Global council of registries???

[Philip J. Nesser II]

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 10:13 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at MARTIGNY.AI.MIT.EDU] wrote:
> @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> @ > 
> @ > The FAIR allocation of Internet resources is a business,
> @ > they are linked via that tie...
> @ > 
> @ 
> @ Thats one of the many places we disagree.  Businesses are not fair.  They
> @ tend to compete and want to increase their business.  There is a long
> @ history of independent, tecnically competent indiviudals and organizations
> @ performing regulatory type assignments.  IP address allocation should be
> @ done that way.  (For example, most corporations have board members that are
> @ not employees of the company, to help balance the board.)  Trying to have
> @ people with a financial interest control the allocation goes against this
> @ principle and goes against the principles of openness and fairness which
> @ have brought the Internet to where it is.
> @ 
> 
> Is this the system that has MIT sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
> 
> Is this the system that has Stanford sitting on 1/256th of the address space ?
> 
> Is this the system that has BBN with 3/256ths of the address space ?
> 

First let me refer you to my post of a few minutes ago about IP
developmental history.  

That being said, I want to ask you a clear simple question which I
foolishly hope that you will actually answer:

Do you (and your plan) actively support evaluating current IP address
allocations and taking away earlier assignments?

That is the only implication of your statements.  Otherwise please stop
taking allocations that happend 20-25 years ago and trying to present them
as part of your reasons why the current system is flawed.


--->  Phil