INTERVIEW comments by Conrad

[tomas at impsat.com]

Mr. Baptista,

Please read RFC1855
<http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1855.html>.

Thanks,

Tomas Lynch
ImpSat USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at dot-god.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:43 PM
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: Trevor Paquette; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: INTERVIEW comments by Conrad
> 
> 
> 
> Di I detect an unhappy camper ???
> 
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, David Conrad wrote:
> 
> > To be clear, I never gave an interview to Baptista (even 
> the idea what he is
> > a reporter is laughable, see http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ or his
> > 'contributions' to the ICANN mailing lists as to why).
> 
> Well obviously that URL points to an authoritative news 
> source.  Obviously
> the reporting there challenges the standards establish by 
> some of the best
> news sources in the industry.
> 
> I never said you gave me an interview.  But you did make 
> those comments.
> The interview was provided by Vint Cerf who has answered the 
> question I
> originally posed to you concerning your comments.
> 
> > What I did do
> > (stupid me) is respond to an erroneous assertion of his 
> (among various other
> > innuendos and insinuations) on the cybertelecom mailing 
> list (is a mailing
> > list a conference?),
> 
> Yes you were stupid.  If you don't want to be quoted it is prudent to
> "shut up" and not say anything.
> 
> > specifically, Baptista stated:
> >
> > >>> according to ARIN the smallest allocation has a rental 
> value of $2,500 USD
> > >>> per year.
> 
> maybe you might want to provide the full message.  partial 
> quotes do not
> make the content or intent of a message.
> 
> The actual claim that was made was by a third party against you.  The
> claim was that during your days in asia (japan) you profited from the
> allocation of IP space in the asia pacific while north 
> americans got IP
> space for free.
> 
> > I merely pointed out that the registries do not revoke 
> allocations if an
> > organization does not pay the allocation fee.  The fees 
> charged by the
> > registries are for the service of allocation and are approved by the
> > memberships of the registries.  The fee, at least 
> historically, has not been
> > a "rental".
> 
> There is no history here to speak of.  The fees were only recently
> imposed.  Furthermore your fees were not approved by those 
> who hold the
> allocations.  Your membership (ARIN) is also not very 
> representative of
> the actual population holding allocations.
> 
> I believe the point I was making was the fact that small organizations
> with small allocations were carrying the burden of fees while large
> organizations with /8 blocks were paying less per IP.  Thats 
> significant.
> 
> But my main question here was why did you make the statement 
> that ARIN was
> unable to get those allocations back if no payment were made. 
>  And Vint
> Cerf - who I am beginning to suspect is a gentleman - much to 
> my surprise
> - was able to answer the question.  I'll post the URL here 
> when I publish
> it.
> 
> > Now, with respect to your mail:
> >
> > On 9/23/02 7:22 AM, "Trevor Paquette" 
> <Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca> wrote:
> > > I've always thought that IP space was a luxury, not a right.
> >
> > (As an aside, the assertion I was responding was in the 
> context of valuation
> > of address space.)
> >
> > I tend to view IP space as niether.  IP space is an 
> abstraction that has
> > value depending on context.  Address space obtained from a 
> regional registry
> > has value in its uniqueness.  ISPs can provide additional 
> value to those
> > unique addresses by routing them.  On the other hand, what 
> is the value of
> > 10/8?
> 
> well according to arin a /8 is less expensive per IP then a /19.  Go
> figure.  /19 must be prettier or sometyhing silly like that.
> 
> > IP space (v4 or v6) are merely integers.  The service of 
> insuring uniqueness
> > and routability provide value to those integers.  One can 
> argue that both of
> > those value inducing properties are luxuries and I'm sure 
> someone will argue
> > they are rights, but that is not an argument I'd be 
> interested in getting
> > into.
> 
> This sounds like alot of jibberish and an attempt at rationalization.
> 
> > > What is ARIN actively doing to RECLAIM IP space??
> >
> > This question would be more appropriately directed at ARIN 
> staff (who will
> > jump in, if what I say is in error).  However, my 
> understanding is that
> > efforts are actively underway to "clean" the database as a 
> first step.  Of
> > course, attempting to 'reclaim' address space from someone 
> unwilling to give
> > it up (and who has contractual agreements with ISPs to 
> route the space) will
> > be the tricky part.  As roughly 45% of the address space 
> (according to the
> > weekly routing table analysis sent out by APNIC) has not 
> been allocated,
> > rushing into lawsuits is probably not what ARIN needs to do 
> right now
> > (IMHO).
> 
> It sound to me like an attempt to do a fast slight of hand on 
> existing IP
> address space holders.  I understand ARIN's reluctance to get into
> lawsuits.  But maybe a union of IP address holders should be 
> organized to
> do just that.  There is no rationalization for charging 
> anyone $2,500 for
> a class C or B or A.  All ARIN does is the reverse dns 
> delegations.  And
> that is not worth $2,500 for a /19.
> 
> Also your reluctance to answer my questions is in itself questionable.
> May I remind you that you are an official of ARIN and in that 
> capacity you
> are accountable.
> 
> But it's a free world - and if you don't want to be quoted 
> again my advice
> to you is shut up.
> 
> Now I will save your comment as I think they will be an excellent
> insertion into a future article on IPv4 and IPv6.  Thank you 
> for your time
> and my thanks to trevor.  Like a hunting dog it seem trevor 
> has spooked
> the fox into the open and all guns are aimed.
> 
> cheers and my pleasure
> joe baptista
>