Global council of registries???

[Rudolph J. Geist]

Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
> 
> 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


It is highly suspicious to maintain that technical information (or any 
information for that matter) regarding the allocation of IP address 
blocks, a finite public resource (like telephone numbers or radio 
spectrum), should be held proprietary by a monopoly outgrowth (ARIN) of 
another monolpoly (Internic).

This type of statement is exactly why so many in the Internet industry 
are so concerned about the ARIN proposal, and the exisiting IP 
allocation "guidelines," which frankly are about as consistent and 
unambiguous when applied to any company or entity that applies other 
than one of the "big twenty" as summer thunder storms in Miami.