INTERVIEW comments by Conrad
tomas at impsat.com
tomas at impsat.com
Tue Sep 24 14:10:38 EDT 2002
Please read RFC1855
> -----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
> 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
> > 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML