information services bidders submitted individual @ proposals which had them doing the majority of the tasks @ _and_ then also participated in one or more team proposals). Fine... @ BBN was in some (as we ran the NNSC at the time) and I @ heard that some of the commerical ISP's of that day had @ submitted some interesting options. I've never heard @ of a Unety or Fleming proposal, but they only tend to @ release those which are awarded. No need to worry - @ I've both read and written these documents in addition @ to RFCs. @ Ahhh...this is great...thanks for the view... BBN was there first and that is all that matters... By the way...I have no "Curran proposals" in my files... what does that prove ?...nothing.... @ Are you really going to advocate a structure (IS, DS, RS) @ of which you only have second-hand knowledge? You have a @ tendency to include text (such as the NSI proposal above) @ showing a remarkable lack of context. @ How do you know what "knowledge" I have...? You do not even know me... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM Thu Mar 13 14:40:32 1997 From: jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:40:32 -0500 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: At 13:37 3/13/97, Jim Fleming wrote: >You are a smart guy, please try to be objective. I am trying to be objective, even to the point of engaging in reasoned discourse with you despite the pleadings of many mailing list readers to simply ignore your email. I feel you may have the seed of an important idea in all this, but I can't tell for sure since you fail to actually respond on the topic whenever someone raises concerns with your suggestions. >Take any critical resource in the universe and look >at how it is first distributed to regions of the world >and then to groups of people that can manage >the resources. > >You are trying to use the model of the diamond >mines of South Africa and the Dutch distribution >centers and the New York outlets. Incorrect. I've advocated distribution of the allocation structure as a desirable outcome on occasions. The most recent one was: - Actually, I prefer distributed solutions, and think we - can get there eventually. The only real question seems - to be with respect to the topmost structure where I'd - like to see an entity which actually practices stewardship - of the IPv4 address space. Please do not ascribe positions to me at random... In the past, you've indicated that the technical concerns raised were not a top priority and now you've failed to address the very serious management concerns with your own proposal. If you should generate an updated proposal with far more substance in these areas, I remain available to review it. /John p.s. G'night all (three messages a day keeps procmail away... :-) From chris at NAP.NET Thu Mar 13 14:43:07 1997 From: chris at NAP.NET (Chris A. Icide) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:43:07 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FB4.7C551220@Mallard.nap.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 12:37 PM Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] wrote: |@ Are you really going to advocate a structure (IS, DS, RS) |@ of which you only have second-hand knowledge? You have a |@ tendency to include text (such as the NSI proposal above) |@ showing a remarkable lack of context. |@ | |How do you know what "knowledge" I have...? | |You do not even know me... You, know, Jim, you may have hit on the big problem here. As much as the Internet is a virtual community, it is a community of human beings. In my past, I have been a part of several other industries, and I found out one thing the hard way. There is no such thing as total objectivity where more than two people interact to perform some function. Humans tend to impart some level of emotion into every decision they make, whether it's intentional or not. For example, Lets say I'm a customer who has submitted some time of RFQ. Vendor A, B, and C have responded to my RFQ. I have attended many social events, and have met both the sales and engineering folks from vendor A. I've chatted with the sales folks and an engineer from vendor B over the phone and e-mail, and finally, I've just traded coorespondance with vendor C's engineering department. If the quality of the responses are the same, I will be heavily inclined to reccommend the product from vendor A. Human beings are social critters by instinct. I propose that you have such a rough time listening/respecting your views for several reasons, including, but not limited to the following: 1. You tend to hold opinions that are in contradiction with the recognized experts (a business / political decision on your part which I have no thoughts or opinions on, one way or another) 2. You have not been present or vocal at the meetings of NANOG / IETF, etc. 3. Many of your posts, taken together, tend to give the reader the idea that you believe some type of conspiracy exists. Whether or not this is true, it tends to belittle your opinions in others eyes. 4. Finally, your posts number in the hundreds if not thousands on a particular subject, resulting in people not reading, if not filtering your posts. Disclaimer: I am in no way an expert on human interactions, except as a member of the human race. This post represents my opinions formed from spending a few years as a human being on this planet. Please do not take the content of this post in any other form. Chris A. Icide From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 14:27:26 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:27:26 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FB2.4BD27860@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 3:48 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ > Yes Michael, that is a strong statement from a Canadian @ > with apparently no concern for: @ > @ > 1. The national defense of the U.S. @ @ It is in the national defense interests of the USA for the Internet to @ exist, for it to operate reliably and for all nations to cooperate in @ managing the infrastructure. Defense is about preventing wars and the @ escalation that leads up to them. Good communications and strong economic @ ties between nations are good for the defense of the United States. And @ Canada. And most other places too. @ [agreed] That is why these matters are being handled by government officials. Can you direct people to the officials or agencies in Canada that would be addressing these issues? I understand the Canadian Department of Communications no longer exists or has been combined with some other agency. Any help that you can provide would I am sure be useful to the U.S. Government officials that are working in these areas. The Canadian situation has been hard to track. Canada appeared to be on the road to building Internet infrastructure but then turned back several months ago when it closed its IP Adddress Allocation facility. It is too bad that this set back occurred. @ > 3. World economic development issues which must be @ > dove-tailed with U.S. foreign policies. ARIN @ > can not hope to track these issues and I can @ > not imagine that the U.S. Government wants @ > its citizens and U.S. businesses to discover @ > that it is easier to get IP addresses as a dictator @ > on an island in the Caribbean than as the CEO @ > of an ISP. @ @ Under the ARIN plan, the dictator of an island in the Caribbean would have @ no special status and would have to get IP addresses from his upstream @ provider just like the high-school kid in Cincinnati who has permission @ from his parents to put 4 modems in his bedroom and start an ISP. @ Who does the ARIN plan favor ? Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked up and said hello. BTW, since you post from "memra.com", you might be interested to know that some U.S. Government officials "think" that a company using a .COM domain is a U.S. based company. They have been mislead that Canadian companies use .CA and that the Internet is all very orderly to prevent the potential problems you describe above. Some people would like to see .COM restricted to U.S. companies. If this does not occur, then the TLDs become rather meaningless and we might as well have companies that sell fish nets registering in .NET and more web sites such as http://this.is/the_ultimate_URL from Iceland. The point ? As the Internet expands, it is important to educate everyone that domain names can not be used to verify anything and Government officials have to return to some of their traditional decision making tools because I do not think that some countries want just any old body walking in to help them organize their Internet infrastructure. Most countries prefer to invite people for those roles. @ > 5. The value of the IP Address Registry industry to U.S. @ > citizens in terms of jobs, etc. This along with @ > the domain name registry business is a @ > multi-billion dollar per year industry and the @ > U.S. is not going to allow that to walk away. @ @ Then you must support the plan to transfer IP allocation services to ARIN @ in Fairfax County, VA with the same staff (i.e. jobs) being maintained. @ No, if you have read the InterNIC 2000 information you will see that the proposal is to clone 10 Regional InterNICs in the U.S. before September 1998. The current InterNIC in Fairfax County Virginia would become the InterNIC for Region III in September of 1998. The Regions are based on the SBA Regions and are shown below: Region I - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont ... Region II - New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands ... Region III - Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia ... Region IV - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee ... Region V - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin ... Region VI - Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ... Region VII - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska ... Region VIII - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming ... Region IX - Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada ... Region X - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington =============================================== As a side note, ARIN is a waste of tax payers money and I am not sure why you spend so much time dropping in from Canada to try to organize it and to help develop the web site. I also do not understand why the ISP/C, an IRS approved non-profit U.S. company organized in the State of Minnesota has apparently followed your advice [as one of their Board members] to follow ARIN. Have you ever considered applying for U.S. Citizenship? =============================================== @ > "U.S. government oversight of ARIN is attempted..." @ > @ > Do you own ARIN ? @ > Are you compensated by Network Solutions, Inc. ? @ @ No, and no. @ @ > Maybe this should be reversed. Any attempt by ARIN @ > to walk off with the /8s that belong to the U.S. Government, @ > the DOD, and/or the U.S. taxpayers will bring ARIN into @ > a spotlight brightter than anything you probably have @ > ever seen out there in British Columbia. @ @ Fortunately ARIN has no such plans. The only group that does appear to @ have such plans is the one you have recently started. @ Which /8 does ARIN propose to manage ? @ > You often seem proud that you do not own a T.V. and @ > live in an isolated area with very few neighbors. @ @ > Where do you get these visions up there isolated @ > in Canada ? @ @ People who don't watch TV have a lot more time to read. You can learn more @ about what is going on in the world by reading newspapers and magazines @ and even some Internet content. Also, we have CBC radio available which is @ the best information source in the world. @ Great...if you ever get a chance to watch any of the C-SPAN channels you might note that many of these same issues being debated here are being discussed there by live people who make real decisions. @ > Your gross oversimplification of these complex problems will not likely @ > play well in Canada and I can certainly tell you that it will not get @ > far down here in the U.S. @ @ When explaining something to people who don't have a lot of background @ information it is often useful to write a summary that explains the key @ elements and provides a framework that the details can be plugged in as @ the reader learns more. There is nothing gross about this. @ Yes...and as I said above, those same people might also not understand that people writing from .COM domains are not U.S. Citizens. Now, they might assume that most people would be polite and only comment on government decisions where they have been invited, as people in the U.S. Government have discoverd, these basic social skills are not wide-spread on the Internet. As a result, it is a shame that input from U.S. citizens is now highly discounted and in some cases thrown out. U.S. citizens must still use the traditional communication tools to get things done. @ In the future when you are writing messages to put one over on the @ bureaucrats in the National Science Foundation, it would be nice if you @ would not include us in the address list since we are smart enough to @ know that you are intended to mislead, not to inform. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ Who is us....? the Canadian Government....? ...the ISP/C....? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 14:57:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:57:35 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FB6.82168AC0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 1:43 PM, Chris A. Icide[SMTP:chris at nap.net] wrote: @ @ I propose that you have such a rough time listening/respecting your views for several @ reasons, including, but not limited to the following: @ Do you mean getting "other people" to listen and respect ? If so, let me point out that the Internet is not where non-technical decisions are being made. Most of the interchanges on the Internet are..."for the record", historical notes and time stamps. I always find it humerous in Internet debates that Internet regulars will point to one product or service or new idea and diminish it by claiming that it has small market share. They forget that the Internet has a small market share and most of the people in the world do not have access and many who do could care less. It would be nice if this were not the case, but as we see with a simple topic like ARIN and the more complex issues of IP Address Management, the people making the decisions are simply not here. The ARIN Board is not even here. The vast majority of people are still using the old-shool, and costly approaches of flying around the world, and phoning around the world to lobby for their support. In the end, those are the people that will triumph because they have the resources to take those flights and to make those calls. It is called economic discrimination. In summary, the net has not changed the world yet. The Internet has a very small market share when it comes to the decision makers. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From kimh at internic.net Thu Mar 13 17:32:16 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:32:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: <01BC2FB6.82168AC0@webster.unety.net> from "Jim Fleming" at Mar 13, 97 01:57:35 pm Message-ID: <199703132232.RAA24402@jazz.internic.net> > > It would be nice if this were not the case, but as we see > with a simple topic like ARIN and the more complex issues > of IP Address Management, the people making the decisions > are simply not here. The ARIN Board is not even here. The ARIN Board is here. Just because they choose not to reply to your hundreds of rambling emails does not mean they are not paying attention to what everyone else is saying. -Kim > > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > From dennis at JNX.COM Thu Mar 13 21:41:27 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:41:27 -0800 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 13:27:26 CST." <01BC2FB2.4BD27860@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703140241.SAA15702@skank.jnx.com> > The Canadian situation has been hard to track. Canada appeared > to be on the road to building Internet infrastructure but then > turned back several months ago when it closed its IP Adddress > Allocation facility. It is too bad that this set back occurred. I supervised the group where this function was done in its initial stages and I think the experience was actually a good lesson about the problems of trying to distribute the task of IP address allocation too thinly. IP address allocation, like similar functions (the North American Numbering Plan, and perhaps radio spectrum allocation, come to mind) is better done centrally since by nature it is a relatively low volume activity but requires a fairly high level of technical effort to coordinate. Canada, being only 1/10th the size of the US and even a smaller fraction of the size of Europe and Asia, was perhaps the best experience we've had in understanding how IP address allocation benefits from the economies of scale of centralization. I am sorry you have been unable to track this, I know the benefit of experience is hard to acquire from mailing lists and web pages. Since you lack IP address allocation experience yourself it is perhaps less clear to you why centralization of this particular function serves to optimize the service. I do notice that you've confused `building Internet infrastructure' with IP address allocation, however, so maybe I can help you clear this up. Building Internet infrastructure is something that many companies and organizations do, even in Canada, and is indeed an activity of fundamental economic importance, often requiring large investments, which must be encouraged, stimulated and provided the support necessary to maximize successes. Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers we can use have already been built), their only function is to provide a service (only one of many required) in support of those organizations which do build the infrastructure. This may be hard to understand, but the distinction is important. You need to look at the big picture. The activity which is important here is building Internet infrastructure. The cost of IP address allocation is, or should be, just minor overhead in terms of the total cost of constructing a really large Internet, both locally and world wide. But while IP address allocation is not a large task in the scheme of things it is extremely important that the task be performed very well, since the ultimate size to which we can grow the Internet, and reap the benefits from having a very large Internet, are highly dependent on the skill with which this small service is performed. In other words, the economic benefit to the U.S. of having just one very skilled IP address allocation registry located on a beach in Tobago will far exceed that of having 100 address registries in the 100 largest U.S. cities, none of which are very good since they can't get enough practice. I think that many government people who understand the bigger picture, as well as infrastructure builders who need this service performed, know this very well, which is why many see central allocation under the control of the infrastructure builders who depend on the function as being optimally good for the industry. > Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government > people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked > up and said hello. This is true. But this is why many U.S. Government people turn to those who do have experience, and who do understand, to help them find the best path to follow. I think this has happened in this case. Dennis Ferguson P.S. I never did see your answer to this question: >Message-Id: >Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:27:08 -0500 >To: Jim Fleming >From: John Curran >Subject: RE: ARIN Comments >Cc: "'naipr at arin.net'" > >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 Thu Mar 13 22:40:42 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:40:42 -0600 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? Message-ID: <01BC2FF7.3415C200@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 8:41 PM, Dennis Ferguson[SMTP:dennis at jnx.com] wrote: @ > The Canadian situation has been hard to track. Canada appeared @ > to be on the road to building Internet infrastructure but then @ > turned back several months ago when it closed its IP Adddress @ > Allocation facility. It is too bad that this set back occurred. @ @ I supervised the group where this function was done in its initial @ stages and I think the experience was actually a good lesson about @ the problems of trying to distribute the task of IP address @ allocation too thinly. IP address allocation, like similar functions @ (the North American Numbering Plan, and perhaps radio spectrum allocation, @ come to mind) is better done centrally since by nature it is a @ relatively low volume activity but requires a fairly high level of @ technical effort to coordinate. Canada, being only 1/10th the size @ of the US and even a smaller fraction of the size of Europe and Asia, @ was perhaps the best experience we've had in understanding how IP @ address allocation benefits from the economies of scale of @ centralization. @ Should RIPE and APNIC be pulled back to the U.S. ? @ I am sorry you have been unable to track this, I know the benefit @ of experience is hard to acquire from mailing lists and web pages. @ Since you lack IP address allocation experience yourself it is perhaps @ less clear to you why centralization of this particular function serves to @ optimize the service. @ :-) @ I do notice that you've confused `building Internet infrastructure' @ with IP address allocation, however, so maybe I can help you clear @ this up. Building Internet infrastructure is something that many @ companies and organizations do, even in Canada, and is indeed an activity @ of fundamental economic importance, often requiring large investments, which @ must be encouraged, stimulated and provided the support necessary to @ maximize successes. Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the @ other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers @ we can use have already been built), their only function is to provide @ a service (only one of many required) in support of those organizations @ which do build the infrastructure. @ Confused "building Internet infrastructure"...? above you state... "Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers we can use have already been built)," This appears to imply that building infrastructure for you means building integers and you claim above that many companies are building Internet infrastructure... "even in Canada"...yet all integers have been built... below you state... "The activity which is important here is building Internet infrastructure." and then you go on to make comments about the total cost of constructing a really large Internet and point out that "IP address allocation is not a large task" In summary...you seem to be saying Many companies build Internet Infrastrusture... and it is an important task... Organizations that alllocate IPs perform a small simple task and are not part of building Internet Infrastructure... All integers have been built (whatever that means)... therefore no infrastructure needs to be built... yet many companies are doing it and it is important... And you are claiming I am confused...? @ This may be hard to understand, but the distinction is important. You @ need to look at the big picture. The activity which is important here @ is building Internet infrastructure. The cost of IP address allocation @ is, or should be, just minor overhead in terms of the total cost of @ constructing a really large Internet, both locally and world wide. But @ while IP address allocation is not a large task in the scheme of things @ it is extremely important that the task be performed very well, since the @ ultimate size to which we can grow the Internet, and reap the benefits @ from having a very large Internet, are highly dependent on the skill with @ which this small service is performed. @ @ In other words, the economic benefit to the U.S. of having just one very @ skilled IP address allocation registry located on a beach in Tobago will @ far exceed that of having 100 address registries in the 100 largest U.S. @ cities, none of which are very good since they can't get enough practice. @ I think that many government people who understand the bigger picture, as @ well as infrastructure builders who need this service performed, know this @ very well, which is why many see central allocation under the control of @ the infrastructure builders who depend on the function as being optimally @ good for the industry. @ I am suggesting 10 registries to start not 100... @ > Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government @ > people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked @ > up and said hello. @ @ This is true. But this is why many U.S. Government people turn to those @ who do have experience, and who do understand, to help them find the best @ path to follow. I think this has happened in this case. @ Who would those U.S. Government people be...? Who are the experienced people they have turned to...? Also, are you saying that the Canadian Government has no interest in being involved in this aspect of the Registry Industry ? @ Dennis Ferguson @ @ P.S. I never did see your answer to this question: @ I answered it and I will answer it again... @ >Message-Id: @ >Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:27:08 -0500 @ >To: Jim Fleming @ >From: John Curran @ >Subject: RE: ARIN Comments @ >Cc: "'naipr at arin.net'" @ > @ >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 @ @ Answer: I am certain that where there are business opportunities properly educated business people will recognize these opportunities and will not throttle themselves just because they think some aspect of the industry is "sufficiently large". The question basically sounds like someone saying, "haven't the DNS pirates stolen enough? Do you really have to steal our small out of the way IP Address Allocation business ?"....please leave us alone... If that is what was intended then I would point out that business people do not feel like they are stealing anything. The U.S. taxpayers funded many of the Internet developments and without commercial additions such as C, UNIX, DOS, Windows, modems, T1s, LANs, integrated circuits, disk drives, video displays and graphics adapters, the Internet would not exist. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 22:56:04 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:56:04 -0600 Subject: NSI and Compuserve, MCI, Netcom, etc. Sign Agreements Message-ID: <01BC2FF9.598FF4E0@webster.unety.net> How does this impact ARIN...? > LOS ANGELES, March 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Solutions, Inc. today > announced the initiation of the Premier Domain Registration Service program > that will greatly speed the registration process for participating Internet > Service Providers and their end-users. Network Solutions provides Internet > name registration in .com, .org, .net, .edu and .gov domains and for Internet > Protocol (IP) addresses. CompuServe, Earthlink, iServer, MCI, MindSpring, > Netcom Interactive, Rapidsite, SuperNet, Inc. and TIAC have all signed > agreements with Network Solutions providing for greater customer services and > support in domain name registration in the .com, .org and .net domains. NSI's > offering is the only domain registration service guaranteeing all new > registrations and modification updates within one business day, global updates > within two business days and around-the-clock account services. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From JimFleming at unety.net Thu Mar 13 23:48:40 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:48:40 -0600 Subject: NSI Press Release Message-ID: <01BC3000.B2EDE680@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 9:51 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl at MCS.Net] wrote: @ On Thu, Mar 13, 1997 at 10:35:03PM -0500, iquest1 at mindspring.com wrote: @ > @ > Network Solutions and Leading ISPs Launch Premier Domain Registration Program @ > @ @ Well, besides being false (we guarantee updates and entries with SIX HOURS), @ this should pretty much slam the door on anyone who believed that NSI had @ any intention of giving up their registry next year. @ I thought the following quotes sort of summarized everything.... "ISPs will have direct connection to Network Solutions' Domain Registration Service, known as the InterNIC, that will provide for the ISP's exclusive registration in .com, .org and .net domains." "known as the InterNIC"....? "As the pioneering registrar for .com, .net, .org, .edu and .gov, Network Solutions has registered more than one million domain names, and manages the allocation of all Internet Protocol addresses in the Americas." "all Internet Protocol addresses"...? Hmmm....I have to check our records, I do not think they paid for "all" of the IPv4 space yet...;-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From dennis at JNX.COM Fri Mar 14 00:55:33 1997 From: dennis at JNX.COM (Dennis Ferguson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:55:33 -0800 Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:40:42 CST." <01BC2FF7.3415C200@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703140555.VAA17312@skank.jnx.com> > @ technical effort to coordinate. Canada, being only 1/10th the size > @ of the US and even a smaller fraction of the size of Europe and Asia, > @ was perhaps the best experience we've had in understanding how IP > @ address allocation benefits from the economies of scale of > @ centralization. > @ > > Should RIPE and APNIC be pulled back to the U.S. ? RIPE and APNIC seem to have large enough consituencies to achieve efficient and skilled operations. Regions 1/10th the size of the U.S. do not seem to. > @ I do notice that you've confused `building Internet infrastructure' > @ with IP address allocation, however, so maybe I can help you clear > @ this up. Building Internet infrastructure is something that many > @ companies and organizations do, even in Canada, and is indeed an activity > @ of fundamental economic importance, often requiring large investments, which > @ must be encouraged, stimulated and provided the support necessary to > @ maximize successes. Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the > @ other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers > @ we can use have already been built), their only function is to provide > @ a service (only one of many required) in support of those organizations > @ which do build the infrastructure. > @ > > Confused "building Internet infrastructure"...? > above you state... > "Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the > other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all > (all the integers we can use have already been built)," > This appears to imply that building infrastructure for > you means building integers and you claim above that > many companies are building Internet infrastructure... > "even in Canada"...yet all integers have been built... > > below you state... > "The activity which is important here is building Internet > infrastructure." > and then you go on to make comments about the total > cost of constructing a really large Internet and point out > that "IP address allocation is not a large task" I warned you that this was difficult to understand, but that the distinction was important. > In summary...you seem to be saying > Many companies build Internet Infrastrusture... > and it is an important task... Yes. > Organizations that alllocate IPs perform a > small simple task and are not part > of building Internet Infrastructure... No, actually I said that organizations which allocate IP addresses perform a small, complex task which does not involve building infrastructure, but which instead is a service that those who do build infrastructure require to be done well. > All integers have been built (whatever that means)... > therefore no infrastructure needs to be built... ... by those who allocate IP addresses. The infrastructure will by built by those they serve, but the infrastructure will not grow quickly and to a large size if the IP address allocation function is not performed with skill, and cost effectively. > yet many companies are doing it and it is > important... Yes. Except the companies which build infrastructure are not those which allocate IP addresses. > And you are claiming I am confused...? You seem to be. I hope this has helped. > @ In other words, the economic benefit to the U.S. of having just one very > @ skilled IP address allocation registry located on a beach in Tobago will > @ far exceed that of having 100 address registries in the 100 largest U.S. > @ cities, none of which are very good since they can't get enough practice. > @ I think that many government people who understand the bigger picture, as > @ well as infrastructure builders who need this service performed, know this > @ very well, which is why many see central allocation under the control of > @ the infrastructure builders who depend on the function as being optimally > @ good for the industry. > @ > > I am suggesting 10 registries to start not 100... ... to perform a function which experience suggests will yield maximum benefit to the Internet industry overall if done by just one. You need to look at the bigger picture. > @ > Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government > @ > people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked > @ > up and said hello. > @ > @ This is true. But this is why many U.S. Government people turn to those > @ who do have experience, and who do understand, to help them find the best > @ path to follow. I think this has happened in this case. > @ > > Who would those U.S. Government people be...? > > Who are the experienced people they have turned to...? As you pointed out, many discussions of importance are often not conducted on mailing lists. > Also, are you saying that the Canadian Government has > no interest in being involved in this aspect of the Registry > Industry ? I have no idea what the Canadian government is interested in, but if they are like the U.S. government they will be interested in a solution for IP address allocation which minimizes the cost to, maximizes the benefit to, and which is controlled by, those who use the service in the course of building an ever-larger Internet. Experience so far has shown that having one very small, very good IP address allocation registry for a continent has worked well for this, while an IP address allocation registry for a region 1/10th this size did not. > @ P.S. I never did see your answer to this question: > @ > > I answered it and I will answer it again... I think you actually answered a question about someone stealing something, which I'm pretty sure John didn't ask. Oh well, never mind. Dennis Ferguson From jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET Fri Mar 14 07:43:55 1997 From: jamie at DILBERT.IAGNET.NET (Jamie Rishaw) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 07:43:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: NSI and Compuserve, MCI, Netcom, etc. Sign Agreements In-Reply-To: <01BC2FF9.598FF4E0@webster.unety.net> from Jim Fleming at "Mar 13, 97 09:56:04 pm" Message-ID: <199703141243.HAA01583@dilbert.iagnet.net> > > How does this impact ARIN...? > Basically Compuserve, Earthlink, iServer, MCI, Mindspring, Netcom, etc., each have their own "private" "hostmaster" account for fast registration. It's just for really really big providers with tons and tons of domain add/delete/modify's. I don't see how ARIN is involved? > > LOS ANGELES, March 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Solutions, Inc. today > > announced the initiation of the Premier Domain Registration Service program > > that will greatly speed the registration process for participating Internet > > Service Providers and their end-users. Network Solutions provides Internet > > name registration in .com, .org, .net, .edu and .gov domains and for Internet > > Protocol (IP) addresses. CompuServe, Earthlink, iServer, MCI, MindSpring, > > Netcom Interactive, Rapidsite, SuperNet, Inc. and TIAC have all signed > > agreements with Network Solutions providing for greater customer services and > > support in domain name registration in the .com, .org and .net domains. NSI's > > offering is the only domain registration service guaranteeing all new > > registrations and modification updates within one business day, global updates > > within two business days and around-the-clock account services. > > -- > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation > > e-mail: > JimFleming at unety.net > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > -- jamie g.k. rishaw - Internet Access Group [www.iagnet.net] Corp: (800) 637 4IAG or (216) 623 3565. DID: (216) 902 5455. Personal: jamie@@arpa.com || jamie@@null.net (Remove second @, nonspammers) =) From kimh at internic.net Fri Mar 14 09:42:57 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:42:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: NSI and Compuserve, MCI, Netcom, etc. Sign Agreements In-Reply-To: <199703141243.HAA01583@dilbert.iagnet.net> from "Jamie Rishaw" at Mar 14, 97 07:43:55 am Message-ID: <199703141442.JAA24544@jazz.internic.net> > > > > > How does this impact ARIN...? > > > > Basically Compuserve, Earthlink, iServer, MCI, Mindspring, Netcom, etc., > each have their own "private" "hostmaster" account for fast registration. > > It's just for really really big providers with tons and tons of domain > add/delete/modify's. > > I don't see how ARIN is involved? ARIN is not involved in this, neither is the IP registry section of the InterNIC. Kim > > > > > LOS ANGELES, March 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Solutions, Inc. today > > > announced the initiation of the Premier Domain Registration Service program > > > that will greatly speed the registration process for participating Internet > > > Service Providers and their end-users. Network Solutions provides Internet > > > name registration in .com, .org, .net, .edu and .gov domains and for Internet > > > Protocol (IP) addresses. CompuServe, Earthlink, iServer, MCI, MindSpring, > > > Netcom Interactive, Rapidsite, SuperNet, Inc. and TIAC have all signed > > > agreements with Network Solutions providing for greater customer services and > > > support in domain name registration in the .com, .org and .net domains. NSI's > > > offering is the only domain registration service guaranteeing all new > > > registrations and modification updates within one business day, global updates > > > within two business days and around-the-clock account services. > > > > -- > > Jim Fleming > > Unir Corporation > > > > e-mail: > > JimFleming at unety.net > > JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) > > > > > -- > jamie g.k. rishaw - Internet Access Group [www.iagnet.net] > Corp: (800) 637 4IAG or (216) 623 3565. DID: (216) 902 5455. > Personal: jamie@@arpa.com || jamie@@null.net (Remove second @, nonspammers) =) > From JimFleming at unety.net Fri Mar 14 09:55:07 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:55:07 -0600 Subject: Building Infrastructure Message-ID: <01BC3055.6B31A3E0@webster.unety.net> On Thursday, March 13, 1997 11:55 PM, Dennis Ferguson[SMTP:dennis at JNX.COM] wrote: @ @ Yes. Except the companies which build infrastructure are not those @ which allocate IP addresses. @ It appears that you are defining the notion of "building Internet Infrastructure" to be modem pools, leased lines, routers, servers, etc. Maybe I should have said... building Infrastructure for the emerging Registry Industry (RI)... In my opinion, one of the duties of the InterNIC contractors was (or is) to build additional Infrastructure for the emerging Registry Industry (RI). I guess this is referred to as "Intellectual Infrastructure" by the NSF and the InterNIC (NSI+AT&T) @@@@ "Intellectual Infrastructure Funds ... placed into an interest-bearing account which will be used for the preservation and enhancement of the "Intellectual Infrastructure" of the Internet in general conformance with approved Program Plans." ... "The composition of the Intellectual Infrastructure Advisory Panel, and the general policies and procedures related to that panel are the subject of continuing negotiations between Network Solutions, the National Science Foundation, and representatives of the Internet community." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Does anyone know who is on the "Intellectual Infrastructure Advisory Panel" ? If so, is that posted somewhere ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming at unety.net JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) From denny at RNS.NET Fri Mar 14 10:04:43 1997 From: denny at RNS.NET (Douglas Denny) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:04:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE $50 Million NSF windfall?? In-Reply-To: <199703140555.VAA17312@skank.jnx.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Dennis Ferguson wrote: > > Should RIPE and APNIC be pulled back to the U.S. ? > > RIPE and APNIC seem to have large enough consituencies to achieve > efficient and skilled operations. Regions 1/10th the size of the > U.S. do not seem to. It is incorrect to say that Canada could not support it's own registry. Canada and the US have always had very close working relationships ( Canada is the States' largest trading partner after all), and it was felt that better economies of scale could be realized by utilizing the Internic's resources. ARIN provides a natural extension of this service by attaching a nominal cost associated stable administration of address space. This is not to say that there are people within the Canadian Internet community who feel that having our own Internet Number Registry would be a good thing. > No, actually I said that organizations which allocate IP addresses perform > a small, complex task which does not involve building infrastructure, but > which instead is a service that those who do build infrastructure require > to be done well. Absolutely. BTW Jim, there are large areas of Canada that are very connected. Penetration of Internet service on a per capita basis is extrely high, probably one of the highest in the world, not exactly a rural backwater. Cheers -Doug -- Douglas A. Denny denny at rns.net Network Operations Specialist DIRECT: +1 416 443 7941 Rogers Network Services TOLL-FREE: +1 800 267 DATA From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Mar 23 21:40:45 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:40:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: AS Numbers, website, timing... Message-ID: Could we have RFC 1930 regarding AS numbers added to the Recommended Reading section at ARIN's website as well as a link added for the March archive of the discussion list? Perhaps an April link should be added as well since the list-server software automatically rolls over the archive each month. Also, is the BoT close enough to a budget and/or next draft proposal that someone would be willing to give out a guesstimate of when these will be available for perusal? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From justin at EROLS.COM Sun Mar 23 22:39:04 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:39:04 -0500 Subject: AS Numbers, website, timing... Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970323223902.00fecb1c@justin.erols.com> At 06:40 PM 3/23/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: >Also, is the BoT close enough to a budget and/or next draft proposal that >someone would be willing to give out a guesstimate of when these will >be available for perusal? I think the sky is going to fall, traffic (and on topic traffic even) on the ARIN mailing list. I would like to add a big old AOL "me too" to Michael's request for progress, although I'll broaden my request to include /anything/ that has happened recently. If I remember properly, April was the original target date for ARIN getting started, and while I know that deadlines often get pushed back, it seems that we should be at the point where everything should be just about ready to go. So, whats been going on all? Heck, if we don't hear something soon, we'll have to go start arguing about Domain Names or something (yes, I /am/ kidding). Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From kimh at internic.net Mon Mar 24 14:09:42 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:09:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: AS Numbers, website, timing... In-Reply-To: from "Michael Dillon" at Mar 23, 97 06:40:45 pm Message-ID: <199703241909.OAA00495@jazz.internic.net> > > > Could we have RFC 1930 regarding AS numbers added to the Recommended > Reading section at ARIN's website as well as a link added for the > March archive of the discussion list? Perhaps an April link should be > added as well since the list-server software automatically rolls over the > archive each month. > > Also, is the BoT close enough to a budget and/or next draft proposal that > someone would be willing to give out a guesstimate of when these will > be available for perusal? > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com > Okay, I'll take care of adding the RFC and the links. As for the status of ARIN, there are still a few issues that will need to be resolved before we can proceed. These are political/ financial issues between NSF and NSI. I know we projected an April operational date, obviously we will not be making that. Please be patient with us, while these details are worked out. We need to make sure everything is done right, even if it takes longer than planned. Thanks, Kim From karl at CAVEBEAR.COM Mon Mar 24 15:04:00 1997 From: karl at CAVEBEAR.COM (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:04:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Correcting records Message-ID: It has come to my attention that there may be a lot of bad information in many of the network number "ownership" records. At least some of this has occurred due to database rot under NSI's watch. (One of my records has been amazingly corrupted from at least three sources and NSI has been amazingly unable, as usual, to have a human come on-line to fix it.) Somebody is going to have to expend some money to fix these. --karl-- From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Mar 24 17:19:17 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:19:17 -0600 Subject: Correcting records Message-ID: <01BC386F.1FCEC0A0@webster.unety.net> On Monday, March 24, 1997 6:04 AM, Karl Auerbach[SMTP:karl at CAVEBEAR.COM] wrote: @ @ It has come to my attention that there may be a lot of bad information in @ many of the network number "ownership" records. At least some of this has @ occurred due to database rot under NSI's watch. (One of my records has @ been amazingly corrupted from at least three sources and NSI has been @ amazingly unable, as usual, to have a human come on-line to fix it.) @ @ Somebody is going to have to expend some money to fix these. @ @ --karl-- Please be precise.... NSI == http://www.netsol.com AT&T == http://www.att.com InterNIC == (NSF + AT&T + NSI); As a reminder...here is the structure U.S.Government NSF InterNIC IS - NSI (was GA) DS - AT&T RS - NSI The NSF "manages" the InterNIC via contracts and people assigned (and paid) at the NSF to do that function. In my opinion it is not fair to use the term "NSI" when you really mean the InterNIC. Just because NSI answers the RS phones does not make them the entire InterNIC. The NSI web site has recently been completely redone. Apparently only half of NSI's people work at the InterNIC and you will note that the people in charge at NSI are not the traditional InterNIC people that are under contract to the NSF. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation --- Check out http://Register.A.Mall From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Mar 28 19:15:56 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:15:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: US Federal gov't decides to solve DNS problem - rug pulled out from under NSF - In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970328184924.009a7528@justin.erols.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > Any comments on this? > >In an exclusive interview on March 27 with Don Telage, President of NSI we > >were able to establish, with some degree of precision, that at the end of > >February, the National Science Foundation and Network Solutions had > >reached an agreement in principal to bring the NSF/NSI cooperative > >agreement to a conclusion a year early on April 1, 1997 and to establish > >and fund during a transition period the American Registry for Internet > >Numbers (ARIN) which would have been freed from NSI control on April 1, > >1997. Unfortunately, the administration move to find a fix for DNS > >(discussed later in our full article) caused all forward movement between > >NSI and NSF to cease on Monday March 3. Since then the situation has > >become much more difficult and the freeing of ARIN as part of a package > >deal that was acceptable to both sides at the beginning of March looks far > >less acceptable to to NSI now as a stand alone option. I think a lot of us suspected this was going to happen after the string of messages that Fleming posted about the OIG at the end of January. But it ain't over 'til it's over. I wonder how many other ISP CEO's are writing letters like the one Jim Browning just posted to NANOG... Since federal politics has reared its ugly head here, political solutions and political pressure can be a useful tool which means writing letters and calling politicians in Washington DC, Ottawa, Mexico City, Johannesburg, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Santiago... *sigh* It would have been nice to get the IP allocation issue cleanly separated from DNS but at this point it looks like that will no longer be possible unless international pressure is brought to bear on the situation. Quite frankly I am surprised that the US government with its traditional support for free market solutions would want to meddle in this at all other than to order the NSF to terminate the cooperative agreement and cut Network Solutions free of regulatory control immediately. Since when does the National Science Foundation have the authority to regulate commerce? What does the Department of Commerce think about this issue? Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Fri Mar 28 18:51:48 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:51:48 -0800 Subject: ARIN is A Good Thing Message-ID: <01BC3B8F.F2E3AAA0@jfbb.atmnet.net> This is a public expression of opinion which has also been sent privately to appropriate governmental organizations... ---------- I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet. Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses. Fortunately, there are stark contrasts between the two issues. The DNS debates are filled with rancor and punctuated by alternative efforts and litigation. While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both necessary and appropriate. Old-timers and newcomers have found some common ground. There are of course those who would like to see things taken in a different direction, as there always will be when something of this nature is discussed. There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a lot of work which needs to be done. ATMnet is confident that the people trying to accomplish these tasks have the necessary skills, ethics and standing in the community to get the job done right. There is "rough consensus". There is "running code" in the form of the people and systems currently performing the function, and the two similar entities (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar charters. It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal intervention or oversight. When confronted with change and new alternatives, the appropriate direction to take is not always evident. In this case however, it is clear to ATMnet that ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right thing to do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry. -- Jim Browning CEO, ATMnet From justin at EROLS.COM Fri Mar 28 18:49:25 1997 From: justin at EROLS.COM (Justin W. Newton) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:49:25 -0500 Subject: US Federal gov't decides to solve DNS problem - rug pulled out from under NSF - Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970328184924.009a7528@justin.erols.com> Any comments on this? > > >Clinton Administration Embraces DNS Tar Baby, Magaziner & OMB Responsible > >Action Derails Agreement with Network Solutions & NSF to End >Co-operative Agreement on April 1 1997 > >Ill Considered Move Halts Formation of ARIN IP Registry > >Critics Say Action Deprives IANA of Opportunity for Legal Foundation of >Authority & Endangers Stability of the Internet by Putting IP Numbers at >Risk > >[NOTE: This is the public summary of the page one article for the MAY >1997 Cook Report on Internet. We are releasing it to the internet before >the weekend begins. We hope to publish the complete May issue before the >end of the weekend.] > >Thanks to the meddling of hopefully well meaning folk - Ira Magaziner's >Internet task force at the White House, and an inter agency task force >centered at OMB, we are faced with a potentially dangerous situation for >the Internet. It is no secret how badly the Domain Name System is about to >become fouled up after a year and a half of squabbling among competing >bodies. But what is not broadly understood is that NSI runs the IP >registry for the Western hemisphere and feeds content to the "." dot >servers for the world that are located at NSI but owned by IANA. These >are functions that there is no longer any legitimate reason for the US >government to be involved with. But they are also so critical to the >operation of the Internet that they must be moved very promptly to a >separate and neutral body independent of NSI and one unable to be dragged >"under" by the waves litigation now threatening everyone involved with >Domain Name System. > >After talking with numerous sources familiar with the events of the last >two months, we are convinced that policy coming from the White House has, >inadvertently, put a stop to plans that had moved far enough along so that >the above removal of ARIN's functions from NSI could have happened in a >way that would benefit the world wide Internet community. Fall out from >this action has meant a halt in plans under way that would have - very >shortly - resulted in the establishment of an independent American >Registry for Internet Numbers. The establishment of ARIN also means that >for the first time the operations of the IANA could become >institutionalized and gain a sounder international foundation > >Putting a hold on the establishment of ARIN renders the authority of IANA >more liable to court challenge and leaves the payroll, database, and >control of the IP number registry process in the hands of a commercial >company (NSI) that does the original .com and other global top level >domain name registry for the entire internet world wide. As someone >closely involved with ARIN told us: "The real danger is that numbers are >being subsidized by domain names, and domain names are about to become a >disaster." > >While NSI has shown no signs that it cannot or should not be trusted, it >is improbable that NSF oversight of NSI will extend beyond the current >agreement whereas the need for NSI as a stabilized registry operation in >an impending sea of change in the Domain Name arena will continue. > >Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that NSI will sooner or later be >granted full independence from NSF oversight . When this happens leaving >the power inherent in both the DNS and the ARIN functions in the hands of >a single corporation would be unwise. Also, while one hopes the chances >are small that anything serious will happen to the viability of Network >Solutions, it's DNS database performance during the last half of March has >been horrendous with major names that had already paid being removed from >the root servers for non payment - something that has led to disruption of >service for many entities involved. In the litigious atmosphere that >surrounds this whole environment, Network Solutions will surely be a >target. > >In an exclusive interview on March 27 with Don Telage, President of NSI we >were able to establish, with some degree of precision, that at the end of >February, the National Science Foundation and Network Solutions had >reached an agreement in principal to bring the NSF/NSI cooperative >agreement to a conclusion a year early on April 1, 1997 and to establish >and fund during a transition period the American Registry for Internet >Numbers (ARIN) which would have been freed from NSI control on April 1, >1997. Unfortunately, the administration move to find a fix for DNS >(discussed later in our full article) caused all forward movement between >NSI and NSF to cease on Monday March 3. Since then the situation has >become much more difficult and the freeing of ARIN as part of a package >deal that was acceptable to both sides at the beginning of March looks far >less acceptable to to NSI now as a stand alone option. [Editor's note: we >have here confirmation of the damage that the administration's ill advised >meddling has done. We and, we hope the entire internet, will be watching >closely to see what they do to fix the mess they have created.] > >ARIN will temporarily cover Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. The ARIN >organizers are working with both areas to help them set up their own >regional registries. Then, under the auspices of IANA would be five >registries, AfriNIC, ALyCNIC, APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE. Leaving IP >registration for the western hemisphere and sub-Saharan Africa >indefinitely under the aegis of NSI under the current stressful conditions >does not make sense. If anything disastrous happened to impact the >viability of NSI, IP registration and dot operation could be set up >elsewhere within 48 to 72 hours - if the people and hardware were >available. But during such a transition there would likely be substantial >disruption of Internet service worldwide. Also, during such a move, >assignment of new numbers would not take place and that process would take >longer to get back to normal. > >In a conversation with a White House source on March 25 we found out the >Administration has decided that the Federal government needs to study the >DNS and solve a problem for the Internet community that it has been >otherwise unable to solve for itself. Unfortunately it appears that >Magaziner's group has been listening to the positions that Tony Rutkowski >and the corporate lawyers of the Internet Law and Policy Forum have been >promoting both on the network and off line. The source maintains that the >inter-agency task force is unaware that in grabbing the DNS tar baby it >also has grabbed and derailed - for the time being - ARIN. > >In derailing ARIN the group is undertaking actions that pose some risk to >the stable operation of the internet world wide. That stability can be >ensured only by the resumption of swift action to resume the establishment >of ARIN and, in the face of a likely onslaught of DNS related lawsuits, >and to create a Global Council of IP Registries, to internationalize the >IANA, with members taken initially from the three regional registries; >European (Ripe), the American (ARIN) and the Asian (APNIC) IP registries; >and other regional registries added as they develop. > > >************************************************************************ >The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ >Internet: cook at cookreport.com For NEW study: EVOLVING INTER- >NET INFRASTRUCTURE, 222 page Handbook http://pobox.com/cook/evolving.html >************************************************************************ > > > >============================== ISP Mailing List ============================== >Email ``unsubscribe'' to inet-access-request at earth.com to be removed. >PLEASE READ THE FAQ ON http://www.amazing.com/internet/ BEFORE POSTING. > > Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services ISP/C Director at Large From michael at MEMRA.COM Fri Mar 28 21:16:38 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:16:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN can still be saved. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > But it ain't over 'til it's over. I wonder how many other ISP CEO's are > writing letters like the one Jim Browning just posted to NANOG... > > Since federal politics has reared its ugly head here, political solutions > and political pressure can be a useful tool which means writing letters > and calling politicians in Washington DC, Well, I decided to make some inquiries and I have discovered a significant person in Washington DC who is assessing the NSF/NSI situation. Because of the danger of making email addresses publicly known on the net (SPAM, etc.) I will not reveal this person's identity. However, I am willing to relay an email message from any of the companies on this list, preferably from the CEO, to that person and they may well contact you for more information. I ask only that the letters be polite and that you fully identify yourself name, job title, company, city, state, phone number and fax number to facilitate future contact by the Washington folks. Since this does involve politics I feel it is important that the messages of support come from senior management levels in the company and that the full identification be available. In particular, politicians care very strongly about the city and state, while many Internet users make that info hard to track down. > Ottawa, Mexico City, > Johannesburg, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Santiago... Maybe we can leave the non-U.S.A. polticians in peace for a while. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From karl at MCS.NET Fri Mar 28 21:35:01 1997 From: karl at MCS.NET (Karl Denninger) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:35:01 -0600 Subject: ARIN can still be saved. In-Reply-To: ; from Michael Dillon on Fri, Mar 28, 1997 at 06:16:38PM -0800 References: Message-ID: <19970328203501.59086@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> On Fri, Mar 28, 1997 at 06:16:38PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > > But it ain't over 'til it's over. I wonder how many other ISP CEO's are > > writing letters like the one Jim Browning just posted to NANOG... > > > > Since federal politics has reared its ugly head here, political solutions > > and political pressure can be a useful tool which means writing letters > > and calling politicians in Washington DC, > > Well, I decided to make some inquiries and I have discovered a significant > person in Washington DC who is assessing the NSF/NSI situation. Because of > the danger of making email addresses publicly known on the net (SPAM, > etc.) I will not reveal this person's identity. However, I am willing to > relay an email message from any of the companies on this list, preferably > from the CEO, to that person and they may well contact you for more > information. > > I ask only that the letters be polite and that you fully identify yourself > name, job title, company, city, state, phone number and fax number to > facilitate future contact by the Washington folks. Since this does involve > politics I feel it is important that the messages of support come from > senior management levels in the company and that the full identification > be available. In particular, politicians care very strongly about the city > and state, while many Internet users make that info hard to track down. > > > Ottawa, Mexico City, > > Johannesburg, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Santiago... > > Maybe we can leave the non-U.S.A. polticians in peace for a while. > > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 > http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com I would like to know where to *directly* contact this individual. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal From davidc at APNIC.NET Sat Mar 29 05:22:35 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:22:35 +0900 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:29:57 EST." <199703290629.BAA15441@us.net> Message-ID: <199703291022.TAA17136@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> [note reply-to and cc] David, >While everyone is entitled to their opinion, ARIN is no magic >bullet and is the wrong answer for our industry. I don't think anyone is arguing it is a magic bullet. Whether it is the right or wrong answer would depend, I guess, on your view of the role of the US government in an international industry. >I still assert that there is *nothing* ARIN will give me >for my $10,000 per year allocation fee Recently, at the APNIC meeting held in Hong Kong, the APNIC membership voted to modify the APNIC pricing structure, the procedures by which APNIC allocates the initial block of address space to new ISPs, and whether or not APNIC should operate a service that could conceivably compete with services offered by the membership. How exactly do _you_ influence how InterNIC operates? >that I don't get right now from >the tax dollars I currently pay to support the National Science >Foundation. Your tax dollars are NOT funding address allocation. > * It will take money that could have gone to support my network, my > employees, and my customers, and instead divert that money to > a yet another bureaucracy. TANSTAAFL. Somebody has to pay for registry services. Right now, they are being paid for by the domain name charges. Do you really want something as critical to your business as address allocations dependent on NSI given the myriad lawsuits against NSI over domain issues? > * It will increase my costs, which will have to be passed along to > my customers, which will effect my business. Let's look at this a bit (simplifying and not to pick on US.NET, but...): Size Fee Amt of space Per address per year fee ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Small $2500/year /24 - /19 $9.77 - $0.31 Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 $0.61 - $0.08 Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 $0.15 - $0.04 X-Large $20K/year >/14 $0.08 -> $0.00 So, lets say you have a customer to which you'll be assigning a /22. Presumably you wouldn't eat the costs if they were a significant portion of the income you derive from a customer. Given you indicate you'd fall in to the "Large" category, this would mean you'll be passing along a US $3.41 to $12.80 per month cost increase or less that what you charge for secondarying the customer's domain in the worst case. To be more complete: % of US.NET's Connect costs* monthly "Evil Registry Surcharge" 128K/56K T1 Prefix min max min max min max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /32 $0.0033 $0.0125 0.0011% 0.0042% 0.0003% 0.0013% /31 $0.0067 $0.0250 0.0023% 0.0085% 0.0007% 0.0025% /30 $0.01 $0.05 0.0045% 0.0169% 0.0013% 0.0050% /29 $0.02 $0.10 0.0090% 0.0339% 0.0027% 0.0101% /28 $0.05 $0.20 0.0181% 0.0678% 0.0054% 0.0201% /27 $0.10 $0.40 0.0362% 0.1356% 0.0107% 0.0402% /26 $0.21 $0.80 0.0723% 0.2712% 0.0214% 0.0804% /25 $0.42 $1.60 0.1446% 0.5424% 0.0429% 0.1608% /24 $0.85 $3.20 0.2893% 1.0847% 0.0858% 0.3216% /23 $1.70 $6.40 0.5785% 2.1695% 0.1715% 0.6432% /22 $3.41 $12.80 1.1571% 4.3390% 0.3430% 1.2864% /21 $6.82 $25.60 2.3141% 8.6780% 0.6861% 2.5729% /20 $13.65 $51.20 4.6282% 17.3559% 1.3722% 5.1457% (*) connect costs taken from http://www.us.net/prices/serv-business.html Also, while I hesitate to mention it, a possible implication: to avoid the ERS to those nasty registry people, maybe your customers would only ask for the amount of address space they NEED? > * It will not allow me to increase the size of my current address > allocations any faster than the current InterNIC slow start > policy allows NOT "InterNIC slow start" -- ALL registries must use slow start and besides, it was originally implemented at RIPE. I will note in passing: in the case of APNIC, the membership voted to change our allocation policy such that it DID directly impact the amount of address space a new ISP obtains. Of course, we still have to abide by the global restrictions of RFC 2050, but the methods by which the registries follow those restrictions are at the descretion of the membership. Presumably this will be the case for ARIN as well. >This is equivalent to holding a gun to our head and extorting >us to pay the $10,000 (or more) annual fee. Does your electric company extort money from you too? >the InterNIC >made 60 million dollars PROFIT last year issuing domain names (while >funding the assignment of IP address space AT THE SAME TIME). This >has to be the biggest money grab in history -- 60 million dollars >isn't enough for one monopoly to make? Unbelievable. You do understand that ARIN is an attempt to make address allocation independent of NSI and under the discretion of the people who need the resource ARIN allocates, right? >The inference here is that by creating a costly new bureaucracy, >all our problems will go away. I see absolutely NO evidence of >any legal or procedural mechanism that will prevent turmoil. Please see RIPE-NCC and APNIC. There doesn't appear to be much turmoil in either of those organizations. >There is only one IPv4 address space, so the concept of "alternate >registries" (aka, like the alternate TLD proposals) has no relevence >to address space allocation. Comparing address space to domain >name allocation is comparing apples to oranges. No. The one thing domain name delegation and address allocation have in common is that they both reply on the Internet community to be implemented. If the eDNS crowd ever get a significant following (e.g., a major service provider takes them seriously), they will be relevant. If an AntiNIC becomes established, it would have exactly the same requirements for relevancy. >I put an allocation request in last Monday and received my new >allocation Thursday. Even if allocation requests could be turned >around in one-hour, paying an annual $10K fee is not worth it >to speed the process up three days. Think about it. Scenario: NSI loses one of the lawsuits against it. NSI must pay damages, etc. NSI declares bankruptcy. How long will it take you to get your IP address space? Of course, this would never happen. >There is nothing about ARIN that says we will all be in concensus. >If anything, there will be tremendous dischord because we will have >hundreds of ISPs voicing their opinions at the semi-annual ARIN >meetings. The current NSF sponsored system does not foster this >level of turmoil. If anything, ARIN will turn the currently stable >IP address policy mechanism into a semi-annual slug fest. I'm surprised you take such a dim view of democracy and such a positive view of (arguably enlightened) autocracy. >There is one -- the same one that has been funded by the NSF since >the mid 1980's. Why change something that has worked so well in >the past? The cooperative agreement that created InterNIC (in 1992, not the mid-80's) expires in '98. NSF has (in the past) been uninterested in supporting production services (they are research oriented after all). As such, it is reasonable to assume they'll not be particularly interested in continuing in their oversight of the Americas registry system. >APNIC and RIPE are not run by governmental entities Neither is the registration portion of InterNIC. Is is operated by a commercial entity under a cooperative agreement with the NSF. >They get that address space >from the current system that is under control of the NSF. No. We get our address space from the IANA, which was funded by DARPA. >Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or >accurate. True. Where APNIC and RIPE members have direct input into how their registries are operated, American (and South African) ISPs are subject to the political winds of the US government. Where APNIC and RIPE members control how resources are expended, American (and South African) ISPs must abide by a commercial company's decisions as (theoretically) moderated by the NSF. Where APNIC and RIPE members take responsibility for the administration of the resource on which they depend, American (and South African) ISPs rely on the US government to play mommy. >I believe (as a US citizen) that the Internet is strategic to the >United States, and control over the address space should remain with >the US Government. And just how does the US government control the address space now? >Giving control over this strategic asset to a non-profit >organization that is beholden to nobody is foolishness. Please see what 501c6 means. The non-profit organization would be beholden to the industry it supports. >Charging for IP addresses will raise the cost of an Internet >connection. Raising costs will not improve the health of a growing >and vibrant industry -- it is anathma to our industry. I'm surprised you, as a businessman, would have this attitude towards government intervention in free trade. Oh, right, as long as it is a subsidy its OK. >Lets work together to reduce cost, not increase cost. And how would you go about doing this, given you have no input as to how the registry operates? Regards, -drc From mje at mje99.posix.co.za Sat Mar 29 08:50:42 1997 From: mje at mje99.posix.co.za (Mark J Elkins) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:50:42 +0200 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: "David R. Conrad" "Re: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah." (Mar 29, 7:22pm) Message-ID: <199703291350.PAA31653@mje99.posix.co.za> On Mar 29, 7:22pm, "David R. Conrad" wrote: } >Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or } >accurate. } } True. Where APNIC and RIPE members have direct input into how their } registries are operated, American (and South African) ISPs are subject } to the political winds of the US government. Where APNIC and RIPE } members control how resources are expended, American (and South } African) ISPs must abide by a commercial company's decisions as } (theoretically) moderated by the NSF. Where APNIC and RIPE members } take responsibility for the administration of the resource on which } they depend, American (and South African) ISPs rely on the US } government to play mommy. }-- End of excerpt from "David R. Conrad" I'm from South Africa. The fact that we are so tied to the USA upsets me. I also administer the 'co.za' domain - probably the largest domain in Africa - with (as of writing) 5607 registered names. Many folk have stated that Africa should have its own NIC. It would make most sense that DNS, ASN and IP Allocation came from one place. Adopting the line of 'slow startup' - I approached the InterNIC for a single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. I'm not planning on running all this myself - but it would be unfair to expect any organisation to suddently have the full required infrastructure to run everything that a full blown NIC probably should have. Sure there are a number of people talking about getting this going - but thats all - just talking. The AfricanNIC has to start somehow - and a slow start is the Internet Way. So whom do I petition? Oh - my personal interests range as far as Central Africa - Zaire - etc... This is not just a local South African only thing. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Sth Africa /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 11 456 3125 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 From mje at mje99.posix.co.za Sat Mar 29 08:50:42 1997 From: mje at mje99.posix.co.za (Mark J Elkins) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:50:42 +0200 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: "David R. Conrad" "Re: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah." (Mar 29, 7:22pm) Message-ID: <199703291350.PAA31653@mje99.posix.co.za> On Mar 29, 7:22pm, "David R. Conrad" wrote: } >Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or } >accurate. } } True. Where APNIC and RIPE members have direct input into how their } registries are operated, American (and South African) ISPs are subject } to the political winds of the US government. Where APNIC and RIPE } members control how resources are expended, American (and South } African) ISPs must abide by a commercial company's decisions as } (theoretically) moderated by the NSF. Where APNIC and RIPE members } take responsibility for the administration of the resource on which } they depend, American (and South African) ISPs rely on the US } government to play mommy. }-- End of excerpt from "David R. Conrad" I'm from South Africa. The fact that we are so tied to the USA upsets me. I also administer the 'co.za' domain - probably the largest domain in Africa - with (as of writing) 5607 registered names. Many folk have stated that Africa should have its own NIC. It would make most sense that DNS, ASN and IP Allocation came from one place. Adopting the line of 'slow startup' - I approached the InterNIC for a single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. I'm not planning on running all this myself - but it would be unfair to expect any organisation to suddently have the full required infrastructure to run everything that a full blown NIC probably should have. Sure there are a number of people talking about getting this going - but thats all - just talking. The AfricanNIC has to start somehow - and a slow start is the Internet Way. So whom do I petition? Oh - my personal interests range as far as Central Africa - Zaire - etc... This is not just a local South African only thing. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Sth Africa /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 11 456 3125 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 From davidc at APNIC.NET Sat Mar 29 09:11:34 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:11:34 +0900 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:50:42 +0200." <199703291350.PAA31653@mje99.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <199703291411.XAA17467@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Mark, Establishing an AfriNIC has been discussed in several venues in the past and I suspect things will be moving forward publicly given ARIN and the politics... >I approached the InterNIC for a >single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some >of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. ... >So whom do I petition? Officially, the IANA ... Regards, -drc From michael at STB.INFO.COM Sat Mar 29 11:44:00 1997 From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 08:44 PST Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. Message-ID: Just to comment on this pricing model comment, I've been looking at getting a fixed IP address. Every ISP that I've talked to that offers this that is a local call only offers a full class C address block -- a full 256 addresses. What does this do to the cost? The cheapest charges $80 per month. Figure $20 per month to connect, another $20 per month for the phone line. That still leaves $40 per month that they will charge for the class C block. "But what about the modem, and the line install?". Nope. As I said, that was the cheapest. Most had another $100-$200 startup, and then where around $120-$150/month. So other than dedicating a line and a modem to me, and paying for the IP range that they are giving me, what else is there? The cost to install a line is going to be around $50 (assuming that they do it in bulk). The cost of a new modem port on a modem server (I'm thinking here that ISP's buy a single box with DSP's inside that does a dozen or so lines at once) will probably be around $80 per line. That's a startup cost per line of maybe $150-$200 after administrative and other people-time. Lets say that the ISP wants to recover $10/month of the startup cost. Then after a year and a half, it's paid for (sounds like a viable recovery time to me). That still leaves $30 per month for a class C equivalent. And again, most ISP's were charging $40 to $80 MORE per month. In a competitive environment, people only charge based on their costs. If the only new, ongoing cost is the ARIN charge, what does that say about the actual cost involved? Yes, the price would be lower if they only gave me a /30 (all I even wanted) instead of a /24 class C. No one does (at least out here). So for whatever reason, I can only assume that it is cheaper for them to give out class C's (I have no idea what's involved on the commercial routers in this area). Point is, saying that the per-address price is cheap is meaningless, ** IF YOU CANNOT GET A PER ADDRESS **. If you can only get addresses in class C blocks from ISP's, then you need to compare the cost of a class C. That's about a 250 times increase in cost to the ISP per user; at standard markups (given that the ISP is effectively holding an inventory and then selling at a profit),that means a price increase to the user of 500 times. So, if we are looking at a yearly price to the ISP of 40 cents per address, that's a yearly price to the end user of $200; at 12 months, that's about $15 per month. So lets say that the other $15/month will go into customer support and dealing with customer mis-configurations. The point is, ARIN charges are not negligable to the end user. Yes, the cost would be cheaper if I was looking at a large or extra large ISP, instead of a small or medium one. But the large ones simply do NOT offer this service, or for the one that did, had the second highest price. (Oh, forgot one. Concentric Network also did, at about $250 per month. Make that two that did, at the highest and third highest price). (I think I'll write up my proposed routing alternative to v6 and v8 this weekend, and see about puting it out as a draft RFC. Eliminates [hopefully :-)] all v4 address shortages, and shrinks routing table size, at a small(?) cost of CPU at the routers.) Michael From shields at CROSSLINK.NET Sat Mar 29 12:26:17 1997 From: shields at CROSSLINK.NET (Michael Shields) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:26:17 -0500 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I've been looking at getting a fixed IP address. Every ISP that I've > talked to that offers this that is a local call only offers a full > class C address block -- a full 256 addresses. > > What does this do to the cost? The cheapest charges $80 per month. Well, what you've just demonstrated is that there are economic pressures on ISPs to offer /32s (as responsible ones do). Maybe no one in your area, but inevitably someone will. *Especially* if the cost of an IPv4 address rises, as it will. -- Shields, CrossLink. From apb at IAFRICA.COM Sat Mar 29 12:41:30 1997 From: apb at IAFRICA.COM (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:41:30 +0200 (GMT+0200) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I've been looking at getting a fixed IP address. Every ISP that I've > talked to that offers this that is a local call only offers a full > class C address block -- a full 256 addresses. They should be allocating /28, /29, /30 and /32 blocks where appropriate. If they are allocating /24s where /29s would be appropriate, and if they are not lying on their application forms, then they are likely to find it difficult to get more address space from their regional registry. --apb (Alan Barrett) From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 13:40:43 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:40:43 -0600 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. Message-ID: <01BC3C3E.6BAD7520@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 7:50 AM, Mark J Elkins[SMTP:mje at mje99.posix.co.za] wrote: @ On Mar 29, 7:22pm, "David R. Conrad" wrote: @ } >Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US model is not fair or @ } >accurate. @ } @ } True. Where APNIC and RIPE members have direct input into how their @ } registries are operated, American (and South African) ISPs are subject @ } to the political winds of the US government. Where APNIC and RIPE @ } members control how resources are expended, American (and South @ } African) ISPs must abide by a commercial company's decisions as @ } (theoretically) moderated by the NSF. Where APNIC and RIPE members @ } take responsibility for the administration of the resource on which @ } they depend, American (and South African) ISPs rely on the US @ } government to play mommy. @ }-- End of excerpt from "David R. Conrad" @ @ I'm from South Africa. The fact that we are so tied to the USA upsets @ me. I also administer the 'co.za' domain - probably the largest domain @ in Africa - with (as of writing) 5607 registered names. @ @ Many folk have stated that Africa should have its own NIC. It would @ make most sense that DNS, ASN and IP Allocation came from one place. @ Adopting the line of 'slow startup' - I approached the InterNIC for a @ single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some @ of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. @ Who did you talk to or contact ? Did you contact the NSF ? @ I'm not planning on running all this myself - but it would be unfair @ to expect any organisation to suddently have the full required @ infrastructure to run everything that a full blown NIC probably should @ have. Sure there are a number of people talking about getting this @ going - but thats all - just talking. The AfricanNIC has to start @ somehow - and a slow start is the Internet Way. @ You have to start somewhere. People who already have all of the "nic" infrastructure are not going to give you much help building yours, because they want to try to control the industry. Your task is large but it is not impossible. There are many activities that you might want to consider as you proceed. Here is a short list: 1. Get the buy-in from 4 or 5 ISPs that have existing facilities to handle the basics and pick a name and banner to rally around. 2. Get the buy-in of your elected officials and have them contact the U.S. State Department and the National Science Foundation. 3. Deploy a confederation of TRUE Root Name Servers similar to the eDNS confederation (http://www.edns.net) 4. Develop a Registration Authority (RA) to help cultivate the growth of TLD Registries. 5. Develop one or more TLD Registries to develop some of the infrastructure and business community awareness needed to support the Internet Registry industry in an area. 6. Help with IPv4 ecology and reclamation efforts and plan to take over the management of an existing /8 once you have enough infrastructure in place. @ So whom do I petition? @ @ Oh - my personal interests range as far as Central Africa - Zaire - @ etc... This is not just a local South African only thing. @ Just as your range is a wide area of Africa, the topics the Registry Industry touches cover the gamut. It is important to develop and demonstrate the infrastructure needed to handle domain names, IP addresses, etc. As more and more products and services are added to the Registry Industry, the companies that you help to develop will be the natural candidates to provide the region with the Internet Infrastructure management that is needed to grow the region in an organized way. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From randy at PSG.COM Sat Mar 29 13:58:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 10:58 PST Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. References: <199703291022.TAA17136@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> <3.0.1.32.19970329133925.0068c4dc@locnar.games-online.com> Message-ID: >> I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually >> *decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? > I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to > come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal. You seem to have a model that the IP space is being sold as if it were a commodity. What is being charged are the services. Please read the ARIN proposal. randy From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Mar 29 14:09:42 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 11:09:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970329133925.0068c4dc@locnar.games-online.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Matthew Pearson wrote: > > I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually > >*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? > I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to > come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal. Why should > US Sprint get a deal (not to single them out.. take any HUGE network > provider) on addresses and then have ARIN stick it to smaller NSPs such as > our own. > > It makes no sense... That's because you are misunderstanding what is happening. ARIN is not selling IP addresses, If you want the costs to be spread evenly among all ISP's then you can join ARIN and have a say in doing this but please be aware that this will likely result in Sprint paying LESS and you paying MORE. The fact is that in order to be independent of government, ARIN has to pay its own way. This means that the members of ARIN and the users of ARIN's services must divide the costs between them somehow. If you have a better plan that takes into consideration ALL costs then please propose it on the ARIN list. In fact, since ARIN is a member-run non-profit organization, it is a certainty that if real costs go down, then fees will also go down. This is what happened in Europe with RIPE. > Not to mention you will then create 2nd level IP allocation companies. I > could pay the bucks, misfile the paperwork and get a /14 or two and then > resell smaller blocks for less than ARIN's prices to NSPs starving for > address space. This will not happen unless you lie to ARIN and forge documents to back up your lies. If this did happen, not only would your criminal behavior be made public but I would urge the FBI to lay charges against you. If the FBI would not do this I would urge ISOC and EFF to file a civil suit against you. I suspect the FTC would also have some interest if you are selling IP addresses which you do not own since IP addresses are not things which you buy, they are also not things which you can sell. I don't understand why so many people want to push these ideas to reductio ad absurdum. We all rely on a cooperative network in order to support our businesses. Without a cooperative network there is no industry and we would all be out of work. Why can you not see that ARIN is just another form of cooperation in keeping the network running smoothly so that we can all get on with business. As the network gets bigger there are more and more activities that it makes sense to carve out and run autonomously. 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 Sat Mar 29 14:49:30 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 11:49:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote: > I for one like the idea of ARIN. It's the pricing structure that is > compleatly wrong. The structure will create a market for companies to > "lease" large quantities for address space from ARIN, and then "sublease" > them cheaper than ARIN it self. You may claim you can not sell address > space but we have all seen it happen. I'm not claiming that ARIN is perfect and that it will instantly solve all problems. But I do believe that it will be far more responsive to the industry than the Internic could be. And if enough ISP's join ARIN and come up with a better funding/pricing scheme then I believe it *CAN* be implemented. The fundamental feature of ARIN is that it will be responsive to the needs of those organizations who use IP address space. It's just a first step in the right direction, not the ultimate goal. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From epg at corp.home.net Sat Mar 29 15:05:40 1997 From: epg at corp.home.net (Elise Gerich) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:05:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970329133925.0068c4dc@locnar.games-online.com> from "Matthew Pearson" at Mar 29, 97 01:39:25 pm Message-ID: <199703292005.MAA04070@phone.eos.home.net> Cathy, So, does this mean that our new budget needs to include $20K for ARIN "membership"? --Elise > > At 11:37 AM 3/29/97 -0600, Aleph One wrote: > >On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: > > > >> Size Fee Amt of space Per address per year fee > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Small $2500/year /24 - /19 $9.77 - $0.31 > >> Medium $5000/year >/19 - /16 $0.61 - $0.08 > >> Large $10K/year >/16 - /14 $0.15 - $0.04 > >> X-Large $20K/year >/14 $0.08 -> $0.00 > > > > I'am I the only one that finds that the fact that the prices actually > >*decrease* the larger the address blocks is disturbing? Not only does it > >make entrace into the ISP market more difficult, but it allows the > >creation of a highly profitable market for the resale of IP addresses if > >you buy then in bulk to beging with (yeah, yeah I know about allocation > >policies, but I seen people get large blocks easily). > > > > I feel that it is disturbing as well. Since IP addresses are supposed to > come from a non-profit organization all prices should be equal. Why should > US Sprint get a deal (not to single them out.. take any HUGE network > provider) on addresses and then have ARIN stick it to smaller NSPs such as > our own. > > It makes no sense... > > Not to mention you will then create 2nd level IP allocation companies. I > could pay the bucks, misfile the paperwork and get a /14 or two and then > resell smaller blocks for less than ARIN's prices to NSPs starving for > address space. > > Gimme a break. > > Just my $.02, no flames made nor requested > > From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 15:17:19 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 -0600 Subject: ARINANOG Message-ID: <01BC3C4B.EA6606E0@webster.unety.net> [1] As a reminder, there is an ARIN mailing list available from http://www.arin.net. [2] I hope that this NANOG discussion gets reflected on the ARIN mailing list because some people may be following that list and may falsely conclude that the "Internet community" supports ARIN with "broad consensus" when in fact they have not really seen the discussions about ARIN which are held on other lists, in other meetings, in Hong Kong, etc. [3] The reasons for creating ARIN have nothing to do with the words reflected in the ARIN proposal. This nonsense about DNS funding IP and vice versa are not the core issues any more than an ISP debating how dial-up subsidizes leased lines or vice versa. [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what other people do when they want to start a business. Before doing that, why don't the founders get ISPs to sign subscription agreements agreeing to fund the enterprise and therefore money will not be an issue because the companies that sign up will fund the effort. In fact, some of the people on NANOG claim that people are always throwing money at them. Why don't those people step forward to bank-roll ARIN ? [5] Once ARIN is launched, why doesn't ARIN petition the NSF/InterNIC/IANA for a /8 to manage ? Given that some people think that ARIN is such a great idea, this should not take long, especially if the "right" people are on the ARIN board of directors. [6] If NANOG members think that ARIN is such a great idea why not just pull the activity into NANOG and call the thing ARINANOG and get on with it ? @@@@ http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02405.html Re: ARIN is A Good Thing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ .To: "nanog at merit.edu" .Subject: Re: ARIN is A Good Thing .From: Paul A Vixie .Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:54:54 -0800 .In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:11:16 MST." <01IH23Y6AYGG8WW0FK at ACES.COM> .Sender: owner-nanog at MERIT.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ehud wrote: > With no offense to Internic, IANA, Jon, or Jbb. If I have to pay the > Internic (and I do) [1] and they can also support IP (and they do) [2] > and come out $60M black (they do!) then they can damn well fund their [3] > own damn program to assign the [4] goddamned addresses without billing me. I added the [#] notations above so I could comment in detail. [1] you do not have to pay the InterNIC -- there's always .US, and once IAHC's proposal gets going, you will be able to select among other alternatives as well (and my expectation is that .COM et al will become a shared gTLD in 1998). [2] you're right that they support IP, but remember the golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Leaving InterNIC to support this means that they (InterNIC rather than Kim personally or any ISP) get to decide _how_ they support it. They don't presently have to do anything you agree with. [3] it's not their program, it was NSF's program most recently, and believe me when I tell you that you don't WANT it to be "InterNIC's program". Finally, [4] to assign is to assert some form of ownership. I'd much rather see the ISP's, with Kim continuing as coordinator reporting a board of ISP "regents", assign and therefore assert ownership of, the address pool. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ As for the rest of the Registry Industry, there is a lot of work still to be done. As companies develop Internet Infrastructure and Registry Industry Infrastructure some of them will become likely candidates to take over parts of the IPv4 address space for management purposes. This will help to spread some of the administrative costs around and will ensure more fair and equitable policies. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 16:09:28 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:09:28 -0600 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. Message-ID: <01BC3C53.33445680@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 5:09 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Matthew Pearson wrote: @ @ @ I don't understand why so many people want to push these ideas to reductio @ ad absurdum. We all rely on a cooperative network in order to support our @ businesses. Without a cooperative network there is no industry and we @ would all be out of work. Why can you not see that ARIN is just another @ form of cooperation in keeping the network running smoothly so that we can @ all get on with business. As the network gets bigger there are more and @ more activities that it makes sense to carve out and run autonomously. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ @ Yes Michael...you never seem to understand... Maybe the reason is that some people rely on MORE than just a cooperative network to support their businesses. They rely on cooperative communities, they rely on cooperative governments, and they rely on cooperative companies to provide jobs, etc. For a person tucked away in a cabin in the woods in Canada without a TV and without contact with urban areas, you may not be able to understand. Unfortunately, many of the people in the real world have different challenges that face them each day, because of that they have different solutions than the ones you dream up. Have you considered that people DO understand that ARIN is "just another form of cooperation", but the problem is it is a cooperation of people that are out of touch with the needs of the real world ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 16:26:50 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:26:50 -0600 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. Message-ID: <01BC3C55.A035D320@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 5:49 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Aleph One wrote: @ @ > I for one like the idea of ARIN. It's the pricing structure that is @ > compleatly wrong. The structure will create a market for companies to @ > "lease" large quantities for address space from ARIN, and then "sublease" @ > them cheaper than ARIN it self. You may claim you can not sell address @ > space but we have all seen it happen. @ @ I'm not claiming that ARIN is perfect and that it will instantly solve all @ problems. But I do believe that it will be far more responsive to the @ industry than the Internic could be. And if enough ISP's join ARIN and @ come up with a better funding/pricing scheme then I believe it *CAN* @ be implemented. The fundamental feature of ARIN is that it will be @ responsive to the needs of those organizations who use IP address space. @ It's just a first step in the right direction, not the ultimate goal. @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ @ If more companies had been allowed to develop more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the past 18 months, rather than debate how many IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin, then we would all be much further, at least here in the U.S. As companies come up to speed in the Registry Industry they will be natural candidates to help take over some of the InterNIC duties. IP allocations are only one aspect of those duties. Some companies may not choose to get into that activity, other companies might start there. Again, why don't the people chomping at the bit to form ARIN, just do it ? Once they do they can stand in line with the other ISPs to obtain an IP allocation which they can then use to provide "services" to fund themselves. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From randy at PSG.COM Sat Mar 29 16:46:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 13:46 PST Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. References: Message-ID: > how is a smaller block allocationa a chaper "service" than a smaller one? We have all been here before many times. Please read the archives. randy From michael at STB.INFO.COM Sat Mar 29 17:12:00 1997 From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 14:12 PST Subject: ARINANOG Message-ID: Jim raises an extremely good point. Why not start ARIN off by giving it a /8 to work with and see how well it will actually work? Lets face it, there is only ONE /0, and giving that to ARIN might not be a good idea if it doesn't work right. By giving them a /8, they will have to compete with other ways of assigning IP addresses, and demonstrate that they actually can work. Just like a would-be ISP has to start with a /24 and work up... Michael From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sat Mar 29 17:33:37 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:33:37 -0500 Subject: Blah blah is right..... References: <01BC3C55.A035D320@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <333D98C1.6AF6@driveway1.com> Jim Fleming wrote: > > If more companies had been allowed to develop > more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the > past 18 months, rather than debate how many > IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin, > then we would all be much further, at least here in > the U.S. > This is purely conjectural. It seems to me, rather, that no entity would have achieved the critical mass needed to become the authoritative reference which permits little folks like my Aunt Sue to cruise the net and look at the latest and greatest thing from "coke.com" or "uiuc.edu". You may, for your own reasons, wish to inhabit a world where standards do not exist, or where you, Jim Fleming, can personally establish them by fiat. (It seems to me that much of your argument can be lumped into the "sour grapes - why NIC/ARIN/whoever and not *ME* *ME* ME*" category), but aside from that, I fail to see two important things which you claim to be self-evident (and NEVER spell out in a concise reply, without burying your intent in "see this RFC" "look at this page") a) exactly where do you see "billions" of annual dollars in the registry business coming from, (and why this should be seen as a good thing and not a useless transfer of wealth to a new class of middlemen) and b) how will the many actual end-users of existing registry services be *persuaded* (that is, not *mandated* by you or anyone else) to use the plethora of sixty zillion new registries? Have you ever read the part about the Tower of Babel? /Larry also known to his slavish minions as .... "/0" From michael at STB.INFO.COM Sat Mar 29 18:59:00 1997 From: michael at STB.INFO.COM (Michael Gersten) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 97 15:59 PST Subject: Blah blah is right..... Message-ID: Larry writes: >Jim Fleming wrote: >> >> If more companies had been allowed to develop >> more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the >> past 18 months, rather than debate how many >> IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin, >> then we would all be much further, at least here in >> the U.S. >> >This is purely conjectural. It seems to me, rather, that no entity would >have achieved the critical mass needed to become the authoritative >reference which permits little folks like my Aunt Sue to cruise the net >and look at the latest and greatest thing from "coke.com" or "uiuc.edu". >You may, for your own reasons, wish to inhabit a world where standards >do not exist, or where you, Jim Fleming, can personally establish them >by fiat. (It seems to me that much of your argument can be lumped into >the "sour grapes - why NIC/ARIN/whoever and not *ME* *ME* ME*" >category), but aside from that, I fail to see two important things which >you claim to be self-evident (and NEVER spell out in a concise reply, >without burying your intent in "see this RFC" "look at this page") > >a) exactly where do you see "billions" of annual dollars in the registry >business coming from, (and why this should be seen as a good thing and >not a useless transfer of wealth to a new class of middlemen) and > >b) how will the many actual end-users of existing registry services be >*persuaded* (that is, not *mandated* by you or anyone else) to use the >plethora of sixty zillion new registries? > >Have you ever read the part about the Tower of Babel? > >/Larry > >also known to his slavish minions as .... "/0" Ok Larry, lets spell out the number one value added service that anyone in the registry business -- whether DNS or IP address -- has to provide: Lawsuit insurance. There was a time when the Internet was small, and addresses could be given out without worry, names also. Then, the net grew. Suddenly, the address system was not going to work. The internet was litterally going to break under it's own weight (size of routing tables, cost of memory, lack of CPU in some cases (Hi Agis!) to search the routing table or merge in new updates from neighbor sites). All the people involved -- NSI who was allocating addresses, or co-ordinating the allocation when they were not actually allocating, the major routers, and major unix vendors, aligned on CIDR, even if they thought that there was better, because there wasn't time to develope something better. Now, people started to notice the NSI. The net continued to grow. Trademarks and the DNS became hot. People realized where this would go in a society as lawsuit happy as ours. The original proposal (Postel) for DNS registries was about -- and stated so in the drafts -- providing sufficient funding to create a legal entity that could withstand lawsuits. Now, the address allocation scheme has come under attack for mucht the same reason. People are not trusting the NSI, because they feel that the NSI has shown that it completely failed to handle/ hand off the DNS issue in any reasonable manner. So, they now want the NSI out of the IP business, while it can be done in an orderly fashion, before it gets to be another "We don't have time to do something good, just implement CIDR2". That means coming up with something else. But instead of coming up with something good, they came up with ARIN. ARIN looks like a big, fat, deep pocket target for lawsuits. And, it wants to take most or all of the unallocated addresses with it. Why even give it to ARIN in the first place? As someone else said, what if a lawsuit against the NSI wins, and the NSI goes bankrupt? ** ALL OF THE REGISTRY BUSINESS ULTIMATELY IS ABOUT LAWSUIT INSURANCE ** Anyone who is even thinking of going into this in any way must keep this in mind. Now, ARIN might be a really good idea. We'll never know from just a proposal on paper. We'll only know if it tries and succedes. Or if it tries and fails. That means it has to be started. But it can start with just a /8, and someone else can come along later with another idea. It doesn't need to have everything that has not been given out to other IP allocators. And, if it only gets a /8, then there's plenty of large blocks to give out to other people who want to set things up. Now, someone who knows the unallocated layout better than I do might be able to say whether a /8 or a /10 (or even a /12) would be a better choice. Incidently, in the DNS field, eDNS is doing something similar. They are establishing a system of registering registries for top level domains. They are setting themselves up as a "zero pocket" target -- absolutely no funds needed or taken. Last I checked, they had one client, Alternic, which does take funds, and would be the lawsuit target. But eDNS is a simple, neutral co-ordinator of all the TLD's from any registry. (Yes, they support all the "standard" TLD's.) Michael From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 18:55:25 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:55:25 -0600 Subject: Blah blah is right..... Message-ID: <01BC3C6A.626DE360@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 4:33 PM, Larry Honig[SMTP:lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM] wrote: @ Jim Fleming wrote: @ @ a) exactly where do you see "billions" of annual dollars in the registry @ business coming from, (and why this should be seen as a good thing and @ not a useless transfer of wealth to a new class of middlemen) and @ I have spelled this out before, maybe not on this list. In my opinion, the Registry Industry is probably the last significant "industry" to emerge in this century. It is most similar to the banking industry, the insurance industry, and numerous other service industries which only exist because people are willing to pay for services that they perceive to be useful, despite what others think. Those services include: Domain Name Registrations IP Address Leasing Digital Certificates Digitial Wallets Micro-royalties for Software Developers Micro-payments for Software Usage With regard to your question about useless transfer of wealth I suggest that this is your opinion and assume that you are one of the lucky people that does not have to earn a living each day and are likely in the minority. If you do earn a living each day, I challenge you to describe to the folks in this forum why your compensation is not also useless transfer of wealth. @ b) how will the many actual end-users of existing registry services be @ *persuaded* (that is, not *mandated* by you or anyone else) to use the @ plethora of sixty zillion new registries? @ Three words come to mind ...marketing, marketing, and marketing... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From kimh at internic.net Sat Mar 29 21:41:06 1997 From: kimh at internic.net (Kim Hubbard) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:41:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: from "Michael Gersten" at Mar 29, 97 03:59:00 pm Message-ID: <199703300241.VAA03328@jazz.internic.net> > Mr. Gersten, ARIN will NOT be taking all of the unallocated space. The InterNIC does not have all of the unallocated space. The IANA controls all of the unallocated space and will issue it to ARIN in the same fashion it currently issues to RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC. Kim Hubbard > Larry writes: > > >Jim Fleming wrote: > >> > >> If more companies had been allowed to develop > >> more Registry Industy Infrastructure during the > >> past 18 months, rather than debate how many > >> IAHCs or ARINs can dance on the head of a pin, > >> then we would all be much further, at least here in > >> the U.S. > >> > >This is purely conjectural. It seems to me, rather, that no entity would > >have achieved the critical mass needed to become the authoritative > >reference which permits little folks like my Aunt Sue to cruise the net > >and look at the latest and greatest thing from "coke.com" or "uiuc.edu". > >You may, for your own reasons, wish to inhabit a world where standards > >do not exist, or where you, Jim Fleming, can personally establish them > >by fiat. (It seems to me that much of your argument can be lumped into > >the "sour grapes - why NIC/ARIN/whoever and not *ME* *ME* ME*" > >category), but aside from that, I fail to see two important things which > >you claim to be self-evident (and NEVER spell out in a concise reply, > >without burying your intent in "see this RFC" "look at this page") > > > >a) exactly where do you see "billions" of annual dollars in the registry > >business coming from, (and why this should be seen as a good thing and > >not a useless transfer of wealth to a new class of middlemen) and > > > >b) how will the many actual end-users of existing registry services be > >*persuaded* (that is, not *mandated* by you or anyone else) to use the > >plethora of sixty zillion new registries? > > > >Have you ever read the part about the Tower of Babel? > > > >/Larry > > > >also known to his slavish minions as .... "/0" > > Ok Larry, lets spell out the number one value added service that > anyone in the registry business -- whether DNS or IP address -- > has to provide: Lawsuit insurance. > > There was a time when the Internet was small, and addresses could > be given out without worry, names also. > > Then, the net grew. > > Suddenly, the address system was not going to work. The internet > was litterally going to break under it's own weight (size of > routing tables, cost of memory, lack of CPU in some cases (Hi > Agis!) to search the routing table or merge in new updates from > neighbor sites). All the people involved -- NSI who was allocating > addresses, or co-ordinating the allocation when they were not actually > allocating, the major routers, and major unix vendors, aligned on > CIDR, even if they thought that there was better, because there > wasn't time to develope something better. > > Now, people started to notice the NSI. > > The net continued to grow. Trademarks and the DNS became hot. > > People realized where this would go in a society as lawsuit happy > as ours. The original proposal (Postel) for DNS registries was about -- > and stated so in the drafts -- providing sufficient funding to > create a legal entity that could withstand lawsuits. > > Now, the address allocation scheme has come under attack for mucht > the same reason. People are not trusting the NSI, because they > feel that the NSI has shown that it completely failed to handle/ > hand off the DNS issue in any reasonable manner. So, they now want > the NSI out of the IP business, while it can be done in an orderly > fashion, before it gets to be another "We don't have time to do something > good, just implement CIDR2". > > That means coming up with something else. But instead of coming up > with something good, they came up with ARIN. ARIN looks like a > big, fat, deep pocket target for lawsuits. And, it wants to take > most or all of the unallocated addresses with it. > > Why even give it to ARIN in the first place? As someone else said, > what if a lawsuit against the NSI wins, and the NSI goes bankrupt? > > ** ALL OF THE REGISTRY BUSINESS ULTIMATELY IS ABOUT LAWSUIT INSURANCE ** > > Anyone who is even thinking of going into this in any way must keep > this in mind. > > Now, ARIN might be a really good idea. We'll never know from just > a proposal on paper. We'll only know if it tries and succedes. > Or if it tries and fails. That means it has to be started. > > But it can start with just a /8, and someone else can come along > later with another idea. It doesn't need to have everything that > has not been given out to other IP allocators. And, if it only > gets a /8, then there's plenty of large blocks to give out to other > people who want to set things up. > > Now, someone who knows the unallocated layout better than I do might > be able to say whether a /8 or a /10 (or even a /12) would be a better > choice. > > Incidently, in the DNS field, eDNS is doing something similar. They > are establishing a system of registering registries for top level domains. > They are setting themselves up as a "zero pocket" target -- absolutely > no funds needed or taken. Last I checked, they had one client, Alternic, > which does take funds, and would be the lawsuit target. But eDNS is > a simple, neutral co-ordinator of all the TLD's from any registry. > (Yes, they support all the "standard" TLD's.) > > Michael > From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 22:26:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:26:15 -0600 Subject: Blah blah is right..... Message-ID: <01BC3C87.D5EC0E80@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:41 PM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh at INTERNIC.NET] wrote: @ > @ Mr. Gersten, @ @ ARIN will NOT be taking all of the unallocated space. The InterNIC does @ not have all of the unallocated space. The IANA controls all of the @ unallocated space and will issue it to ARIN in the same fashion it currently @ issues to RIPE, APNIC and InterNIC. @ I believe that the founders of ARIN have been asked several times to identify the exact /8s that ARIN proposes to manage. I would like to see ARIN start with one /8 and I would also like to see several ARIN-like companies to make sure that people are not treated unfairly and also to make sure that local needs are considered in allocations. Again, for the record, what part of the IPv4 address space does ARIN propose to manage ? Please be specific. Example: 192.X.X.X 207.X.X.X Also, would ARIN be willing to start with one /8 to prove it can do the job ? If so, which /8 ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From michael at MEMRA.COM Sat Mar 29 19:45:13 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:45:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Michael Gersten wrote: > Why even give it to ARIN in the first place? As someone else said, > what if a lawsuit against the NSI wins, and the NSI goes bankrupt? Then the skilled people who are performing the IP allocation services as employees of NSI find jobs at other DC area companies such as UUnet/Worldcom, PSI, AOL, Digex, DataXchange and numerous others who are faced with finding employees in a market where demand for skilled employees is twice the current supply. And who knows what happens to the records, the trash perhaps? In fact, if things even get close to that point, those skilled employees are not going to hang on for the ride. I expect that the solution will be for IANA to choose either RIPE or APNIC as the IP allocation authority for North America because they will be the only people who know how to do the job. > Now, ARIN might be a really good idea. We'll never know from just > a proposal on paper. We'll only know if it tries and succedes. > Or if it tries and fails. That means it has to be started. Exactly. We can be pretty sure that if we take the same people, the same systems and the same funding level as the Internic's IP allocation service then we have a darn good chance of maintaining the same level of service. And once that hurdle is past, then we are free to start changing the policies and the activities of ARIN to better serve the people who use IP addresses in North America. > Now, someone who knows the unallocated layout better than I do might > be able to say whether a /8 or a /10 (or even a /12) would be a better > choice. This is silly. If the Internic is going to stop doing IP allocations and ARIN is going to start then they should just carry on with whatever chunk of IP space that IANA has currently allocated to the Internic. > Incidently, in the DNS field, eDNS is doing something similar. Irrelevant. IP allocations are totally unlike DNS. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Sat Mar 29 22:34:05 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:34:05 -0500 Subject: ARINANOG In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 CST." <01BC3C4B.EA6606E0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC3C4B.EA6606E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703300334.WAA16352@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 CST, Jim Fleming said: > [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders > quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and > U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what > other people do when they want to start a business. (a) Some of the proposed founders *WILL* be quitting their comfortable jobs to go work at ARIN. (b) "venture capital". Almost nobody (except for very small mom&pop operations on the low end) starts a business totally on their own funds. Why should this be any different? -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 22:44:01 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:44:01 -0600 Subject: ARINANOG Message-ID: <01BC3C8A.51672980@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 9:34 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 14:17:19 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > [4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders @ > quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and @ > U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what @ > other people do when they want to start a business. @ @ (a) Some of the proposed founders *WILL* be quitting their comfortable @ jobs to go work at ARIN. @ Who ? When ? Those questions were never answered ? @ (b) "venture capital". Almost nobody (except for very small mom&pop @ operations on the low end) starts a business totally on their own funds. @ Why should this be any different? @ Venture capitalists are going to look for a 10x return in a 12 month period. ARIN proposes to be cost based and non-profit. VCs might not be interested in that. Again, why don't all the people that want to see ARIN happen fund the thing and then ARIN can line up for one /8 and if they make that work, they can get another. Why does ARIN "assume" that the InterNIC's resources are its resources ? Air Force pilots do not take their jets with them when they leave the military. Also, these concerns about ARIN helping to safeguard against lawsuits brought against the InterNIC for domain names are pure FUD. In fact, just the opposite situation exists. I would be MORE concerned about ARIN getting shut down by the DOJ or the IRS than about the InterNIC being shut down because the InterNIC is the NSF + AT&T + NSI. I think that I would trust that AT&T's lawyers, NSI's lawyers and the NSF's lawyers could keep the InterNIC going much longer than ARIN could withstand a challenge. Besides, if ARIN is cost-based and the "members" pay the costs then a loawsuit or charges brought against ARIN could become very expensive for the members. Special fees or taxes might be needed to keep ARIN solvent through a challenge. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 23:30:24 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:30:24 -0600 Subject: /8 Market Value Message-ID: <01BC3C90.CC14BE80@webster.unety.net> The market value of a single /8 is easily about... $50 million or one Stealth Jet Fighter If you assume that the 24 bit address space has over 16.7 million raw addresses and a lease rate of $2 per address per year with a 50% occupancy level then the revenue from one /8 can be about $16 million/year. If a /8 requires $1 million in staff and support per year, then the net profit can be about $15 million per year. With a 5 times multiple this places the value at about $75 million. A more conservative value could be $50 million. In the ARIN planning as a non-profit, the IRS has to consider the assets of the company. Where that company obtains those assets and the terms of any agreements will likely catch the IRS' eye when the numbers get into the 10's of millions of dollars. Again, why doesn't ARIN purchase one /8 to manage and first demonstrate how this aspect of the Registry Industry can work. Raising $50 million to purchase a /8 should be easy for the well-connected founders of ARIN. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sat Mar 29 23:41:29 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:41:29 -0600 Subject: Blah blah is right..... Message-ID: <01BC3C92.589B5D40@webster.unety.net> On Saturday, March 29, 1997 10:45 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Michael Gersten wrote: @ @ > Why even give it to ARIN in the first place? As someone else said, @ > what if a lawsuit against the NSI wins, and the NSI goes bankrupt? @ @ Then the skilled people who are performing the IP allocation services as @ employees of NSI find jobs at other DC area companies such as @ UUnet/Worldcom, PSI, AOL, Digex, DataXchange and numerous others who are @ faced with finding employees in a market where demand for skilled @ employees is twice the current supply. And who knows what happens to the @ records, the trash perhaps? @ Who are these rocket scientists ? @ In fact, if things even get close to that point, those skilled employees @ are not going to hang on for the ride. @ @ I expect that the solution will be for IANA to choose either RIPE or APNIC @ as the IP allocation authority for North America because they will be the @ only people who know how to do the job. @ I think there are thousands of people in the U.S. that can do the job. In fact, I think there are people that can do a better job. Have you looked at IN-ADDR.ARPA lately ? @ > Now, ARIN might be a really good idea. We'll never know from just @ > a proposal on paper. We'll only know if it tries and succedes. @ > Or if it tries and fails. That means it has to be started. @ @ Exactly. We can be pretty sure that if we take the same people, the same @ systems and the same funding level as the Internic's IP allocation service @ then we have a darn good chance of maintaining the same level of service. @ And once that hurdle is past, then we are free to start changing the @ policies and the activities of ARIN to better serve the people who use IP @ addresses in North America. @ These are some of the same people that gave us domain name charging based on seat of the pants estimates and arbitrary dispute policies. I think that back in 1995 when the charging was casually railroaded past the NSF, people made absurd statements about changing things after things were rolling. In fact, I think one of the avid suporters even claimed that excess charges would of course be returned, because that would be the right thing to do. The new management being brought into Network Solutions, Inc. is working hard to clean up this mess and in my opinion they are making good progress and are synergistic with the commercial Registry Industry. They should be allowed to stay the course and work with other companies to help expand the opportunities. @ > Now, someone who knows the unallocated layout better than I do might @ > be able to say whether a /8 or a /10 (or even a /12) would be a better @ > choice. @ @ This is silly. If the Internic is going to stop doing IP allocations and @ ARIN is going to start then they should just carry on with whatever @ chunk of IP space that IANA has currently allocated to the Internic. @ How do they propose to pay for it ? @ > Incidently, in the DNS field, eDNS is doing something similar. @ @ Irrelevant. IP allocations are totally unlike DNS. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ Michael, Everyone sees through this strategy of trying to convince novice government administrators that domain names are apples and IP addresses are oranges and therefore they need to have different infrastructure. The infrastructure and the business needs are largely the same and that is what is critical to the success or failure of the Registry Industry. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 00:03:54 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:03:54 -0600 Subject: ARIN can still be saved. Message-ID: <01BC3C95.7A1AC660@webster.unety.net> On Friday, March 28, 1997 12:16 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM] wrote: @ On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: @ @ > But it ain't over 'til it's over. I wonder how many other ISP CEO's are @ > writing letters like the one Jim Browning just posted to NANOG... @ > @ > Since federal politics has reared its ugly head here, political solutions @ > and political pressure can be a useful tool which means writing letters @ > and calling politicians in Washington DC, @ @ Well, I decided to make some inquiries and I have discovered a significant @ person in Washington DC who is assessing the NSF/NSI situation. Because of @ the danger of making email addresses publicly known on the net (SPAM, @ etc.) I will not reveal this person's identity. However, I am willing to @ relay an email message from any of the companies on this list, preferably @ from the CEO, to that person and they may well contact you for more @ information. @ @ I ask only that the letters be polite and that you fully identify yourself @ name, job title, company, city, state, phone number and fax number to @ facilitate future contact by the Washington folks. Since this does involve @ politics I feel it is important that the messages of support come from @ senior management levels in the company and that the full identification @ be available. In particular, politicians care very strongly about the city @ and state, while many Internet users make that info hard to track down. @ @ > Ottawa, Mexico City, @ > Johannesburg, Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Santiago... @ @ Maybe we can leave the non-U.S.A. polticians in peace for a while. @ @ @ Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting @ Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 @ http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com @ @ @ Will you be representing the Canadian Government in these matters ? By the way, you can reveal the person's name without revealing their e-mail address. I would think that most U.S. business people would rather contact their elected officials directly rather than via Canada. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 00:49:15 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:49:15 -0600 Subject: ARIN is A Good Thing Message-ID: <01BC3C9B.D04F8100@webster.unety.net> On Friday, March 28, 1997 5:51 PM, Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb at ATMNET.NET] wrote: @ This is a public expression of opinion which has also been sent privately @ to appropriate governmental organizations... @ @ ---------- @ I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American @ Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of @ the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) @ addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain @ Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the @ direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related @ to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain @ name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other @ hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this @ resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet. @ The turmoil surrounding the Domain Name System (DNS) is going to come to an end as NEW companies are allowed to get involved in the Registry Industry. Most of the turmoil was caused by ARIN-like proposals that were not well thought out and which focused on preserving the Internet governance by a select group of insiders that do not want to give up control. Fortunately, most of the companies now entering the Registry Industry are aware that the infrastructure needed to support a domain registry is very similar to that needed to handle IP allocations. Given some time and encouragement, these new companies will be more than able to support both domain names as well as IP allocations plus other products and services that will be introduced to the Registry Industry. To try to artificially partition these industries simply to preserve some power structures to give selected people comfortable jobs without having to be accountable to the market place, the government, or the Internet community is not in the best interest of the U.S. Government or U.S. taxpayers who largely funded much of the Internet development, including the infrastructure development. @ Obtaining consensus on any important Internet related topic is @ excruciatingly difficult in today's environment. Nowhere is this more @ obvious than in the debates over DNS and IP Addresses. Fortunately, there @ are stark contrasts between the two issues. @ Obtaining consensus when business decision making practices are used is easy. Obtaining consensus when artificial, market manipulations are used is excrutiating because business people see right through the hidden agendas and much of the time is spent shifting the agendas and redefining terms to try to confuse the novice observers. @ The DNS debates are filled with rancor and punctuated by alternative @ efforts and litigation. @ This is primarily because the U.S. Government has allowed itself to be directed by individuals and attitudes which encourage exclusion and censorship and black listing as the methods used to try to control the population. All of these approaches are in direct opposition to what America stands for, and therefore it is not surprising that people do not respond well to threats of having their networks attacked or cut-off of they do not tow the line. @ While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless a rough @ consensus within the Internet community that establishing a non-profit @ entity to handle the administration of this vital function is both @ necessary and appropriate. Old-timers and newcomers have found some common @ ground. There are of course those who would like to see things taken in a @ different direction, as there always will be when something of this nature @ is discussed. There are also issues which still need to be resolved, and a @ lot of work which needs to be done. ATMnet is confident that the people @ trying to accomplish these tasks have the necessary skills, ethics and @ standing in the community to get the job done right. @ Rough consensus ?...where ?...when people are censored and encouraged not to post to a mailing list, one can not conclude that silence equals consensus. Silence equals fear, and ARIN is being railroaded on fear tactics of the highest order. I thought that the Domain Name debates were bad, they were tame compared to ARIN. Maybe that is because the IP addresses have much more market value than domain names and there is a more limited supply. Also, maybe it is because some companies are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in unused IP addresses while ISPs grovel for minimal allocations which cause them extra expense, cause the router tables to grow, and cause more administrative costs, just because people want to control for the sake of control. @ There is "rough consensus". There is "running code" in the form of the @ people and systems currently performing the function, and the two similar @ entities (APNIC and RIPE) which are already in operation under similar @ charters. It is time for ARIN to move forward unfettered by Federal @ intervention or oversight. @ Again, why don't those people take a single /8 (one 256th of the address space) and demonstrate these skills, ethics, etc. With that approach people that want to pay them can and those that prefer to go in a different direction can do that. @ When confronted with change and new alternatives, the appropriate direction @ to take is not always evident. In this case however, it is clear to ATMnet @ that ARIN deserves all our support simply because it is the right thing to @ do for the health of a growing and vibrant industry. @ -- @ Jim Browning @ CEO, ATMnet @ Do you also think that it is "right" for CEOs of companies to threaten other companies with denying transport of packets ? If ARIN is formed, what assurances do people have that certain people or groups will not be black-listed by the small closed circle of friends that form ARIN ? Does that group know the difference between right and wrong ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sun Mar 30 01:19:05 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:19:05 -0500 Subject: Still blah, blah, blah Message-ID: <333E05D9.47B8@driveway1.com> Jim Fleming wrote: > > The market value of a single /8 is easily about... > > $50 million > or > one Stealth Jet Fighter > > If you assume that the 24 bit address space > has over 16.7 million raw addresses and a > lease rate of $2 per address per year with > a 50% occupancy level then the revenue > from one /8 can be about $16 million/year. > > If a /8 requires $1 million in staff and support > per year, then the net profit can be about > $15 million per year. With a 5 times multiple > this places the value at about $75 million. > A more conservative value could be $50 million. > Jim, this is the internal conflict I see in your proposals writ large. You may assume that the "lease rate" is $2/year (there is no market research to support this, but lets just go with it). If your cost figures are correct, then the investment community will simply *rush* to invest in this new "industry" which offers a *15 times* yield (your figures, $1m in and $15m out), and the lease rates will come down rapidly to allow a more normal rate of return, generally about 20% on invested capital on a going business which is largely, to use your own words, based on > Three words come to mind > ...marketing, marketing, and marketing... In my experience, business people wha have been around for a while have a word for companies who base their enterprises on assumptions like these: Toast. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, this tulip craze will result in an "industry" which, if there is no significant added value, throws off a minimal amount of true returns. It seems to me to be more logical to allow it to enter this relatively low-profit "steady state" from the beginning, which seems to me to be consistent with the stated reasons for ARIN. Of course, I could be wrong, 1500% returns could simply continue, unchallenged forever, and pigs could sprout wings and fly. I don't recall Colgate or P&G or NBC or any other non-monopoly earning consistent rates of return much above, okay, lets be generous, 30%. Unless you intend to repeal the generally accepted economic principles of the free market, the registry "business" will. if open to all comers, be no more attractive than any other business. Simply tossing lots of unrelated words into a pot, like > Domain Name Registrations > IP Address Leasing > Digital Certificates > Digitial Wallets > Micro-royalties for Software Developers > Micro-payments for Software Usage doesn't make them become soup. These items may have some common requirements (the ability of the consumer to evaluate the reliability of the issuing registries, for one) but they do not seem to me to be the same business. Come clear - are you suggesting that ARIN take the /8 that you are offering to let them "have" and use it to build a monopolistic world where ARIN also offers the other services you seem to see as related? Or are you revealing, rather, what you intend to do? It seems to me that your position would be more consistent (not wiser, but certainly more consistent) if you advocated a government-sponsored auction of the numbers making up IPv4 space, along the lines of the radio-spectrum auctions recently held. (However this seems to me to be completely ridiculous - a spectacle only an Ira Magaziner could think up.) Other than the deprivation of the millions you may be planning on making in your new $2 /year registry business, exactly how does the concept behind ARIN harm you? /Larry maybe "/0" is too modest - could I become "/-2.5" ? From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Mar 30 01:37:45 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:37:45 +0900 Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 15:59:00 PST." Message-ID: <199703300637.PAA18424@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Hi, >Now, the address allocation scheme has come under attack for mucht >the same reason. People are not trusting the NSI, because they >feel that the NSI has shown that it completely failed to handle/ >hand off the DNS issue in any reasonable manner. No. Address allocations have come under attack because people can't go to Kim and say "give me a 'cause I'm gonna be a *big player*" and expect Kim to allocate what the requestor wants. >So, they now want the NSI out of the IP business, Out of curiosity, who is "they"? >That means coming up with something else. But instead of coming up >with something good, they came up with ARIN. ARIN looks like a >big, fat, deep pocket target for lawsuits. And, it wants to take >most or all of the unallocated addresses with it. No. - ARIN is intended to operate on a cost recover basis, where exactly are the deep pockets? - ARIN will not obtain (nor I assume does it want) "most or all of the unallocated addresses" -- it will simply be another of the regional registries under the IANA. >But it can start with just a /8, and someone else can come along >later with another idea. How exactly would you implement this? I gather you assume that InterNIC/NSI will continue to allocate addresses for "free" while ARIN starts up? How many members do you think will join ARIN before the NSF/NSI cooperative agreement terminates? What exactly will be demonstrated by such a trial that hasn't already been demonstrated by the operation of RIPE-NCC and APNIC? Regards, -drc From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Mar 30 01:31:41 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:31:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN can still be saved. In-Reply-To: <01BC3C95.7A1AC660@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jim Fleming wrote: > Will you be representing the Canadian Government > in these matters ? Nope. > By the way, you can reveal the person's name without > revealing their e-mail address. I would think that most > U.S. business people would rather contact their elected > officials directly rather than via Canada. I'm quite sure that U.S. business people already know how to contact their elected officials. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net Sun Mar 30 01:40:28 1997 From: jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:40:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Michael Shields wrote: > > I've been looking at getting a fixed IP address. Every ISP that I've > > talked to that offers this that is a local call only offers a full > > class C address block -- a full 256 addresses. > > > > What does this do to the cost? The cheapest charges $80 per month. In most markets (at least where there are a few too many ISPs) you will find some selling services much cheaper than most. You may find that the $80/month dedicated line and /24 happens to be from an ISP that has an ISDN line to another ISP that also has an ISDN line to yet another ISP that has a partial T1. This is only a very slight exageration of some of the ISPs in my area. They don't charge much, but they don't offer much either. "You want news access? Try this public NNTP server in [foreign country of your choice]." > Well, what you've just demonstrated is that there are economic > pressures on ISPs to offer /32s (as responsible ones do). Maybe no > one in your area, but inevitably someone will. *Especially* if the > cost of an IPv4 address rises, as it will. Or maybe all the ISPs in that area are trying to delagate as much address space as possible in the hope of qualifying for a portable /19 from Internic so they're not hand cuffed to their Net provider and can more easily multihome when the time comes. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr. ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Mar 30 01:45:31 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:45:31 +0900 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 08:44:00 PST." Message-ID: <199703300645.PAA18499@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Michael, >I've been looking at getting a fixed IP address. Every ISP that I've >talked to that offers this that is a local call only offers a full >class C address block -- a full 256 addresses. Then something is fundamentally broken. APNIC will not allocate additional space to a service provider who does not demonstrate they are allocating prefixes corresponding to the customer's requirements. I believe both RIPE-NCC and InterNIC have the same policy since it is spelled out that way in RFC 2050. In other words, it may be that the providers you spoke to won't allocate longer than a /24, but if so, their lives will be getting a bit more complicated when they try to obtain additional space. Regards, -drc From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Mar 30 02:02:13 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:02:13 +0900 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 12:40:43 CST." <01BC3C3E.6BAD7520@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703300702.QAA18523@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> [nanog removed from cc] Jim, I would request you stop trying to confuse people who are interested in doing something constructive with irrelevancies such as involvement of the US Department of State, the eDNS stuff, and your pet projects of grabbing control of existing /8s. >@ Many folk have stated that Africa should have its own NIC. It would >@ make most sense that DNS, ASN and IP Allocation came from one place. >@ Adopting the line of 'slow startup' - I approached the InterNIC for a >@ single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some >@ of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. >@ >Who did you talk to or contact ? Please read Mark's comments above again. >Did you contact the NSF ? No, and it would be inappropriate for him to do so. The creation of new regional registries is a function of the IANA. But you know that, even if you refuse to accept it. >You have to start somewhere. People who already >have all of the "nic" infrastructure are not going to >give you much help building yours, because they >want to try to control the industry. Blatant lie. I have in the past been involved in discussions with various people about the establishment of AfriNIC, as have Daniel Karrenberg and Kim Hubbard. APNIC has offered to help in the establishment of additional regional registries on numerous occasions and will continue to do so. I believe the other regionals have made similar offers. >Your task is large but it is not impossible. And how would you know what his task is? Please describe your experience in operating an Internet (IPv4) address allocation registry. Copious email doesn't count. > 1. Get the buy-in from 4 or 5 ISPs that have > existing facilities to handle the basics > and pick a name and banner to rally > around. No. Mark should get buy-in from all the ISPs he proposes AfriNIC will be providing services for. Imposing a registry upon people does not make sense. > 2. Get the buy-in of your elected officials > and have them contact the U.S. State Department > and the National Science Foundation. Buy-in from his elected officials is irrelevant, particularly in an international setting. Further, the US state department has nothing to do with establishing a regional registry. NSF would probably be interested, and might point out some resources that could be helpful, but other than that, there is no particular need for them to be involved. > 3. Deploy a confederation of TRUE Root Name Servers > similar to the eDNS confederation (http://www.edns.net) Irrelevant. > 4. Develop a Registration Authority (RA) to help cultivate > the growth of TLD Registries. Irrelevant. > 5. Develop one or more TLD Registries to develop some > of the infrastructure and business community awareness > needed to support the Internet Registry industry in > an area. Irrelevant. > 6. Help with IPv4 ecology and reclamation efforts and plan > to take over the management of an existing /8 > once you have enough infrastructure in place. Existing /8? No. Presumably AfriNIC will obtain a /8 or /7 from the IANA like the other regionals (with the historic exception of InterNIC) when they started. Not bad, you missed 6 of 6. >It is important to develop >and demonstrate the infrastructure needed >to handle domain names, IP addresses, etc. True, although the only DNS issues Mark will likely need to face are related to in-addrs. Regards, -drc From rjw at CRL.COM Sun Mar 30 01:56:31 1997 From: rjw at CRL.COM (Ron Wickersham) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:56:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote: > > In fact, if things even get close to that point, those skilled employees > are not going to hang on for the ride. > > I expect that the solution will be for IANA to choose either RIPE or APNIC > as the IP allocation authority for North America because they will be the > only people who know how to do the job. > Is it not worth considering choosing either RIPE or APNIC in the first place? What is the compelling position that makes a 5-way regional decentralization better than a single world-wide allocation authority (or a 50-way decentralized model for that matter)? -Ron Wickersham rjw at crl.com From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 02:11:43 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:11:43 -0600 Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. Message-ID: <01BC3CA7.55770640@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 1:02 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ [nanog removed from cc] @ @ @ >@ Many folk have stated that Africa should have its own NIC. It would @ >@ make most sense that DNS, ASN and IP Allocation came from one place. @ >@ Adopting the line of 'slow startup' - I approached the InterNIC for a @ >@ single superblock of Class C addresses - to start attending with some @ >@ of the local address problems - and have currently been refused. @ >@ @ >Who did you talk to or contact ? @ @ Please read Mark's comments above again. @ OK, I read them...now...who "refused" him...? @ >Did you contact the NSF ? @ @ No, and it would be inappropriate for him to do so. The creation of @ new regional registries is a function of the IANA. @ How do you know if he contacted the NSF ? For the record, can you explain who the IANA is ? (just in case the story changes in the next couple of months) By the way, why don't you want people to contact the agencies that can make something happen ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Mar 30 02:17:41 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:17:41 +0900 Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:26:15 CST." <01BC3C87.D5EC0E80@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703300717.QAA18582@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> Jim, >I believe that the founders of ARIN have been asked >several times to identify the exact /8s that ARIN >proposes to manage. Yes, by you. Most other people understand that ARIN will simply be inheriting the blocks currently managed by InterNIC. Of course, you understand this as well, since it has been explained to you on numerous occasions, however since it doesn't fit your fantasies, you keep repeating the same questions. Gets pretty boring. Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 02:19:48 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:19:48 -0600 Subject: Blah blah is right..... Message-ID: <01BC3CA8.769B6900@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 1:17 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ Jim, @ @ >I believe that the founders of ARIN have been asked @ >several times to identify the exact /8s that ARIN @ >proposes to manage. @ @ Yes, by you. Most other people understand that ARIN will simply be @ inheriting the blocks currently managed by InterNIC. Of course, you @ understand this as well, since it has been explained to you on @ numerous occasions, however since it doesn't fit your fantasies, you @ keep repeating the same questions. @ @ Gets pretty boring. @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ @ What is so hard about enumerating the /8s ? What does "currently managed by InterNIC" mean ? What about the military /8s ? What about the corporate /8s ? What about the IANA /8s ? Some people think this means everything under IN-ADDR.ARPA because someone has to manage that zone, and the InterNIC handles that. Again, what is so hard about making a list ? Don't the ARIN founders even want to disclose what they think they are going to manage ? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 02:25:23 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:25:23 -0600 Subject: Still blah, blah, blah Message-ID: <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 12:19 AM, Larry Honig[SMTP:lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM] wrote: @ Jim Fleming wrote: @ > @ > The market value of a single /8 is easily about... @ > @ > $50 million @ > or @ > one Stealth Jet Fighter @ > @ > If you assume that the 24 bit address space @ > has over 16.7 million raw addresses and a @ > lease rate of $2 per address per year with @ > a 50% occupancy level then the revenue @ > from one /8 can be about $16 million/year. @ > @ > If a /8 requires $1 million in staff and support @ > per year, then the net profit can be about @ > $15 million per year. With a 5 times multiple @ > this places the value at about $75 million. @ > A more conservative value could be $50 million. @ > @ @ Jim, this is the internal conflict I see in your proposals writ large. @ You may assume that the "lease rate" is $2/year (there is no market @ research to support this, but lets just go with it). If your cost @ figures are correct, then the investment community will simply *rush* to @ invest in this new "industry" which offers a *15 times* yield (your @ figures, $1m in and $15m out), and the lease rates will come down @ rapidly to allow a more normal rate of return, generally about 20% on @ invested capital on a going business which is largely, to use your own @ words, based on @ 1. How do you know there is no market research on this ? 2. The yield is not 15 times. You show "$1m in"...above I show $50m in... and $15 million out, that is 30% return on the investment of $50m... 3. We have not discussed the cost of routing IP addresses which has to be factored into these discussions. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From davidc at APNIC.NET Sun Mar 30 02:47:35 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 16:47:35 +0900 Subject: Blah blah is right..... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:19:48 CST." <01BC3CA8.769B6900@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703300747.QAA18702@moonsky.jp.apnic.net> >What is so hard about enumerating the /8s ? Nothing. You do it quite often, spewing it to various mailing lists. >What does "currently managed by InterNIC" mean ? Perhaps the best definition would be addresses handed out by InterNIC or its predecessors to non-registries, however such a definition is relatively unimportant to everyone but yourself. >What about the military /8s ? What about them? >What about the corporate /8s ? What about them? >What about the IANA /8s ? What about them? >Some people think this means everything under IN-ADDR.ARPA >because someone has to manage that zone, and the InterNIC >handles that. Some people are confused. >Again, what is so hard about making a list ? Again, nothing, as you amply demonstrate so often (lists of the class A space, lists of US Senators, lists of questions, etc.) Regards, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Sun Mar 30 03:51:20 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:51:20 -0500 Subject: Still blah, blah, blah In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:25:23 CST." <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703300851.DAA20126@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:25:23 CST, you said: > 2. The yield is not 15 times. You show "$1m in"...above I show $50m in... > and $15 million out, that is 30% return on the investment of $50m... Umm.. Jim? In a previous life, did you ever work as an accountant for a movie studio, computing percents of the net on movies so actors get screwed out of money? You have to keep "your" money and "their" money seperate when computing return on investment. If you spend $1M to buy and run a bakery, sell $50M worth of bread at $2/loaf, spend $35M on flour and payroll, and get $15M in profits, you have about 1500% profits. Or at least until somebody else invests $1M to build another bakery, and sells $37.5M of bread at $1.50 a loaf, starting a price war until prices drop down to whatever $35.2M works out to a loaf, at which point you've put in $1M of your money, taken in $35.2M, spent $35M of it on flour and payroll, and kept $200K, for a 20% return or so. Now, what you originally *said* was that since you'd be making $15M a year, you arbitrarily set the "value" at 5X higher (or $75M), to give a "yield" of 20%, and then made it a more conservative $50M. However, the "value" is *NOT* the same thing as the actual money put in. You actually put in $1M. Your customers paid you $16M. You pocket $15M. Your other $49M is irrelevant. Otherwise, I could write myself a check for $1,498M, put it in my pocket, and offer to do the job for what would be essentially non-profit 0.0001% return on my investment, since I'd only make $15M on my $1.5 billion.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sun Mar 30 07:50:34 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 07:50:34 -0500 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? References: <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> <199703300851.DAA20126@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: <333E619A.1620@driveway1.com> Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:25:23 CST, you said: > > 2. The yield is not 15 times. You show "$1m in"...above I show $50m in... > > and $15 million out, that is 30% return on the investment of $50m... > > Umm.. Jim? In a previous life, did you ever work as an accountant for > a movie studio, computing percents of the net on movies so actors get > screwed out of money? > > You have to keep "your" money and "their" money seperate when > computing return on investment. If you spend $1M to buy and run a > bakery, sell $50M worth of bread at $2/loaf, spend $35M on > flour and payroll, and get $15M in profits, you have about 1500% > profits. > > Or at least until somebody else invests $1M to build another bakery, > and sells $37.5M of bread at $1.50 a loaf, starting a price war until > prices drop down to whatever $35.2M works out to a loaf, at which > point you've put in $1M of your money, taken in $35.2M, spent $35M of > it on flour and payroll, and kept $200K, for a 20% return or so. > > Now, what you originally *said* was that since you'd be making $15M a > year, you arbitrarily set the "value" at 5X higher (or $75M), to give > a "yield" of 20%, and then made it a more conservative $50M. However, > the "value" is *NOT* the same thing as the actual money put in. You > actually put in $1M. Your customers paid you $16M. You pocket $15M. > > Your other $49M is irrelevant. Otherwise, I could write myself a > check for $1,498M, put it in my pocket, and offer to do the job for > what would be essentially non-profit 0.0001% return on my investment, > since I'd only make $15M on my $1.5 billion.... > Thank you. Despite comet Hale-Bopp, apparently 15 divided by 1 is still seen to equal 1500%. /Larry From randy at PSG.COM Sun Mar 30 08:00:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 97 05:00 PST Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? References: <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> <199703300851.DAA20126@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> <333E619A.1620@driveway1.com> Message-ID: Bunch of meaningless numbers intended to create hysteria sans fact. There are good historical data from RIP and APNIC. They differ by an order of magnitude from the fantasies folk are blathering here. And, bottom line, all these organizations are not for profit, with actual price reduction when needed. It would be helpful for purposes of getting one's point across if folk attempted to stick within shouting distance of reality. The alternative is to have folk ignore the fantasy/hysteria as Jim Flemming et alia are ignored. randy From lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM Sun Mar 30 08:17:22 1997 From: lonewolf at DRIVEWAY1.COM (Larry Honig) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 08:17:22 -0500 Subject: More econ 101...or why flying pigs can't References: <01BC3CA9.3E46D3E0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <333E67E2.228C@driveway1.com> Inconsistent, but more important, destructive to your credibility and thus *harmful* to the ideas which you seem to be espousing: You recently wrote: > 2. The yield is not 15 times. You show "$1m in"...above I show $50m > in...and $15 million out, that is 30% return on the investment of > $50m... but you previously wrote: > @ > > @ > If a /8 requires $1 million in staff and support > @ > per year, then the net profit can be about > @ > $15 million per year. With a 5 times multiple > @ > this places the value at about $75 million. > @ > A more conservative value could be $50 million. > @ > If you try to use words, then, for your own sake, kindly use them accurately. Most (nay -all) folks define "net profits before taxes" to mean "what is left over after *ALL* expenses associated with generating the profits are deducted from "gross receipts". "Net profits" generally means "net profits before income taxes" minus "income taxes". Again, a business that enjoyed ridiculous profit margins would certainly have a much higher multiple than 5x, which is more appropriate to a steady-state (old fans of McKinsey charts might prefer their term, "cow") business, so your $75M , or your $50M figure, which are properly referred to as "valuation", or "market cap", are entirely specious as well. > 3. We have not discussed the cost of routing IP addresses > which has to be factored into these discussions. > Nor have you factored in the cost associated with "marketing, marketing, marketing".. (which are closer in concept to your "business model") .. but this point seems to indicate that you see ARIN's "business" as actually *ROUTING*. Huh? So you now have a roomful of well-trained hamsters (none of whom have worked for ARIN and know this from a technical perspective) not only dishing out numbers, from a protected pool, to a credulous client base, who won't go to a lower-cost "provider" since they have been entranced by your "marketing", who incidentally are also pushing bits around making sure that my Aunt Sue's " HTTP 1.0 GET " message goes to www.disneyworld.com (or "Register.A.Mall") and not to Saddam Hussein? Show me the money, Jim. If you can really demonstrate this, then find a banker and start the biz. If you think, rather, that some of my points have independent merit - and I am in no way indulging in any sort of ad hominem attack, simply responding to your ideas as expressed by you, in your words - then as a lesson in "Marketing 101", let me respectfully submit the oldest lesson of all: The customer is always right. I (and everybody else on this list) should be treated as .. your customer!! That's right! and you are trying to sell...your ideas!! That's right!! and if your ideas are *GOOD*, then we will buy them, because they are...better!! That's right!! But if your exposition is flawed, or if we don't understand what you are saying because your message is not well thought out or expressed, then, as customers...we won't buy them!! That's right!! /Larry From JimFleming at unety.net Sun Mar 30 16:22:00 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:22:00 -0600 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? Message-ID: <01BC3D1E.1DAB2580@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 7:00 AM, Randy Bush[SMTP:randy at PSG.COM] wrote: @ Bunch of meaningless numbers intended to create hysteria sans fact. @ @ There are good historical data from RIP and APNIC. They differ by an order @ of magnitude from the fantasies folk are blathering here. And, bottom line, @ all these organizations are not for profit, with actual price reduction when @ needed. @ @ It would be helpful for purposes of getting one's point across if folk @ attempted to stick within shouting distance of reality. The alternative @ is to have folk ignore the fantasy/hysteria as Jim Flemming et alia are @ ignored. @ @ randy @ @ Maybe the U.S. Government and the NSF/InterNIC you should hold an auction for ONE /8 and see how much it raises. You apparently think it will bring $5 million. I claim that $50 million is more likely. An auction is one way to find out and the NSF (or the FCC) could raise some money. Are the costs of renumbering taken into account when valuing IP blocks ? How much has renumbering cost ISPs over the years ? As an example, 3,000 ISPs spending $10,000 per year on this nonsense is $30,000,000. Some ISPs report it costs them $100,000/year. Who is going to be responsible for those costs ? Will ARIN be addressing those costs ? What do corporations value their /8s at on their books ? Why do large companies get to avoid renumbering costs ? What advantage does that give large companies over small companies and what is the value of those advantages ? Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? Why are small ISPs forced to be tied to upstream providers ? Who is going to be responsible for those policies ? What happens when small ISPs are put out of business by large upstream providers who raise rates after binding the ISP to their service by locking them out of the IP allocation opportunities? Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? To summarize: 1. Renumbering costs are significant to ISPs and should be considered when valuing IP adddresses. 2. Large, legacy corporation advantages over small ISPs are real and need to be addressed by the government. 3. Upstream provider allocations to ISPs are a severe handicap and need to be reduced via PI allocations. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From michael at MEMRA.COM Sun Mar 30 22:32:36 1997 From: michael at MEMRA.COM (Michael Dillon) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 19:32:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: ARIN is not/is too/is not/is too... blah. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Wayne D. Correia wrote: > At 11:09 AM -0800 3/29/97, Michael Dillon wrote: > >This will not happen unless you lie to ARIN and forge documents to back up > >your lies. If this did happen, not only would your criminal behavior be > >made public but I would urge the FBI to lay charges against you. If the > >FBI would not do this I would urge ISOC and EFF to file a civil suit > >against you. I suspect the FTC would also have some interest if you are > >selling IP addresses which you do not own since IP addresses are not > >things which you buy, they are also not things which you can sell. > > Excuse me? EFF? I said I would *ASK* you to do something, I didn't say you would listen to me. ;-) I admit that the EFF is vastly more likely to defend user's interests than it is to take offensive action against someone abusing the network. It's not always easy to come up with the perfect example when posting to a mailing list, you know. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Sun Mar 30 23:39:43 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:39:43 -0800 Subject: ARIN is A Good Thing Message-ID: <01BC3D4B.8443AB00@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] >Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 9:49 PM > >On Friday, March 28, 1997 5:51 PM, Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb at ATMNET.NET] wrote: >@ This is a public expression of opinion which has also been sent privately >@ to appropriate governmental organizations... >@ >@ ---------- >@ I am writing this to express ATMnet's support for ARIN (the American >@ Registry for Internet Numbers) in the strongest possible terms. It is of >@ the utmost importance that the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) >@ addresses not be jeopardized by the turmoil currently surround the Domain >@ Name System (DNS), and that immediate steps be taken to move in the >@ direction defined in the ARIN proposal. DNS issues are primarily related >@ to factors such as market leverage, and obtaining any particular domain >@ name can be viewed as something of a luxury. IP Addresses, on the other >@ hand, are of operational concern, and timely and appropriate access to this >@ resource is absolutely required for the continued growth of the Internet. >@ > >The turmoil surrounding the Domain Name System (DNS) >is going to come to an end as NEW companies are allowed to get >involved in the Registry Industry. Most of the turmoil was caused >by ARIN-like proposals ARIN is a unique situation, as it involves the allocation of a finite resource which is a hard requirement for Internet operations.. >focused on preserving the Internet governance by a select group >of insiders that do not want to give up control. ARIN expands the circle of influence to include those entities requiring its services. >the infrastructure needed to support >a domain registry is very similar to that needed to handle IP >allocations. IP allocation requires subjective evaluation, whereas the DNS functions are mechanical. Everyone would like to seethe subjectivity reduced, however it will never be eliminated. >To try to artificially partition these industries simply to preserve >some power structures to give selected people comfortable jobs >without having to be accountable to the market place, ARIN is much more accountable to the market than the government or NSI.. >Rough consensus ?...where ?...when people are censored >and encouraged not to post to a mailing list, one can not >conclude that silence equals consensus. Asking you to keep to the subject matter of lists and refrain from legal threats and needless rhetoric (requests which are never fulfilled) is hardly the same as censure. Despite the remaining few vociferous individuals, it appears that there is indeed a rough consensus that ARIN should move forward.. >Again, why don't those people take a single >/8 (one 256th of the address space) and demonstrate >these skills, ethics, etc. With that approach people that >want to pay them can and those that prefer to go in a >different direction can do that. "Those people" have already demonstrated their skills. ARIN is a "sin-off", and it needs the resources to do its job.. >Do you also think that it is "right" for CEOs of >companies to threaten other companies with denying >transport of packets ? Under certain circumstances, yes... >If ARIN is formed, what assurances do people have >that certain people or groups will not be black-listed The same assurances that they have now... >Does that group know the difference between right and wrong ? Yes... -- Jim Browning From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Mar 31 00:14:23 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:14:23 +0900 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:22:00 CST." <01BC3D1E.1DAB2580@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703310514.OAA18291@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> [ONCE AGAIN, removed NSF folk from cc's. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO ANNOYING?] >Maybe the U.S. Government and the NSF/InterNIC you should hold >an auction for ONE /8 and see how much it raises. Great idea! But since I figure I have as much right to auction integers as anyone else, I hereby put some numbers (oh say, the range denoted by 223/8) up for auction. What do I hear? Heck, I'll even throw in a signed certificate for the proud buyer (just like Jim claims he did for the integers he sold at $50 a pop (or something like that)). Hmmm. You don't suppose Jim could have ulterior motives here? >You apparently think it will bring $5 million. >I claim that $50 million is more likely. You know this. From reports of transactions on the black market, the prices for a /8 would appear to range somewhere between $4,096,000 and $16,384,000 (assuming linear extrapolation from purported sales of /16s). >Are the costs of renumbering taken into account when > valuing IP blocks ? You know this. Presumably those organizations which have purchased addresses on the black market did so. > Who is going to be responsible for those costs ? You know this. Presumably those people who incur them. > Will ARIN be addressing those costs ? You know this. No. ARIN provides allocation services to those paying its fees. >What do corporations value their /8s at on their books ? I suspect you'd need to ask those corporations. > Why do large companies get to avoid renumbering costs ? You know this. They may or may not avoid renumbering costs -- it depends on the provider they use. > What advantage does that give large companies over small > companies and what is the value of those advantages ? Presumably, you are also upset when you can't get a loan from a bank at the same rate as multi-billion dollar companies. > Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? You know this. No. >Why are small ISPs forced to be tied to upstream providers ? You know this. It is called hierarchical addressing. > Who is going to be responsible for those policies ? You know this. Internet service providers. > What happens when small ISPs are put out of business > by large upstream providers who raise rates after > binding the ISP to their service by locking them > out of the IP allocation opportunities? You know this. If the small ISPs "are put out of business" then presumably the employees will look for new jobs. However, there is no evidence that ARIN will result in small ISPs will be "locked out of IP allocation opportunities" any more than they are now. > Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? You know this. No. >To summarize: > 1. Renumbering costs are significant to ISPs and > should be considered when valuing IP adddresses. Obvious. > 2. Large, legacy corporation advantages over small ISPs are > real and need to be addressed by the government. By the government? I don't think you want the Japanese government to get involved in this, they're not very popular according to recent poles. Oh, did you mean some other government? Canada perhaps? Mexico? > 3. Upstream provider allocations to ISPs are a severe > handicap and need to be reduced via PI allocations. Just curious (not that I expect an answer): how do you propose to route all those PI allocations? Regards, -drc From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Mar 31 00:53:35 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:53:35 -0600 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? Message-ID: <01BC3D65.95B52840@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 11:14 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ [ONCE AGAIN, removed NSF folk from cc's. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO ANNOYING?] @ @ >Maybe the U.S. Government and the NSF/InterNIC you should hold @ >an auction for ONE /8 and see how much it raises. @ @ Great idea! But since I figure I have as much right to auction @ integers as anyone else, I hereby put some numbers (oh say, the range @ denoted by 223/8) up for auction. What do I hear? Heck, I'll even @ throw in a signed certificate for the proud buyer (just like Jim @ claims he did for the integers he sold at $50 a pop (or something like @ that)). @ @ Hmmm. You don't suppose Jim could have ulterior motives here? @ When did you purchase 223.x.x.x/8 ? @ >You apparently think it will bring $5 million. @ >I claim that $50 million is more likely. @ @ You know this. From reports of transactions on the black market, the @ prices for a /8 would appear to range somewhere between $4,096,000 and @ $16,384,000 (assuming linear extrapolation from purported sales of @ /16s). @ You have to be careful with this extrapolation. You are using black market figures in a climate where "some" companies get allocations for FREE. The black market value of a /16 is mostly based on what companies estimate they will have to pay consultants to interface with the InterNIC to obtain an allocation. $50,000 for a /16 seems to be common. If (or rather when) all companies pay for their IP space, then your numbers could easily go up by a factor of 4. That would place a /8 in the range of $16 to $50 million. @ >Are the costs of renumbering taken into account when @ > valuing IP blocks ? @ @ You know this. Presumably those organizations which have purchased @ addresses on the black market did so. @ The cost of dealing with the InterNIC is also considered. @ > Who is going to be responsible for those costs ? @ @ You know this. Presumably those people who incur them. @ @ > Will ARIN be addressing those costs ? @ @ You know this. No. ARIN provides allocation services to those paying @ its fees. @ So, you do not see ARIN as being responsible if the ARIN organization costs one company substantially more money than another. Does ARIN intend to carefully document each request and the outcome ? @ >What do corporations value their /8s at on their books ? @ @ I suspect you'd need to ask those corporations. @ @ > Why do large companies get to avoid renumbering costs ? @ @ You know this. They may or may not avoid renumbering costs -- it @ depends on the provider they use. @ What about the large companies that have their own /8s ? Why are they also using space from other parts of the IPv4 space ? Why does the InterNIC allocate /16s to companies that have /8s ? Why do some companies have more than one /8 ? @ > What advantage does that give large companies over small @ > companies and what is the value of those advantages ? @ @ Presumably, you are also upset when you can't get a loan from a bank @ at the same rate as multi-billion dollar companies. @ @ > Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? @ @ You know this. No. @ @ >Why are small ISPs forced to be tied to upstream providers ? @ @ You know this. It is called hierarchical addressing. @ (see PI space below) @ > Who is going to be responsible for those policies ? @ @ You know this. Internet service providers. @ @ > What happens when small ISPs are put out of business @ > by large upstream providers who raise rates after @ > binding the ISP to their service by locking them @ > out of the IP allocation opportunities? @ @ You know this. If the small ISPs "are put out of business" then @ presumably the employees will look for new jobs. However, there is no @ evidence that ARIN will result in small ISPs will be "locked out of IP @ allocation opportunities" any more than they are now. @ So ARIN will not improve the current situation despite the fact that ISPs are supposed to now pay for the same unfair treatment. @ > Will ARIN be addressing these issues ? @ @ You know this. No. @ @ >To summarize: @ > 1. Renumbering costs are significant to ISPs and @ > should be considered when valuing IP adddresses. @ @ Obvious. @ @ > 2. Large, legacy corporation advantages over small ISPs are @ > real and need to be addressed by the government. @ @ By the government? I don't think you want the Japanese government to @ get involved in this, they're not very popular according to recent @ poles. Oh, did you mean some other government? Canada perhaps? @ Mexico? @ The U.S. Government is a good start, see the limited CC list above. @ > 3. Upstream provider allocations to ISPs are a severe @ > handicap and need to be reduced via PI allocations. @ @ Just curious (not that I expect an answer): how do you propose to @ route all those PI allocations? @ As I have answered this before.... 1. The 3,000 ISPs in the U.S. should be given /18s with the agreement that they advertise it as a single aggregate and that they have two providers that agree in advance to handle the advertised route. 2. The routing tables can easily handle that addition and this will result in many routes being removed. 3. I suggested a short-form application that ISPs can use to apply for this space and in my opinion they should take that application directly to the National Science Foundation and if necessary, their U.S. Senator. I will be happy to post a list of contacts if needed. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Mar 31 01:51:39 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 15:51:39 +0900 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:53:35 CST." <01BC3D65.95B52840@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703310651.PAA18463@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Jim, Really, why do you think: "'ckuehn at nsf.gov'" , "'gstrawn at nsf.gov'" , "'lsundro at nsf.gov'" , need to be cc'd on your mail? Do you really have that high an opinion of yourself? I'll say it again, if they are interested in this issue, they can subscribe to the mailing list. Sending unsolicited mail is generally viewed as rude. Why must you be so annoying? >When did you purchase 223.x.x.x/8 ? I didn't. >You are using black market figures in a climate where >"some" companies get allocations for FREE. Very true. >The black market value of a /16 is mostly based on >what companies estimate they will have to pay >consultants to interface with the InterNIC to obtain >an allocation. Is it? This information is undoubtedly based on your in depth interviews with the individuals who purchased the address space. >$50,000 for a /16 seems to be common. Does it? >If (or rather when) all companies pay for their IP space, >then your numbers could easily go up by a factor of 4. Or, assuming a free market, they could approach the cost of allocating addresses (which is no where near the numbers you are fantazing about). >The cost of dealing with the InterNIC is also considered. Which, given an environment where address space is bought and sold would not be a consideration, thus you can factor them out. >So, you do not see ARIN as being responsible if >the ARIN organization costs one company substantially >more money than another. United Airlines pays a whole lot more for fuel than APNIC (not so many black helicopters, dontcha know). >Does ARIN intend to carefully document each request and the outcome ? Of course, as all the registries do now. >What about the large companies that have their own /8s ? What about them? >Why are they also using space from other parts of the IPv4 space ? >Why does the InterNIC allocate /16s to companies that have /8s ? >Why do some companies have more than one /8 ? You know this. Primarily historical reasons. New allocations are made for various reasons, including the fact that if a company's various parts may or may not be tightly coupled. >So ARIN will not improve the current situation >despite the fact that ISPs are supposed to now >pay for the same unfair treatment. You know this. ARIN provides a means by which the ISPs can influence the implementation of global allocation policies. It does not mean American (and South African) ISPs can ignore global allocation policies. > 1. The 3,000 ISPs in the U.S. should be given /18s Just the US? Your parochialism is painful. Wake up. There is a world with more than one country out there. > with the agreement that they advertise it > as a single aggregate and that they have And if for business reasons they decide to advertise more specifics? Would you have the registry revoke the allocation? > two providers that agree in advance to handle > the advertised route. And if or or both of those providers change their minds? > 3. I suggested a short-form application that ISPs can > use to apply for this space and in my > opinion they should take that application > directly to the National Science Foundation > and if necessary, their U.S. Senator. NSF or their Senator? I'm sure both organizations would be enthralled to be so deeply involved in Internet bookkeeping when other organizations have been created to handle this detail. Oh, have you asked them? >I will be happy to post a list of contacts if needed. That won't be necessary -- should anyone be silly enough to care, I'm sure the zillions of copies of the same information you sent over and over again can be found in the archives of the myriad mailing lists you have "contributed" to will suffice. Regards, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU Mon Mar 31 01:56:04 1997 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 01:56:04 -0500 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:22:00 CST." <01BC3D1E.1DAB2580@webster.unety.net> References: <01BC3D1E.1DAB2580@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703310656.BAA19752@black-ice.cc.vt.edu> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:22:00 CST, Jim Fleming said: > You apparently think it will bring $5 million. > I claim that $50 million is more likely. Even after we've seen postings from (was it you, Kim?) stating that if they had billed *LAST* year at the proposed rates, they would have taken in $3M or so? I certainly hope that we *DONT* see $50M in income - this would imply a total collapse of CIDR, and damned if I know where we're going to find an upgrade path out of our Cisco 7500's ;) > How much has renumbering cost ISPs over the years ? > As an example, 3,000 ISPs spending $10,000 > per year on this nonsense is $30,000,000. > Some ISPs report it costs them $100,000/year. I'm not sure which way you mean this. Let's examine both.. (a) ISP's shelling out mucho for the costs of re-numbering... The only comment I can add here is that any business that gets nailed for $100K in costs one year, and fails to learn from it and get nailed agai the NEXT year, is quite deserving of being seperated from their money. (b) ISP's shelling out mucho for ARIN fees. Hmm.. How many bits do they get for $10K? Is there sufficient remaining unallocated space to allocate 3,000 of those? Now look at the *size* of the allocation that costs $100K. (I am at home, and no web-browser handy, but I think the ISP would have to have 10 seperate /8s to get into this range). Now compute how many of those you can create out of 32 bits. Using these 2 numbers, compute an upper bound on income. (Actually, I'm surprised nobody did this before - it should be fairly easy to look at the *current* allocations, compute the distribution of /8s, /10,s etc down to /19s, take the amount of currently unallocated space, and figure out what the *maximum* that ARIN can make if they allocate *ALL* the space. And remember - if they actually suceed in doing so, we can hang a very large 'GAME OVER - INSERT IPv6 PACKET TO CONTINUE" sign on the entire Internet. Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Engineer Virginia Tech From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Mar 31 02:09:30 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 01:09:30 -0600 Subject: [bdinet] RE: Registration of Top Level Domain for Bangladesh Message-ID: <01BC3D70.30BF34C0@webster.unety.net> On Sunday, March 30, 1997 11:30 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: @ Hi, @ @ Hope you don't mind the intrusion, but... @ @ I got burned last time I tried this, I thought I'd try again. Note @ however that APNIC has _NO_ say whatsoever in the final decision @ whether the TLD gets allocated or to whom that allocation occurs. All @ we do is provide input to the IANA (when they ask) so they can make @ the decision. @ @ >IMHO it would @ >be very nice if the IBM/Teleglobe/BTTB enterprise would consider "joint @ >management of .bd Top Level Domain with existing service providers", from @ >the outset - rather than going for the whole case alone. @ @ I agree. More specifically, I would like to encourage the formation @ of a consortium in which each of the BD Internet "stakeholders" has an @ opportunity for input in the decisions on management of the .BD @ domain, Stakeholders would ideally include government, industry, and @ academic representatives. The administration of a TLD is actually a @ real pain in the neck (*everybody* at one time or another whines at @ you) -- it is best to spread the pain as much as possible. @ @ Regards, @ -drc @ @ --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-- @ To remove yourself from this list send mail to 'bdinfo at bangla.org' @ with the word 'unsubscribe' (w/o quotes) in the body of the mail @ Hypertext archive of past mailings are available at the URL @ http://www.bangla.org/bdinet/archive/ @ --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-- @ @ Here is an international example of why the people that handle IP allocations and domain names should be part of the same regional registry. Despite people's claims that IP allocations and domain name issues are not in any way related, we can see above that they are related because Internet infrastructure is hard to establish and if these two critical functions are separated inefficiencies and disputes can arise. This is why ARIN (http://www.arin.net) makes no sense. Instead, the numerous TLD registries being created by the eDNS efforts (http://www.edns.net) should be allowed to step in (if they choose to) and handle some of the IP address allocation duties. The original NSF, IS, DS, and RS InterNIC model can be used to grow the Internet Infrastructure in the U.S. and around the world. To divide the InterNIC at this point makes no sense. If the InterNIC model is cloned in various locations around the world, then discussions like those above will have an obvious agency where the people should turn. This will avoid the run arounds and the vague language as seen above where APNIC advises the IANA (when asked) yet the IANA makes the decisions. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From richard at caribonline.com Mon Mar 31 03:43:44 1997 From: richard at caribonline.com (Richard Gobin) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 03:43:44 -0500 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? References: <199703310651.PAA18463@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Message-ID: <333F7940.52E8@caribonline.com> Get some sleep guys. :) Richard... ------------- Richard Gobin Caribbean Online http://www.caribonline.com From davidc at APNIC.NET Mon Mar 31 02:47:09 1997 From: davidc at APNIC.NET (David R. Conrad) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 16:47:09 +0900 Subject: [bdinet] RE: Registration of Top Level Domain for Bangladesh In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 1997 01:09:30 CST." <01BC3D70.30BF34C0@webster.unety.net> Message-ID: <199703310747.QAA19168@palmtree.jp.apnic.net> Jim Are you being intentionally exasperating or this just part of your personality? >Here is an international example of why the people that >handle IP allocations and domain names should be part >of the same regional registry. Huh? No it's not. >Despite people's claims that IP allocations and domain >name issues are not in any way related, They aren't. >we can see >above that they are related because Internet infrastructure >is hard to establish and if these two critical functions are >separated inefficiencies and disputes can arise. Huh? Establishing the .BD top level domain (what my mail to the BDINET list was in response to) has nothing to do with address allocation. Establishing the .BD TLD has been delayed due to several factors, none of which involve APNIC. My mail was merely an attempt to encourage the establishment of a neutral organization to handle the .BD TLD. >This is why ARIN (http://www.arin.net) makes no sense. Huh? The issues are *completely* unrelated. >Instead, the numerous TLD registries being created by >the eDNS efforts (http://www.edns.net) should be allowed >to step in (if they choose to) and handle some of the >IP address allocation duties. And how would these competitive registries coordinate? >If the InterNIC model is cloned in various locations around >the world, I'm not sure the "InterNIC model" was such a success -- NSI (registrations) seems to have become the Internet's equivalent of Darth Vader, AT&T doesn't appear to be very active, and GA had their part of the cooperative agreement pulled. Why exactly do you want to clone this structure again? >then discussions like those above will have >an obvious agency where the people should turn. You know this. They already do, it is called the IANA. Regards, -drc P.S. To those who have requested I ignore Jim, I must point out that the rumored (via Gordon Cook) issues that may be impacting the creation of ARIN are likely directly related to the misinformation, lies, and insinuations of people like Jim Fleming. It would appear necessary to provide true information to combat Jim's persistent fantasies. From JimFleming at unety.net Mon Mar 31 02:45:27 1997 From: JimFleming at unety.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 01:45:27 -0600 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? Message-ID: <01BC3D75.3646AA40@webster.unety.net> On Monday, March 31, 1997 12:56 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote: @ On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:22:00 CST, Jim Fleming said: @ > You apparently think it will bring $5 million. @ > I claim that $50 million is more likely. @ @ Even after we've seen postings from (was it you, Kim?) stating @ that if they had billed *LAST* year at the proposed rates, @ they would have taken in $3M or so? @ @ I certainly hope that we *DONT* see $50M in income - this would @ imply a total collapse of CIDR, and damned if I know where we're @ going to find an upgrade path out of our Cisco 7500's ;) The $50 million refers to capitalization not income. As an example, a leasing company could capitalize a router for $50,000 and collect "rent" each month on it. The rent would show up on the Income and Expense statement. The $50,000 router would usually show up on the Balance Sheet as an asset. If a company pays $10,000,000 for a /8 then that would show up as an asset. Now, IF someone gives that company a /8 then by rights the company has to show that as either an equity investment from the donor or as income. In the first case, the donor owns a piece of the company, in the second the IRS gets to levy taxes on the impuned income. It is sort of ironic that the U.S. Government's NSF is currently handing out taxable assets whithout much concern for the IRS implications. Since the NSF deals with large multi-million dollar grants, one would think they would have all these bases covered. Has ARIN covered these bases? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation http://www.Unir.Corp Check out...http://Register.A.Mall From netsurf at pixi.com Mon Mar 31 01:27:48 1997 From: netsurf at pixi.com (NetSurfer) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:27:48 -0000 Subject: ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing Message-ID: <199703311628.GAA18250@mail.pixi.com> Earlier I was chastised for stating unfounded rumor about fees of up to $20,000/year yet a similar fee structure for new registrations/services from ARIN is being proposed. Just wanted to point out that I wasn't referencing unfounded rumor but rather a reference that needed qualified i.e. allocation services for organizations requesting address space directly from ARIN. ---------- From: David R. Conrad >Proposed charging up to $20,000 for IP addresses - more unsubstantiated >rumor? Sigh. Would you *please* read the proposal (http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html, http://www.arin.net/arin_faq.html might also be helpful). If you had you would see that the fee is for allocation _services_ and only applicable to organizations requesting address space _directly_ from ARIN. From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Mon Mar 31 11:36:27 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:36:27 -0800 Subject: [bdinet] RE: Registration of Top Level Domain for Bangladesh Message-ID: <01BC3DAE.A08E1080@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 30, 1997 11:10 PM > >On Sunday, March 30, 1997 11:30 PM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at apnic.net] wrote: > >Here is an international example of why the people that >handle IP allocations and domain names should be part >of the same regional registry. No, it was not an example of that. It is yet another example of your ability to totally misconstrue other people's communications and misrepresent facts. >Despite people's claims that IP allocations and domain >name issues are not in any way related, we can see >above that they are related because Internet infrastructure >is hard to establish and if these two critical functions are >separated inefficiencies and disputes can arise. There was nothing like that at all in what you quoted.. >This is why ARIN (http://www.arin.net) makes no sense. >Instead, the numerous TLD registries being created by >the eDNS efforts (http://www.edns.net) should be allowed >to step in (if they choose to) and handle some of the >IP address allocation duties. The eDNS efforts are all about people making money, not about the appropriate management of critical resources. Fortunately, there is *NO WAY* the bulk of the world's service providers will accept what you are proposing, just as they have chosen to ignore the rogue TLDs. >The original NSF, IS, DS, and RS InterNIC model can be >used to grow the Internet Infrastructure in the U.S. and >around the world. To divide the InterNIC at this point >makes no sense. Thank you so much for finally accepting the point so many people have been trying to make, and for arguing it so eloquently on our behalf...It's nice to hear that you see no need for the AlterNIC... >If the InterNIC model is cloned in various locations around >the world, then discussions like those above will have >an obvious agency where the people should turn. This >will avoid the run arounds and the vague language as >seen above where APNIC advises the IANA (when asked) >yet the IANA makes the decisions. It is very interesting that, after making your desire to influence policy so well know, you now are saying that IANA should not listen to the organizations most directly affected by its policies.. What is wrong with consensus building and feedback? Ohh... for minute there I forgot about the black helicopters. I guess IANA is using them now, or are they over at APNIC? I misplaced the encryption key to the helicopter schedule... The foundation of your arguments continues to crumble from a lack of substance... -- Jim Browning From jfbb at ATMNET.NET Mon Mar 31 12:28:09 1997 From: jfbb at ATMNET.NET (Jim Browning) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:28:09 -0800 Subject: Funny Money: 1+1=$50M?? Message-ID: <01BC3DB5.D9A3D920@jfbb.atmnet.net> >From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] >Sent: Sunday, March 30, 1997 11:45 PM > >If a company pays $10,000,000 for a /8 then that >would show up as an asset. > >Now, IF someone gives that company a /8 then >by rights the company has to show that as either >an equity investment from the donor or as income. >In the first case, the donor owns a piece of the >company, in the second the IRS gets to levy taxes >on the impuned income. You need to take a class in accounting. You have talked at length about "inventory" of addresses. Inventory is valued at the lower of cost or market value. No cost = no asset on the balance sheet. "Impuned income"? ROFL... Did you intend to say impugned? Meaning "false or questionable"? That's certainly what it would be all right.. You would have a n issue with your auditors if you _imputed_ income because someone allocated you the rights to use address space for free.. Creative approach, I must say, but way off the mark... >It is sort of ironic that the U.S. Government's NSF >is currently handing out taxable assets whithout >much concern for the IRS implications. Since the >NSF deals with large multi-million dollar grants, >one would think they would have all these bases >covered. Last I checked, the NSF wasn't responsible for advising American businesses on the tax treatment. And one would think you would check your facts before putting offering public tax advice... It might help keep your insurance premiums down. >Has ARIN covered these bases? They are, of course, totally irrelevant. -- Jim Browning From randy at PSG.COM Mon Mar 31 12:46:00 1997 From: randy at PSG.COM (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 97 09:46 PST Subject: ARIN is A Good Thing Message-ID: >]> If you know this is fictitious then you must know what the real numbers >]> are. >] FAQ off. > Ooooh, bad taste... I am tired of people not doing the most basic homework before putting their foot in their keyboards. It does neither the net nor their purposted causes any good. randy From pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU Mon Mar 31 15:56:16 1997 From: pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 15:56:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: ARINANOG In-Reply-To: from "Michael Gersten" at Mar 29, 97 02:12:00 pm Message-ID: <199703312056.AA207391778@martigny.ai.mit.edu> Michael Gersten supposedly said: > > Jim raises an extremely good point. > > Why not start ARIN off by giving it a /8 to work with and see how well > it will actually work? > Guess what. That IS the plan. The IANA controls /0 and will retain control of it. ARIN, just like RIPE and APNIC will be given a /8 to work from. > Lets face it, there is only ONE /0, and giving that to ARIN might not > be a good idea if it doesn't work right. By giving them a /8, they > will have to compete with other ways of assigning IP addresses, and > demonstrate that they actually can work. > > Just like a would-be ISP has to start with a /24 and work up... > > Michael >