Global council of registries???

[Jim Fleming]

On Monday, April 28, 1997 11:36 AM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser at martigny.ai.mit.edu] wrote:
@ 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?
@ 

My plan calls for these allocations to be "converted"
not taken away.

For example, let's say people generally agree that the
routing tables can handle another 3,000 routes for /18s
allocated to ISPs. Let's say the NSF gives MIT $3,000,000
of the Internet Infrastructure Fund to develop a system
that evaluates which ISPs should get those allocations
based on some "objective criteria" and not based on who
took who to lunch.

Would MIT be able to carve those allocations out of
the /8 space it has and set up a system to help educate
ISPs and to make the allocations to the ISPs ?
Maybe MIT would require that the ISPs attend a one-week
workshop to train their people ? Could MIT host such a
work-shop ?

Would the Internet be better served by having better
educated ISPs ?
And, would ISPs be upset if they obtained their /18
block from the "MIT Registry" ?

@ 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.
@ 

The entire IPv4 address space must be evaluated
as one space. The same rules should apply to the
entire space as much as possible.

BTW, have you ever computed what a small percentage
of the space that ISPs actually have ?
Have you computed the costs to ISPs (businesses)
for all of the InterNIC run-arounds they have endured ?
Who is going to pay for those costs ?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://www.Naperville.Mall