Global council of registries???

[Philip J. Nesser II]

Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:25 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
> @ Jim Fleming supposedly said:
> @ > 
> @ > @ Great.  Lets have some yes cases then!  (And I don't think a company
> @ > @ without a clue who hire a knowledgeble consultant to get the job done is
> @ > @ evidence of any conspiracy.  Lets have situations where a company
> @ > @ *shouldn't* be granted address space on technical reasons who gets it
> @ > @ because someone knows someone.)
> @ > @ 
> @ > 
> @ > would you like to start with the MIT Class A ???
> @ > 
> @ 
> @ Do you know anything of both Internet history and IP?  In its early life I
> @ only had 8 bit network numbers and 24 bit host addresses, then we got
> @ classes (A/B/C/D/E) and the we got subnets, and then we got supernets
> @ (CIDR).  MIT and all the other universities and companies who were part of
> @ early IP research have class A's because thats all there were when they
> @ joined the game.  To be clear, all of the assignments were *fair*.
> @ Criteria change over time.  MIT did not get 18/8 because Jeff Schiller is
> @ Jon Postels nephew or some such nonsense.  They happened to be the 18th
> @ network to join the arpanet (more or less).
> @ 
> @ I can't build a building to 1970 standards because the building next door
> @ was built in 1970.  In the late 80's and early 90's people got /16 networks
> @ relatively easy.  Did they know people or was it a good old boys network
> @ because they require significantly more justification now?
> @ 
> @ Lets have some facts based in truth and not conspiracy whispers.
> @ 
> @ --->  Phil
> @ 
> @ 
> @ 
> 
> Can you explain the @Home allocation ?
> 

Not that I did the evaluation or anything, but the way I understand it was
they presented extensive details both engineering and financial (only to
prove they had the backing to implement their technical plan) for a system
to provide IP access to millions of homes throught their cable partners,
but even then they only recieved a /14 when they requested something
larger.  It was taken from part of the class A space so they could request
more space as needed and still have a contiguous block, much the same as is
done for every other ISP.

I trust that the people evaluating the application did a fair jobs at
evaluating their request.  

Just to be clear, I also support a model that allows outside audit of the
allocation process which is why I support ARIN.  I don't believe that the
process should be completely open to the public (the finances yes, but not
technical applications) because the information requested may be considered
proprietary by many organizations.  

--->  Phil